tv Defense Secretary Nominee General James Mattis Says Russia Trying to Break... CSPAN January 20, 2017 11:15am-2:35pm EST
on c-span2 tomorrow morning, president trump and vice president mike pence will attend a prayer service at the national cathedral here in washington, live at 10:00 on c-span2. as the new president cabinet takes shape, we will bring you live coverage of all cabinet level confirmation hearings on the c-span network on tv, online on c-span.org and c-span radio app, it'll be a workday later today for the u.s. senate, the senate gavels into session this afternoon, they will consider two nominations, retired general james mattis for defense secretary. another retired general kelly and the homeland security nominee and word this afternoon that senator -- this morning, rather, that senator ron is blocking the nomination of mike pompeo to be cia director, blocking that confirmation vote anyway, it's not likely we will see that this afternoon. join us for live coverage this
the committee will immediately proceed to consideration of senate bill 84 which is to provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as secretary of defense within seven years of relief from active duty as regular commission officer at the armed forces, this bill would authorize mattis to be appointed as secretary of defense. it's important that we have all members present for the consideration of that bill and there's about 15 minutes left in questioning, would be notified and i hope people will all come back to vote on this important issue of the waiver. good morning, and i would like to first recognize two of our distinguished colleagues who are here today, former colleagues, we were all three together during the coolidge
administration and very glad to see you back here again and, i don't know, should we do the opening statements or have them -- [inaudible] >> so i know that in the interest of our friends' times maybe we can begin with senator nunn and senator cohen making introductory remarks and we are honored to have you before the committee again, two very distinguished, most distinguished members that i have had the opportunity and honor to serve with. indifference to your age, senator nunn, we will begin with you. [laughter] >> here we go. can you hear me? okay. thank you chairman mccain and senator reed. it's a great honor to return to
the senate arms services with friend, as you observed, mr. chairman chairman, the purpose of introducing jim mattis on his nomination to be secretary of defense. before praising our distinguished nominee and i will praise him because i think he deserves it, i want to commend you senator mccain and senator reed and the members of this committee for your intelligent work in passing significant reform legislation in the most recent congress. your continuous efforts to make our military more efficient and more effective are essential to our nation's security and we owe you our thanks. i know it's not easy. everything you do is tough in that arena and doesn't get the notice it deserves except for the people that oppose the reform. those are the ones who notice it. congratulations on that legislation and i know there's a lot more to do but you've made some progress. i also want to commend my good friend and congratulate my good friend david perdue for becoming
a member of this committee and continuing a strong georgia tradition on what i believe is the best committee in the senate. mr. chairman, senator reed and members of the committee, in september of 1950 my great uncle presented to the house of representatives a strong case for congress to pass a waiver to allow general george marshal to assume the position of secretary of defense. so there's some history here. today i urge you to pass the same type of labor for jim mattis who retired from the marines corps three and a half years ago. but there's also a good reason that there can be on occasion case-by-case exception actions.
when the original statute was passed in 1947, the department of defense had just been created by merging the department of war and navy and several famous generals and admirals who were highly publicized heros including a few five star and congress did not want one service overpowering the newly created department. that's important part of history of the legislation. mr. chairman, senator reed and committee members, i believe that exceptions to this restriction should be based on the experience, the skills and the character of the nominee and i our countries need to ask them to serve in this important role. i also i believe that your examination of james mattis record will convince you that he like george marshal should be granted a waiver and confirmed
as secretary of defense. mr. chairman, i followed jim's career for a long time because when i was chairman of this committee, my staff director arnold who is here today also a marines repeatedly told me that a young officer by the young officer by jim mattis has a long run way ahead. mr. senator, clis, members of the staff will understand my reluctance to ever admit that arnold was always right but in the case of james mattis he was dead on point. jim mattis become one of the nation's most effective and respected military leaders. jim has the experience and skill to be an intelligent secretary of defense. he has deep knowledge of challenges we face around the world today. he understands not only importance of civilian control of military but also written the book, so-to speak on the
relationship of today's voluntary force and civil society which deserves a great deal of attention. jim's experience as commander clearly demonstrated ability to effectively work with diplomats and national leaders. mr. chairman, senator reed and members of the committee, jim mattis has become fully engaged in civilian life from the world of business through the ngo world to the college campus, he has quickly learned what i call the admiral that after retirement as a four star if you jump into the backseat of your car you will go no where until you move to the driver's seat and turn on the key. he learn that had one pretty quickly. jim mattis has been a valuable member and has learned lesson that is will help make the department of defense more efficient. jim has gone to marines corp. spit and polish to business coat and tie to whatever they wear on campus these days.
as a professor he has developed a rapport with young students. thinker, doer, scholar and strategist and understands and respects and loves the men and women in uniform and their families. he also understands the structure and the organization of the pentagon and he knows what the billing has to do to give the troops to tools they need to do their job of protecting our nation's security. jim also knows the powers and responsibilities of our military forces and the challenges of our complex and very dangers world. he understands that our military cannot be our primary tool to meet every challenge and strongly supports the important role of diplomacy and has been outspoken in the important need of giving the state department
the resources they need to be fully effective. my bottom line, mr. chairman, senator reed and members of the committee, i believe jim mattis is exceptionally well qualified to lead the department of defense. our committee in the senate to pass statutory waiver to allow him to serve our nation in this new role and to confirm him as secretary of defense. >> thank you, senator. >> be here this morning to testify on behalf of general mattis. senator nunn, senator reed, i think you may be the only three to be in the armed committee services when i came seeking endorsement for secretary of defense, so it's been 20 years and what a difference a generation makes because at the
time -- when we first met you were a young captain in the navy and took us on the trip, senator nunn mention today china where we met and did some great work on the way back in korea. so i thank you for all of the years you devoted to this country. you remain a hero of mine and to millions of people not only in this country but the world over. it's a real honor to be here with you. >> thank you. >> and with senator nunn, i served 18 years here in the senate, he served 24. i must say that the experience of working with senator nunn was one of the true highlights of my political career. so pleasure to join with senator nunn, i want to associate myself with the remarks of the former senator from georgia and submit
my written statement which is quite brief and i will try to summarize. jim mattis i first met when i went to the pentagon, he was a young colonel and senator nunn pointed out, he had a reputation then, he's somebody to watch. he doesn't belong behind a desk, although he may belong there right now. at that time he we wanted to get into the field. he is a warrior by nature and i want to say that he has the nickname of mad dog, it's a misnomer. it should be brave heart. what really characterizes is jim mattis is his courage and mr. chairman, you've written about this in terms of why courage matters. and you quoted from churchill and said that courage is the first of human resources because it guaranties all the others and so we have seen the history of gyms mattis in terms of being a
warrior, braveheart on the battlefield. that's not really why we are here. if you were only a great warrior, you would say well, there are a lot of other warriors as well. he comes because he's a fan of thought as well as action. sometimes it's said you can judge the people by the friends you make, the company he keeps, but also by the books he reads. general mattis has 6,000 books in his library, most of which, if not all of them, he has read and he can refer to alexander the great, i suspect he's probably the only one here at this table who can hear the words and not have to go to wikipedia to know what it means. he's a scholar and strategic thinker as well as a great warrior. these hearings are important not
only because you get a chance to listen to the views of the nominee in terms of what is his or her, in this case his experience, what does he see as the world events that we are going to be confronted with, what does he bring to the table in terms of giving you confidence that the person making that judgment and after all he's number two. he's number two in the chain of command. it goes from the president through him through the combatant commanders. that's it. that's why it's so important that you have a chance not only to assess his background and experience but also his character. that's really what you need to know. no one goes to secretary of defense or any major position and can anticipate anything that's going to come at him. ..
love for his troops is return in a way i have not seen before. his troops, men and women alike in all services, love this man. and they love him because he loves of them and what they do for our country, what they are willing to risk for our country. and so you look at his character, he's a humble man, but if you were to go to his hometown and see that he is a devoted son to his 94-year-old mother, lucille, in richland, washington. he is a member of the board of the tribes city food bank.
you can see in helping to distribute food to the needy families. you will also see him refuse to -- he was called to serve on a jury involving a misdemeanor case. he could've been exempted but he said no, i'm here to serve. he's one of six people at the benton county district court. beyond that what is most impressive to me is that he takes the time without any fanfare to visit the gold star families. that is something that is a heavy, heavy responsibility, to go to the families, talk to the people who'v have lost their sod daughters, husbands, wives in battle under his command. that tells me a lot about who he is and why you should take that into account. and finally i feel a central speech cannot talk like you sum up right now, one of my other
heroes in addition to senator mccain is oliver wendell holmes, jr. he's a hero because he not only was a great supreme court justice, he was also a veteran of civil war. you cannot read any opinion of his without seeing how he reflects back upon his time in battle. i think 1894 memorial day speech you all should read, but in the conclusion of the speech he says whether a man accepts from fortune a stick or spayed and will look downward, or from aspiration, will scale the ice, the one and only success that is his to command is to bring to his work a mighty heart. members of the committee, this man, jim mattis, brings to the job of the secretary of defense a great and braveheart, and i
hope your vote to confirm him quickly. thank you. >> i want to thank both senator nunn and senator cohen, i' i use one of the great privileges of my time here in the united states senate was the honor of serving with both of you. and so i think it means a lot to me personally but also to members of committees that you would come here today on behalf of his nominee. thank you for being here. >> and could i play -- pay special recognition to senator king? >> no. [laughter] >> i was going to add from the great state of maine. and some agrees to call governor and they'll probably call senator. nice to to see you. >> he represents the geriatric part of this committee. [laughter] >> i think both senator nunn and senator cohen for being here. obviously the committee meets
today to consider the nomination of general james mattis to be the secretary of defense of the united states. two years ago, last time you came before this committee the idea that we would be meeting again under the present circumstances would've been hard to imagine, most of all by you, but i for one could not be happier. all of us recognize the unique, indeed historic nature of this nomination. general mattis enjoyed a long and distinguished career in uniform but current law would bar him from serving as secretary of defense for three more years. while iceland support retaining the law, i also believe our nation needs general mattis is service more than ever. so after this hearing the committee will meet to consider special legislation to about general mattis to serve a secretary of defense. it confirmed he would have the honor of leading a team of americans who represent everything that is noble and best in our nation, our soldiers sailors and airmen and marines do everything asked of them and
more. they make us proud every day. are many different civil servants also sacrifice day in and day out for our national security and rarely get the credit they deserve. i am confident that no one appreciates our people and values of their sacrifices more than general mattis. and yet as we meet today at a time of increasing global threat and disorder, for seven decades of the united states has played a unique role in the world. you're not a put america first but we've done so by maintaining an advancing and world order that is expanded security, prosperity and freedom. this has require our alliances, trade, diplomacy, values but most of all our military for wind would be a threat in world order. it's the global striking power of america's armed forces and must deter or for their ambitions. too many americans, too many americans seem to have forgotten as in recent years, too many
have forgotten our world order is not self-sustaining. too many have forgotten that while the threats we face may not have purely military solutions, they all have military dimensions. in short, too many have forgotten that hard power matters. having it, threatening it, leveraging it for diplomacy, and at times using it. fairly or not, there is a perception around the world that america is weak and distracted, and that is only embolden our adversaries to challenge the current world order. the threat posed by violet islamic extremism continues to metastasize across middle east, africa, asia, europe. but for those remain vigilant, our homeland. it should now be clear we will be engaged in a global conflict of varying scope and intensity for the foreseeable future. believing otherwise is wishful thinking. so if confirmed general mattis, you would lead a military at work or queue of all people
appreciate what that means and what it demands. at the same time our central challenges in the middle east is not isil. as graver threat as that is it is a breakdown of regional order and which nearly every state is a battlefield for conflict, a combatant, or both. isil is a symptom of this disorder. at the same time iran's nuclear weapons ambitions have been postponed but not halted and it continues to modernize its military, expand its malign influence and seek to remake the region in its image from syria to iraq to yemen. in asia the rights of gian chins shifting the balance of power in ways that increasingly challenge long-standing u.s. interest. we see a new assertiveness in china to confront u.s. allies and partners, make vast territorial claims with no basis in international law, carve up spheres of influence and revise the current order.
north korea is testing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles at an alarming rate. our intelligence community publicly assesses that north korea could soon develop a nuclear capability capable intercontinental ballistic missile that is capable of striking the u.s. homeland. this may become a defining prices for the next president. and then there is russia pick over the past eight years under president vladimir putin russia has invaded ukraine and threaten nato allies can intervene militarily in syria leaving a trail of death and destruction s wake. russia's military has targeted syrian hospitals and first responders with precision weapons. russia supplied the weapons at that shot down a commercial aircraft over ukraine. russia's war on ukraine has guilt thousands of ukrainian soldiers and civilians. and in the most flagrant demonstration of pollutants disdain and disrespect for our nation, russia deliberately
interfered in our recent election with cyber attacks and disinformation campaign designed to weaken america and discredit western values. each of our last three presidents has had great expectations of building a partnership with the russian government. each attempt has failed. not for lack of good faith effort on the u.s. side, but because of a stubborn fact that we must finally recognize putin wants to be our enemy. he needs us as his enemy. he will never be our partner, including inviting isil turkey believes strengthening the russian means weakening america. we must proceed realistically on this basis. we must build a position of significant strength vis-à-vis russia and any other a adversary that seeks to undermine our national interest and challenge the world order. we must reestablish deterrence and that is primarily the job of the department of defense.
but for too long the department of defense has planned and optimize itself for short-term episodic contingencies, whether against great powers or global terrorist movements we now face a series of long-term strategic competitions with clear military dimensions that often occur below the threshold of armed conflict. what makes all of this worse is that america's military technological advantage is eroding. our competitors, especially china and russia, have gone to school on the american way of war. they are rapidly modernizing the militaries to exploit our vulnerabilities with advanced access and aerial denial capabilities. indeed, the entire model of american electric power projection is increasingly being called into question on land lat sea and in the air, and especially in space and cyberspace. in light of these threads, business as usual is not just misguided, is dangerous.
all of these problems are compounded by the self-inflicted wounds of the budget control act. for five years national defense spending has been arbitrarily capped as global threats have risen, defense spending has often followed in real terms. each military service has deferred a critical modernization and shed capacity which has damaged readiness. worse still, what we do spend is producing less combat power. and constant dollars we spend nearly exactly the same out on defense as we did 30 years ago but we are fielding 35% fewer combat brigades, 55% fewer ships and 63% future combat aircraft squadrons. all this while overhead costs that do not add to combat power has steadily increased. in short, we have done great harm to our military as each of our joint chiefs of staff has repeatedly testified to this committee. meanwhile, our national debt has
increased nearly $4 trillion over the life of the budget control act. the president-elect has said he wants to quote fully eliminate the defense sequester end quote rebuild our military. if so, you will find many allies on this committee. the budget control act is harming us in ways that our enemies could only dream. we must repeal this legislation and increase the defense top line. this will not be cheap but it pales in comparison to the cost of failing to deter a war, or worse, losing one. for all these reasons and more i believe the nation needs general mattis. we need to stop deterring ourselves a return to strategy, aligning our inns, ways and means to address global threats. we need to resize and more important to reshape our military, giving our war fighters the most advanced capabilities so they never find themselves in a fair fight. we must continue to reform the department of defense some more of its limited dollars are spent
on increasing the lethality of our military, not adding to its bureaucracy. that especially needs improving defense acquisition which still takes too long and costs too much to deliver too little. i'd like to conclude by sink a few words about trust and accountability and about the relationship between this committee and the department of defense. one of the few benefits of my advanced age is the sense of perspective it affords. in recent years i've witnessed a steady loss of trust and deterioration of relations between congress and the department. it is felt on both sides and there's plenty of blame to go around. the department leaders have too often treated members of congress as afterthoughts to be notified, not partners to be meaningfully consulted. congress has too often sought to bend the department to its will through ever-growing amounts of legislation, trying to manage it from afar rather than oversee it. we cannot afford to go on like
this. our challenges are too great. a wide margin for error with once enjoyed in the world is gone. we need to take more risk if we are to making our strategic technological advantage. we cannot let fear or failure slowest or stop us from innovating. these are challenges that the department of defense and the congress especially this committee must manage together. the only way to restore this trust is to start trusting each other. if confirmed you have to trust us to be our partners in major decision-making and ensuring the greater risk that are necessary to win in a more competitive world. in return, if you will be accountable to us, and you will be, we must trust you to determine best to get the results we demand with fewer statutory and regulatory impediments. in short, let's make it our common mission to restore accountability. if we can do that, though the
threats we face may be great, i am confident we can succeed. senator reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me join you and welcoming general mattis at this morning to pick i thank you for your many decades of distinguished service to the country into the marine corps and i appreciate his return to public service this time. in addition let me also recognize and thank senator sam nunn and senator and secretary of defense bill cowan for the distinguished service and they're very thoughtful, eloquent words this morning. i could jump in. general mattis began his career and he notices marine corps as a second lieutenant commission to the rotc program at central washington university. he has served the highest echelons of the marine corps and capped it serves as a of the central command. general mattis if you're confirmed as secretary of defense you will lead the department during a time when the united states has as many complex and multifaceted challenges. that do not offer quick or easy solutions.
some of these challenges are about traditional nation-state tensions while others cross international boundaries. also you helped oversee national security policy for a president to lax foreign-policy and defense experience, and his temperament is far different from prior presidents. many americans and many on this part of both sides of you are rightly concerned about how he may respond when he is tested by russia, iran, north korea and other transnational threats such as cyber. considering some of these hotspots in the world, in detail, i would like to start with iran which remained a top concern for this committee. their behavior across the region has not improved and iran's unsafe and unprofessional actions in the maritime region continue. however i continue to believe that the joint comprehensive plan of action, or jcpoa, is the most effective way to prevent iran from resuming their nuclear weapons program.
general mattis, while you raise concerns about the jcpoa when it was being negotiated, you stated during a senate form in april 2016 that in your words, there's no going back, absent a real violation. i agree with that assessment. i look forward to hearing your thoughts about on how we can build upon the jcpoa to address other iranian threats, including its malign influence in the region and ballistic missile program. the threat posed by violent extremists remained a persistent and likely a generational problem. our actions to support local partners on the great in iraq and syria have made significant gains in recapturing his once held by isil including operations directed at mosul and raqqa. i has to find new ways to terrorize innocent civilians and recruit new members. in the long-term successful military action against isil, al-qaeda and other violent extremists groups must be
complemented by nonmilitary efforts by the international community to address the circumstances that led to the rights of such groups. i can echo in some of the comments that my colleagues mentioned about the comp of mentality of the state department or other agencies with respect to national cicada policy. in north korea ki kim jong-un hs destabilized the korean peninsula and further threatens the region. regimes such as authoritarian and insulate north korea prone to collapse and how we deal with north korea's missile capabilities and its potential for collapse will be an ongoing debate and challenge for the department of defense. russia has perpetrated aggressive action against its neighbors, has roundly rejected the post-cold war international order that is all free and at peace. furthermore, russia's implement of hybrid warfare tactics and effort to undermine democracy and to destabilize neighboring countries cannot be ignored. in light of intelligence committees recent assessment
that president putin ordered and influence campaign designed to undermine our presidential election, this committee will be interested to hear your views regarding the best posture with regard to russia going forward both in the cyber realm and on the ground in eastern europe. in addition to these broad strategic challenges, we must also grapple with issues specific to the department of defense. this committee has done its best to allocate extra funding to support full spectrum ranges including additional home station training, flying hours, dapl maintenance and installation sustainment. general mattis, given your extensive military experience i would welcome your assessment of current readiness levels and your thoughts on what else can and should be done. our men and women in uniform remained in this committee is top concern. recruiting and retaining a militant with the nyssa character and talents to meet national defense requirements is a paramount goal. to that end i strongly support sector carter's decision to
develop gender-neutral occupation standards for all military occupations and to open all those regardless of their gender. to include service in ground combat units. for the first time highly talented and motivated female marines and soldiers are being assigned to units that were previously closed to them. successful implementation of this decision requires strong leadership to ensure that individual success of the service member and the collective success of the unit and their service. i expect you to provide that leadership. our main concern that too often our servicemembers and their families of victims to financial problems, and issue i think is important. deployed soldiers and sailors and airmen or marines hearing from a spouse back home from unscrupulous financial, is an acceptable site help you pay particular attention to the military lending act which i and the jim demint every strong priority in this committee. defense budgets i think we would all agree should be based on a
long-term military strategy. however spending is subject to the budget control act as the chairman has pointed out. and the defense investments that even they to rebuild readiness and modernization platforms and equipment are in jeopardy. we must be aware that simply adding additional funding to oco are increasing defense spending at the expense of other government agencies creates other problems and is not an effective long-term solution. one of your first task of the new administration will be to submit a fiscal year 2010 budget budget that addresses these issues and goes to the point the chairman made of repealing the budget control act. general mattis, is confirmed your manager the department of defense grappling with many extraordinarily difficult challenges and requires strong civilian leadership. in order to serve as secretary of defense congress must provide an exception to the statutory requirement that prohibits individuals from being appointed if they are within seven years of their military service. earlier this week this committee held a hearing on supplying
control of the armed forces which was illuminating and instructive. i hope you will candidly share with the committee the actions you will take to ensure your tenure reflects and protects the principles of the sibling control of military if you are confirmed. when he assumed office, president trump will become commander-in-chief over our armed forces. i continue to hope the office of the pregnant -- in magnitude, would encourage and develop conscientious and thoughtful with his comments. however in the too much since his election present electron has been a number of defense related policy statements addressing north korea's icbm capability, our trade relations with china and an expansion of use nuclear weapons. most troubling is the president-elect's repeated praise of the leadership of vladimir putin and his seemingly indifference to russia's efforts to influence the presidential election. many have supported the way the legislation and your confirmation because they believe you will be to
paraphrase thomas jefferson, the source of that cools the coffee. i look forward to hearing how you intend to man's relationship with the department of defense with the nsc and with the president. i get i thank you, mr. chairman, for the careful process in considering this domination and i look forward to hearing from our nominee. >> there are standard questions that we required to ask, and i would go through those very quickly and point out an order to exercise its legislative and oversight responsibilities important to this committee, other appropriate committees of congress will receive test my briefings and other key medications of information. have you adhered to laws and regulations governing conflict of interest? >> i have speed when you ensure your staff complies with the deadlines established for communication clinic questions for the record and hearings? >> i will speak that way you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests? >> yes speedup will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for the testimony or briefings? >> yes. >> do you agree to testify upon request before this committee? >> i give. >> do you agree to provide documents in a timely matter when requested by a duly constituted committee to consult with the committee regarding -- denial and providing such document? >> yes. >> have you seen any duties or undertaking actions which would appear to resume the outcome of the confirmation process? >> i have not speedup welcome before the committee, general mattis. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member reed. it's an honor to come before you for this confirmation hearing. as a president-elect's nominee for the position of secretary of defense. i request my written statement be accepted for the record. >> without objection. >> i want to thank all of you on the committee for taking time to see me during my courtesy calls and i thank you for your willingness to accommodate this hearing and consider my nomination.
i have testified previously in front of this committee and i he always held it in the highest regard. and based on my past years experience, i do trust this committee and each member of it. and if confirmed i will demonstrate that trust. i wish to thank former senator william cohen for the kylie introducing me this morning and i'm equally grateful to the long serving former chairman of the committee, senator sam nunn, or his strong support. it is humbling to be considered for this position and i think the president-elect for placing trust and confidence in me. when this unanticipated request game i was enjoying a full life west of the rockies. i was not involved in the presidential campaign and i was certainly not seeking or envisioning a position in a new administration. that said, it would be the highest honor if i am confirmed to lead those who volunteer to support and defend the constitution, and to defend our people. all my remarks today recognize
that it is only with the advice and consent of the senate that i can be confirmed. i know the senators of this committee are well aware of the many global security challenges we face. we see each day a world awash in change. our consciousness to a war in afghanistan, and the troops are fighting against isis and its terrorist groups in the middle east and elsewhere. russia is raising grave concerns on several fronts, and china is shredding trust along its periphery. increasingly we see islands of stability in our hemisphere. democracies here, in europe, and in asia under attack by nonstate actors and nations that mistakenly see their security in the insecurity of others. our armed forces in this world must remain the best lead, the best equipped, and the most lethal in the world. these demanding times required as to put together a strong national security team here in
washington. if confirmed, i will eat at the department of defense and be a forthright member of that team. i recognize that i will need to be the strongest possible advocate for military and civilian personnel and their families. i will foster an atmosphere of harmony and trust at the department with her interagency counterparts and the congressional committees. as swiftly as a president-elect's nash as term fishing team is confirmed i will work to make sure strategy and military calculus are employed to reinforce traditional tools of diplomacy. insurance operation and our diplomats negotiate from a position of strength. in addition to ensuring collaboration across government and the adoption of an integrated strategy, we must also embrace our international alliances and security partnerships. history is clear. nations with strong allies thrive, and those without them with her.
if you ca confirming my watchwos will be solvency and security in providing for the protection of our people and the survival of our freedoms. my priorities as secretary of defense would be to strengthen military readiness, strengthen our alliances and bring business reforms to the department of defense are military is the envy of the world representing america's awesome determination to defend herself. working with you i will endeavor to keep our unique all-volunteer force second to none. we open the door to all patriots who are eligible and meet the standards. provide them with the training, equipment and leadership essential to their success, and ensure all service members are treated with dignity and respect. i recognize my potential civilian role difference in essence for my former role in uniform. civilian control the military is a fundamental tenet of the american military tradition. both the command in chief and
the defense must impose an object of strategic calculus in a national security decision-making process and effectively direct attacks. civilian leaders bear these responsibilities because our military, it's can-do spirit, and its obedience to civilian leadership reduces the inclination and power of the military to oppose a policy if it is ultimately order to implement. if the senate consents and if the full congress passes an exception to the seven-year requirement, i will provide strong civilian leadership of military plans and decisions and the department of defense. i recognized under the constitution it is the congress that raises sustained and supports our armed forces through annual observations -- authorizations and appropriations. i have watched you in action and testified before you. i look forward to collaborating closely for the defense of our nation.
i am mindful of the extraordinary privilege it is to be nominated for this position. i will service members, civilians and the families foremost in my thoughts and worked to give the department the best chance for victory if you confirming. finally on a personal note, i've worked at the pentagon twice in my career. you people may know i'm not the first person in my family to do so. when in the wartime spring of 1942 my mother was 20 years old and working as military intelligence picture is part of the first wave of government employees to move into the still unfinished pentagon. she had come to america as an infant and lived today on the banks of the columbia river in the pacific northwest. little could she imagine in her youth that more than 90 years after she immigrated to this country and 75 years after she first walked through the doors of the war department one of her sons would be sitting here before you today. thank you. may i take your questions. >> general, i neglected, would
you like to introduce members of your family who are here with us today? >> thank you, senator. they are safely west of the rockies as well right now. [laughter] >> very quickly, our uniformed military leaders have said, have testified before this committee that the budget control act has put the many women serving in uniform at greater risk. do you agree with that? >> i do, sir. >> i believe that we are in serious trouble in afghanistan as the taliban and is able to mount greater and more serious tracks -- attacks on capitals across the nation. do you agree with that assessment? >> they have made advances and eroded some of our successes, chairman spin and the afghan, the ama, is sustaining unsustainable over the period of
time losses speak i need to review the actual casualty figures and recruitment audibly that's correct. >> do you believe that we have a strategy that will allow us to regain control of raqqa? >> i believe we do, sir. however, i believe that strategy needs to be reviewed and perhaps energized on a more aggressive timeline. >> it seems to me that some of the actions we are taking 50 troops here, 200 there, smacks of mission creep. do you think that there is some aspects of that? >> chairman, i'm not current on this issue. if confirmed, i will get current very quickly. >> i just returned from a trip
to the baltics, georgia and ukraine. they are incredibly worried about our commitment to them. and one of the major priorities that the baltic countries have is a permanent u.s. military presence, not a base but a permanent military presence in the baltics. do you agree with that? >> chairman and once the new national security team is confirmed, i want to sit down with them and come up with a coherent, integrated strategy that -- >> i understand but i'm specifically speaking of the baltics. >> i do, sir. >> on a trip that i took with senator graham and senator klobuchar, we went to very open, close to the front lines where we with the president of ukraine where we took part in various
ceremonies and meetings with these brave ukrainians, 10,000 of whom have been slaughtered by vladimir putin and his invasion of crimea and ukraine. and i know you can appreciate the fact that there was a ceremony where the president of ukraine gave her highest award to the mother of a young man wo just been killed by a russian sniper a couple of days before. it's always very moving, and it brings home graphically what the russians have done in ukraine and crimea crimea in blatant violation of the budapest agreement, for which they recognize crimea as part of ukraine, in return for ukraine giving up its nuclear inventory. what do you think we ought to do about russia, general mattis,
courts do you think we ought to maybe have sanctions against russia, or basically sit by as we have for the last couple of years and watch their aggression? by the way, including their precision guided weapons against hospitals in aleppo. the list goes on and on, of the atrocities that have been committed by vladimir putin while we again try i reset. i've watched three presidents commit themselves to new relationship with that of vladimir putin. all three have been an abysmal failure. should we ignore the lessons of history and our relationship with vladimir putin, and what should we be doing? >> chairman, history is not a straight jacket but i've never found a better guide for the way ahead then studying the history. since you don't we have a long list of times we try to engage positively with russia. we have a relatively short list
of successes in that regard and i think right now the most important thing is that we recognize the reality of what we deal with with mr. putin, and would recognize that he is trying to break the north atlantic alliance and that we take the steps, the integrated steps, diplomatic, economic, military and the alliance steps, working with our allies, to defend ourselves where we must. >> you are a distinguished student of history. and as we are all aware that following world war ii, a world order was established which was held for basically the last 70 years. do you believe that that world order is now under more strain and it's ever been? >> i think it's under the biggest attack since world war ii, sir, and that's from russia, from terrorist groups, and with what china is doing in the south china sea.
>> and that would argue for us, making sure we are adequately prepared to meet these challenges. >> i think deterrence is critical right now, sir, absolutely and that requires a strong military. >> do you think we have a strong enough military today in order to achieve that goal? >> no, sir spirit i think you. senator reed. >> take you very much mr. chairman and a thank you, general for your testimony and again for your service. as i mentioned in my opening statement your comments at csis indicated that misgivings about jcpoa in your words there's no going back and short of a clear present violation was enough to stimulate the european actions for the west essentially stay the course. is that still your view? >> sir, i think it is an imperfect arms-control agreement. agreement. it's not a friendship treaty, but when america gives her word,
we have to live up to it and work with our allies. >> there also is come as a pointed out and as you recognized and pointed out much more eloquently, challenge arising from the nonnuclear aspects of iranian conduct, proxy support, interference with shipping. there was an incident this week of provocation. how do you apply appropriate pressure to the iranians to contain their behavior in these areas without jeopardizing the solidarity of the european world community and the durability of the jcpoa? >> chairman, once the new national security team is confirmed we will work together but i think to publicly display what iran is up to, with their circuits and proxies, their terrorist units that they support, to recognize the
ballistic missile threat, to deal with their maritime threat, and to publicly make clear to everyone what they're doing in the cyber realm all helps to constrain iran. >> thank you. general, if you are to become the secretary of defense you will be a critical component of the intelligence community. you produce intelligence, defense intelligence agency, and you can consume intelligence because it is a basis of most every recommendation or decision that you would make. and we are in a very unique situation where we have the president-elect disparaging the intelligence community, questioning its conclusions and questioning its motivation. suggesting, perhaps, that there would be some actions taken
perhaps bordering on retribution for intelligence analysis that is being done, we presume, i certainly presume, based on the tradecraft and allegiance to the facts and the best judgment that they can make. do you believe, have you observed behavior such as that, disrupting the intelligence community, disparaging it, undermining it, ignoring it? again, i could go on. do you feel you have an obligation to the country and the constitution to inform the committee of those actions? >> senator, i can tell you that in my many years of involvement in the military, i had a close relationship with the intelligence community. i could evaluate the effectiveness at times on a daily basis, and i'm very, very high degree of confidence in our intelligence community.
>> and if you see that community being undercut, not debated about their conclusions but undercut or some out ignored or selectively being listened to or ignored, again, do you feel you have an obligation to make us aware of this so we can exercise our responsibilities? >> i will be completely transparent with this committee bubut i would not have taken ths job if i didn't like the president-elect would also be open to my input on this or any other matter. >> you have talked about the situation with respect to russia. one aspect of that is operations in syria. there has been some discussion on and off during the campaign of cooperating with the russians in syria. do you think there's a
possibility of that come unlikely that i would that be a good approach? >> senator, russia, to quote the chairman, has chosen to be a strategic competitor. they are an adversary in key areas, and while we should always engage and look for areas of cooperation and even in the worst years of the cold war, rajat reagan, secretary scholes were able to work with russia, the soviet union at that time and reduce the nuclear weapons. so i'm all for engagement but we also have to recognize reality and what rush is up to and is a decreasing number of areas where we can engage cooperatively and increasing number of areas where we're going to have to confront russia. spirit thank you. spirit senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i'm so excited you are willing to do this. the two things that we are concerned with our readiness and what's happening, i'm concerned with is readiness and the use influence. i year ago you said that you stated our influence in the middle east is at its lowest point in four decades. i agree with that. also confirmation testimony last november by general goldstein the said continuous combat operations and reduce overall budgets have driven readiness to historically low levels. and i look and i see senator cohen and senator nunn, i spent time with both of them and admired them so much. this isn't like it used to be. right now we have won the third the army brigade combat teams are ready to fight and all types of warfare. the current air force is the smallest and oldest and air
force history, yet only half of its fighter squadrons are ready to fight in intensity combat. general mattis, your marines, the aircraft, their combat, the aviators are at historical lows right now, in terms of flight time. same thing with the needy. we have the requirements for 308 ships, and we only have 274. this is not like it used to be. i would only say this, i really believe that we will have to relook at the priorities that we have in this country, and i enjoy quoting president reagan when he first came in turkey said quote, starting by, considering what must be done to maintain peace and review all of the possible threats against our security, then a strategy for strengthening peace, and defending against those threats
which must be agreed upon, and finally, our defense establishment must be evaluated to see what is necessary to protect against any and all of the potential threats. the cost of achieving these ends is total up and the result is a budget for national defense. do you think he was right at that time? >> yes, sir, i do speak i look forward to that. thank you for being willing to do this. >> thank you. thank you, general mattis, for also been wanting to do this. you and i've had a chance to work together in the past and we also had a chance to visit. i would like to first briefly talk about the overseas contingency operating fund. and the joke that is being, the cruel joke that is being played on the american public, that we have not been able to come together in an honest way and
confront the needs of our military, and confront the needs of our domestic national security in a bipartisan compromise to allow us to quit putting base military funding in a fund that doesn't have to be paid for. and it's gotten worse every year. and it's such a hypocrisy. it is one of the reasons everyone in america so disgusted with us, that we can't be honest with the american people about the needs of our country and come together an in a bipartisan way to meet them in a way that is responsible in terms of the way that we budget and spend money. tell me how you intend on addressing this important issue going forward. >> senator, the need for our country to maintain a safe and secure nuclear deterrent, a decisive conventional force, while maintaining an irregular
capability is completely understood. i note it is by this committee. but how do we didn't translate that into budgetary discipline and managerial integrity of the budget? as you know we will bring forward from defense what we think we need for overseas contingencies, for the base budget, this sort of thing. but i believe, my desired instinct would be everything is in the base budget, except for something that legitimately pops up that could be anticipated. but at the same time we are not in a position there to dictate that, and the bottom line, will come to you with what is necessary and then support this committee and the congress in justifying it and making sure we had the confidence. that's my goal in this effort, and i don't have a solution for what the chairman described as a
self-inflicted wound of the budget control act. i don't know how to get around this in a way that puts the caucus really back into its oversight role rather than salami slices of cards where you don't actually exercise judgment. i'm much more comfortable with you doing that and some arithmetic. so i think i'm with you. i sure 100% of your frustration and your goal. i can't tell you i'd know how to get there. other than give you my best military advice spirit thank you. i want to briefly touch on women serving in every military occupational specialty, and you and i had a chance to visit about this at length. i'm particularly proud of the work that has been done on this in my state. since 1999, the sapper leader course at fort leonard wood has maintained completely gender-neutral standards, determining who entered is not graduate with a prestigious tab.
it is a rigorous physical requirement, the sapper tab. despite those rigorous demands come over the course of the graduation rate since 1999, the graduation rates graduation rate for women and men have both been at about 50%. so understanding that none of us want any standards diminished and that we've got to maintain the highest physical standards for the specialties and which men and women are going to serve, can you address for this committee how committed you are going forward to having both men and women serve alongside each other when they are capable of doing the work for our country? >> yes, senator, i can. i think you hit on the point that no standards are changed. the standards are the standards and when people meet the standards, then that's the end of the discussion on that. i would also add what we're talking about here is somewhere north of 50% of our force is
made up of women, and the reason we are able to make it an all-volunteer force with very, very high recruiting standards is because we go to males and females, and that same application of those, that human capital has got to show that where they can best serve, that's where they go. >> thank you, mr. chairman. genera.general mattis, let's tat israel for a few moments. would you agree that the united states shares common values and strategic interest with israel? >> israel is a fellow democracy, editing israel's security is a very important to the united states. >> are there any other democracy in the middle east? >> no, sir. >> would you agree that the threat of iran's regional belligerence and nuclear ambitions are a shared threat both to the united states and to israel?
>> and i agree and i would add also to our arab partners in the region. >> and i think you said that we are going, we're going to have to live with what the administration has done with regard to the energy agreement with iran. are you confident that we can monitor the situation with regard to possible violations, do we have that capability? >> i'll have to get in and look at the classified data. if you can for me, senator, i believe we can have it. i just can't respond authoritatively right now if we've got those processes in place. >> in your opinion what did the united states failure last month to veto the u.n. resolution with regard to israel due to our bilateral relationship with israel? >> sir, i would have to get back and look at that.
i say that because i read what's in the newspaper, and what's going on in both tel aviv and washington, in new york, but i do not have a very authoritative view of that right now. i think we've got to restore a better relationship with israel and with our arab allies. i think there's a sense on their part that we are indifferent to the situation they face, that's a good that they face. >> we certainly don't need to send the signal that we are in different to their situation, do we? >> the greatest generation came home from world war ii recognize whether we like it or not we are part of this world, we'll have to remember that lesson. >> and i realized this was a foreign-policy question, but you are going to be part of the national security and foreign policy team. and let me say that one of my
greatest concerns with regard to our failure to veto this resolution, and, therefore, to let it be adopted by the human figure decals is that people argue this establishes international law. and somehow this congress and this new administration are going to have to send the signal that we do not recognize that with regard to the israeli presence in certain sections of jerusalem, that we do not recognize that resolution as international law. and we are in a tough position there. if you'd like to comment on that i'd be glad to hear your thoughts. >> sir, i think ultimately we are going to have to promote peace between the palestinians and the israeli authorities there, and that's going to take time to build that kind of trust and we should be a partner in trying to build that resolution between those peoples.
>> when one speaks of israel maintaining its qualitative military edge over neighbors in the region, what does that mean to you, general? >> sir, it has to do with the technology of the military equipment provided. i would only add that we also have improving relations between israel and some of those neighbors and where we can work in terms of partnership with both israel and the arab neighbors. we can strengthen everyone's security and stability in the middle east. >> do you believe there qualitative military edge needs to be revitalized? >> i'm not aware that it's not vital now, that it's not fully formed right now. >> and with regard to the trap,
of course, sector colin has insulted every number of this committee by suggesting that we don't readily understand that, but with regard to that, as i understand it, this occurs when a rising power tries to meet of the power of an already existing and established power. do you think that is a risk when it comes to our relationship with china, particularly in the asia-pacific region? >> sir, i believe that we are going to have to manage that competition between us and china. there's another piece of wisdom that says here, on an interest always seem to be the root causes of why a nation chooses to go to hostilities. and i would just say that what we've got to do is engage diplomatically, engage in terms of alliances, engaged
economically and maintain a very strong military door we are always engaging from a position of strength when we deal with a rising power. >> thanthank you very much. good luck to you, sir. >> thanks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, general mattis, and thank you for your willingness to continue to serve this country. i have read that in 2005 as command of the marine corps combat development command, that u.s. researchers to quote, unleash us from the tethered fuel and explore ways to improve the efficiency of military vehicles and order to reduce the strain that energy put on supply lines. because you not only when you command the first marine division during the 2003 invasion, but you would also seen what happens when our troops outran their fuel supplies. so can you speak to why you think this is important facts
and will you as secretary of defense continue to support the military effort to pursue alternative and more efficient sources of energy to reduce our reliance on conventional fuel supplies? >> yes, senator. we will take advantage of every advance in terms of extending our legs, extending our energy efforts, and certainly there's a lot of progress that's been made. i've been living in silicon valley for the last several years so you can understand my interest in what they are doing out there in the private sector. >> thank you. i think our military is way ahead of much of the rest of government and much of the private sector and those are lessons that can be shared that will benefit the private sector as well. chairman mccain talked about the threat that russia poses, and listening to your response is it sounded to me like you also believe that russia poses a
threat to the united states and to the, i think you said the transatlantic alliance. today for the first time since the fall of communism, american troops arrived in poland as part of the european reassurance initiative. how important is it for us to continue these initiatives to reassure our european allies that we will continue to support them? and how concerned are you that some of president-elect trump's statements with respect to continuing to support nato, to support our allies in europe has undermined our ability to continue this initiative? and will you support the eri continuing as secretary of defense? >> center, i do support eri.
nato, from my perspective,, having served once as a nato supreme allied commander, is the most successful military alliance probably in modern world history, maybe ever. it was put together, as you know, by the greatest generation coming home from a war to defend europe against soviet incursion by the military, their military. yet, the first time he went to war with win this town and new york city were attacked. that's the first time nato went into combat. ..
senator i have had discussions with him on this issue. he has shown himself open, even to the point of asking more questions and going deeper into the issue about why i feel so strongly and he understands where i stand and we will work with other members of the team once the senate confirms him. >> thank you. you talked about, senator imhoff raised the issue of readiness for our troops. you and i also talked about the national guard as being part of the one force we depend on. readiness is a concern for the national guard, and in new hampshire we have experienced of
32% decline since 2011, much more than many states were smaller than we are and they have had trouble at training rotations, resources, equipment, other aspects of readiness. can you commit to us that in addition to trying to address readiness with our active-duty forces that you also look at the guard and reserve and ensure they also have access to what they need to be ready for deployment. >> senator i share the chairman's brew that that we have shrunk our military capability. we haven't operational and strategic reserve which means they have to go on short nervous. that's a reality when we shrunk our military yet not reduced or strategic obligations.
we have to keep the national guard and reserves of all the armed forces at the top of their game. we can't do point i'm without having them at a high state of readiness spread mostly with equipment and training. there are some things they don't do because are not on duty 365 days a year. >> thank you general. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you general matters for your past service to the country and your willingness to step forward and serve once again. i was happy to see your responses to the policy questions and nuclear weapons which you describe is fundamental to our nation's security and your statement that we must continue with the current nuclear modernization plan for all three legs of the triad. when we spoke about the triad, we you brought up a very
important point that bears repeating. there's a broad recognition that the legs of the triads have different strengths. the bombers are visible and therefore they have signaling value. the submarines are highly survivable and icbm are the most responsive leg and they can be launched at a moments notice. you mentioned the targeting challenge of our icbm force and what that challenge poses for our adversary. could you explain it further. >> in my review of the triad that you brought up, i looked at each leg, is it necessary, and i haven't had access to all the classified data but i had a fair amount of background and some of
the aspects of why we have a triad have not changed. it's clear the icbm forces so buried out in the central u.s. that any enemy that wants to take us on is going to have to commit two, three, four weapons to take each one out. in other words the icbm force provide the cost imposing strategy on an adversary and what we are trying to do is set a stance with our triad that these weapons must never be used ever again so the deterrent value of the icbm forces that the enemy would have to use three or four times more weapons to take out each individual one. >> in your answers to this committees questions about whether we are deterring hostile
activity in cyberspace, you say no and you continue to state, to be deterred, our adversaries must know they will suffer consequences from cyber attacks that outweigh any gains they hope to achieve. if they choose to act as adversaries we will treat them as such,". i completely agree and believe that more cost must be imposed on those who are responsible for cyber attacks. this gets to the issue we discussed in great detail on this committee which is the lack of an overall policy to respond to cyber attacks. when we discussed this in a recent meeting, you made a point that i believe is also very important which is that the lack of a policy is potentially destabilizing because adversaries unaware of our boundaries may take a provocative action that forces the united states to act
militarily. i believe you characterized it as stumbling into a conflict. essentially we don't want to find out what constitutes an act of war in cyberspace the hardware. can you elaborate on that point for us. >> senator, i believe a lot of crises and even wars have started from miscalculation so while it is important we make clear what we stand for, i think in an area that you're bringing up, it's also also important that our adversaries know what we absolutely will not tolerate, and by making that clear you're less likely to have somebody stumble into a situation we are forced to take action. that said, putting together a policy like like that is not something the department of defense can do alone. we certainly have a key role, but at the same time from our
credit department to our commerce department and our homeland security, we need to have a lot of people in the room and put this policy together. i realize that the new domain but that doesn't give us an excuse not to address it on an urgent basis. >> thank you, i look forward to working with you on that. this committee has been focused on cyber. we are looking for a policy, and i look forward to developing one with you. i invite you to come to nebraska and i would love to be there when you're there. >> i would like to continue some of the questioning started by senator mccaskill. >> do you plan on rolling back the opening of infantry positions for women based on your previous statements? >> senator, i have never come into any job with an agenda of changing anything. i come in assuming the people before me deserve respect for the job they did decisions they
made. >> i ask because in previous speeches on april 16, 2016, you were asked specifically about whether we should open in infantry positions and combat jobs to women and you said you did not think it was a good idea. you said when you mix affection for one another that could be manifested sexually. then in another speech you said the idea of putting women in there is not setting them up for success. could we find a woman who could run fast enough? of course we could. could we find some good do the polyps, of course we could. that's not the point. it's whether or not you want to mix a rose.
in both of these question-and-answer sessions you said you do not think you could do it. have you changed your view on this issue? >> senator i would not in a position to go back into government when i made those statements. there are many policies that have been enacted over many years including the years since i have been on active duty. i am coming in with the understanding that i leave the department of defense and if someone brings me a problem that i will look at it, but i'm not coming in looking for problems. i'm looking for ways to get the department so that the most lethal stance, and in that regard it's all about military readiness. i am looking for military readiness and what we can do in that regard. >> you plan to oppose women serving in these combat roles. >> i have no plan to oppose women in any aspect of our military. in 2003 i had hundreds of marines who happen to be women serving in my 23000 person
marine division and this is ten years before i retired, and i put them right into the front line long inside everyone else. >> so you know not no longer believe a rose is when men and women are serving together. >> i believe if we are going to do, if we are going to execute policies like this we need to make sure they can handle all things that came from a policy that decided this. that's our responsibility to train our young leaders that will deal with factors that perhaps her fathers did not deal with. >> in your book and the interviews you did "after words", you were talking about the disconnect between civilians and civilian elite view of the military. you cite various policy debates that you think there's a disconnect on you said in recent
policy debates about allowing homosexuals to serve openly. you believe the american public is not nearly as concerned that the changes to military policies occurring risk, we feel an uninformed public is putting leaders at risk which are diminishing the combat power of our military, dissed regarding our practitioners advice. do you believe that openly serving homosexuals is undermining our force? >> senator my belief is that we have to stay focused on a military that is so lethal, that on the battlefield it will be the enemy's longest day and there were stay when they run into that force. i believe that military service
is the touchstone, the patriots of of whatever strike. it simply the way they demonstrate their commitment, and i believe right now the policies that are in effect, unless the service chief bring something to me where there's been a problem that's been proven, then i am not going in with the idea that i'm going to review these and right away start rolling something back. >> you believe allowing lgbt americans to serve in the military or women in the military is undermining our legality. >> i've never cared too much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with. >> so the answer is no. >> my concern is on the readiness of the force to fight and make certain that that the top of its game so when we go up against an enemy the criteria
for everything we do in the military, up until that point when we put our young men and women across the line of departure is that they will be at their most lethal stance. that is my obligation and that is how i will look. >> thank you, and for the record, i would like in writing whether you believe a gender. >> the senators time has expired >> please adhere to the rules of the senate. >> welcome to the committee, thank you for your many decades of service, and thank you for your willingness to answer the call to serve once again. in his speech on our defense in philadelphia, president-elect trump, do you agree these
numbers are the correct targets for which we should aim for our armed forces. >> in my discussion with the president-elect, he wants to strengthen the military. i will have have to look at those numbers in particular. i would tell you he takes the issue seriously, as you you can see from what he has proposed and i believe that is the right direction. the timing, the phasing of that, and making certain that whatever you have already brought for us is fully maintained. these are challenges that we will have to look at current readiness and future readiness of the force but i believe the direct action he has outlined is accurate. >> do you have any comment on the aging of our armed forces. >> i think we have a reset problem in several of our armed forces and that reset has not been achieved. we also have a current maintenance problem where ships are at sea longer because the ships are supposed to relieve them and are not ready.
in my case every time i went to fight, somebody had had done something 20 years before that put me in a dominant position. >> i want to return to the nuclear triad position in which you express your support. what we have today is getting somewhat long in the tooth. i think every layer might be older than i am. we are undertaking a program today, are you committed to the continuation of the columbia class submarine. >> yes sir, i am am. >> to be 21 bomber. >> yes. >> amanda bomber, yes i am. >> long-range missile. >> i need to look at that once or.
my position is that i need to look at it in terms of its current capability. >> secretary bob gates from home we both served at many levels lower than the jew, but he wrote in his book that a common misunderstanding is the deputy secretary of any department manages the department. he said only the secretary of defense can truly want run that apartment and run major critical problems. and the so-called golden hour for troops that are wounded on the battlefield. just an example that he had to prioritize and invest his time and prestige. as you look forward to serving as secretary of defense, what are most urgent that you will need to personally invest your
time and influence and prestige. >> in strengthening the military , you want to set up a department that by and large it can do that in its core processes. in this case what senator mccaskill brought up earlier where i cannot come before you and tell you that i have an ironclad audit means that we are going out to get some people who are focused 247 on getting the business practices down to a point where i could win your confidence. at the same time i think the decision on the use of force, the oversight and operations overseas are things that i will have to spend a lot of time on based on the question and
comment. >> thank you once again for your willingness to serve our country. >> i want to join the rest of my colleagues in thanking you for your service and willing to serve again. we would like to address civilian control over the military, and i am extremely concerned by the president that you are assuming this office would set, and i think in some respects you share that concern because civilian control over the military is the bedrock principle that goes to the very founding of our republic, and i am not going to elaborate on my reasons for feeling so strongly about it. i would like to place in the record a statement to that regard if there's no objection. >> thank you. >> let me say very bluntly, if there were ever a case for a
waiver of that principle, it is you, at this moment in our history. they made reference to your heart and caring for your troops and i believe that your appreciation for the cost of war in blood, treasure and lives, lives, and the impact on veterans "after words" would enable you to be a check on ration, perhaps ill considered use of force by a president-elect who perhaps lacked that same appreciation. i think you will have a critical role as secretary of defense in providing a check on that kind of action. in that regard i want to focus on one aspect of war which is
posttraumatic stress disorder. the chairman and i were together to support a measure for suicide prevention and i thank him again for his leadership. we focus on the difficulty that veterans have any impact in causing suicide among veterans and the disregarded cost of war. twenty veterans every day commit suicide in the greatest country in history of the world. i would would like a commitment from you that you will address the issues of posttraumatic stress and work with the va to fight this scourge in our military. >> this cuts to the very heart of any of us here who have ordered troops into harm's way and how could they come home to this great country carrying
something that puts them into that sort of despair. i am guided largely from jonathan from boston and cambridge and what he has done on the study and you have my full commitment on the. >> you and i have also discussed veterans of past wars who may have been discharged with ptsd at the time because it wasn't even regarded as a diagnosable condition. i think you expressed your interest in that as well. >> there are appeal processes but i need to look at those and whether or not the guidance to those appeal boards takes this into account. i don't know that right now, but i will look at it. >> general, you expressed your commitment and response to
previous questions to the columbia class, ohio replacement program, and i welcome that commitment. i think it's essential as part of our nuclear triad. we have also discussed the submarine program. i assume you will remain committed to that program because it is so vital and we have an asymmetric advantage. i think you agree as well because you mentioned our support for israel that the after 35 program is important to our strategic edge in the world and to our allies like israel and others around the world, including nato that will depend on it. >> yes, sir, many of our allies
and it bonds us tightly together with them. >> thank you very much. >> thank you chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gen., first of all, thank you for your service, thank you for taking the time to visit with us personally. as i think back, i thought perhaps one of the biggest challenges that you may face is differentiating between that of a military leader and a civilian leader coming into the department of defense. could you share just briefly your philosophy on the difference of how you would share the difference and address any questions anybody might have concerning how you might respond militarily versus that as the civilian leader. >> senator, the military is under civilian control in this country and the result is once they have had their say and they've given their input to military leaders, stanback and
then carry out the decision to the best of their ability. and changing roles, and have to make certain that i am carrying out that responsibility principally to advise the commander-in-chief on the use of force in a way that takes into account all of america's different strengths, economic, diplomatic, military, generally speaking we would use military as a deterrent role, as a reassurance to our allies and certainly as a last resort. the role of the secretary of defense is different than that of a military officer. it is the position of civilian control that works with the congress to maintain civilian control. this is not just up to the executive branch. it's also the responsibility that is shared with this committee in particular and by the broader congress.
i still remember my first day in 1969 at the newly barbershop and on the wall was a picture of the united states wearing a suit, the secretary of defense in a suit, the secretary secretary of navy in a suit and below that was a list of photos of the commanders. it was on his first day in the military, i was a graphic display of civilian control. there and the executive branch i learned the role of congress over many years of testimony. >> thank you. >> two years ago, you advised us that this committee must lead the effort to repeal the sequestration that has cost military readiness and staffing troop morale. likewise they have called the rescinding of sequestration. so did the unanimous request of the bipartisan national defense panel which was cited by the
president-elect. sometimes i think we misunderstand that it's the number one priority we should be looking at and that's the defense of our country. if we are not free nothing else matters. can you talk about sequestration we seem to have a misunderstanding that somehow expenditures for defense should be equalized with the expense for nondefense discretionary funding. would you care to state your opinion and how you would advise the president with regard to sequestration and the elimination of those caps and what it means to the united states military. >> senator, i understand the need for solvency and security because no nation in history has maintained its military power if it does not maintain its fiscal health in good order. at the same time, i believe this country has got to be prepared to defend itself, the idea of
the government by the people for the people remains a radical thought in many people's minds in this world and we have to be able to fight for it. as a result i believe we can afford survival. i don't believe in mathematical calculus that basically makes the congress spectators as salami slice cuts come in and you do not have control over that. i can't make the argument for you for why we need a military program, then i'm willing to lose it, but if i can make that argument, should you confirm me, i don't want the congress in in a role where sequestration is making decisions for you and you are not able to influence this. >> thank you. i have a series of questions that i would like to ask if i could summit those to the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, sir. i appreciate your service and look forward to supporting you in this nomination.
>> i hope that you can provide me with the yes or no answer to this question and then i'll move on to other questions. is there something innate in being a woman or lgbt that would cause you to believe they could not be part of a lethal force. >> no. >> thank you. >> we have strategic interest in the indo asia-pacific and i believe the obama administration concept of a strategic rebalance should be continued, and i know you are well aware of the armies in this part of the world, what's happening with china and north korea. would you continue our commitment to strengthening our presence in the indo asia pacific and recognizing our national defense and our national security. >> senator the the pacific theater remains a priority in my mind. >> so you will continue that
commitment. >> i will look at which commitments. >> a commitment to the part of the world in terms of military resources, in terms of our presence and strengthening our allies in this part of the world. >> yes we have worldwide responsibilities, and certainly the pacific blooms large in that >> has the president-elect has taken to twitter, understandably the companies have responded and these tweets have impacted markets, created instability and uncertainty within the industry. while we all agree we need to ensure that our contact is to deliver, the system required on time and i don't think this is the best way to get that point across, especially if you are the president of the united states.
my question is, should you be confirmed, how would you deal with industry and their concerns and the president-elect if he continues to use twitter to express his views and opinions about major defense acquisition programs which have legally binding contracts already in place. >> senator, it's not my role to comment on the president-elect statement other than to say i believe it shows he is serious about getting the best bang for the dollar when it comes to defense dollars, and that's where i find common ground with him, i want to be able to come to you and say here's the money you gave us and here's what we did with it, and i see his statements about the cost of certain defense programs and showing his serious side about keeping these costs under control. we have spent a lot of time
under his leadership looking at the cost and time frame for delivery of various systems. certainly we share that. it's about how best to go forward as we ask these questions and in my view using twitter as a means is not the most efficient way to do that. turning to our allies once again in asia-pacific area. he has made some statements regarding some key allies in the region suggesting that we wouldn't defend them if necessary. do you consider these kinds of statements damaging, and what would you do to strengthen these alliances should you be confirmed? >> i think we have a long
history in the city was secretaries of defense asking them to carry their fair share when they share in the benefits. what i would do to answer your question is i would find common grounds but i would be looking for new allies and makes certain we are creating as many allies as we can as we try to keep peace and stability. >> i agree with you. in response to a question from senator shaheen you said you support the eri. you believe we need to have a parallel effort in the indo asia-pacific area? >> each region has its own unique characteristic. i believe we have a fair number of similar deployments in the pacific are ready that send the kind of message that eri sends
to europe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. >> general matters, thank you for appearing in front of our committee today. i will start with some basic yes or no questions. can i get your confirmation that you will make cutting wasteful spending a priority. >> yes. >> do you commit to working with me to combat and prevent military sexual assault and retaliation. >> absolutely. >> to commit to leveraging the unique capabilities of our guard and reserve their forces to enhance our national secure emission. >> yes. >> we provide me with advance notice should you decide to make any changes to the gender, integration policies that are in place. >> i will always keep this committee informed. >> i appreciate your commitment. i want to thank senator mccaskill for bringing this to our attention. when i graduated in 1993, i and
the 11 other women that attended that course were not afforded the opportunity to even compete for the course. i'm glad we have rectified that in the year since third flashforward, ten years, 2003, operation iraqi freedom. i was a transportation commander. i had an assigned weapon, and am nine, 99-millimeter pistol, but i also had assigned m-16 rifle because the joke that we had in the military was that sometimes the most effective use of and am nine is to simply throw it at your adversary. when i met with you last week, you emphasize emphasized that you are committed to making our military more lethal. too do this, i think one place you need to start is with our military small arms. russia continues to upgrade its service rifle while we continue
to modify our m4. many of our troops still carry m-16's. the army can even figure out how to replace the am nine pistol first issued in 1982. take a look at their 350 page micro managing requirements document if you want to know why it's taking so long to get this accomplished. the military's current service rifle is illegal for shooting small deer in nearly all states due to its lack of killing power. you agree we cannot grow a more lethal force while using outdated small arms and ammunition. >> i do agree with that approach ma'am, i have been away for several years and as you know the army and the special forces in the marines have all been working to create a more lethal round for the m-16 so i'm not current right now on what they've done with the actual ammunition so i would have to
get current on that, but i am 100% in agreement with the approach you are taking. >> the legality is very, very important and we do need to relook that because i do think we need to be on par with any of our adversaries. i am well aware of your experience and i thank you for your great service. that region will inevitably and rightly remain a focal point when talking about islamic extremism. however, i do believe we need to look at other regions around the globe and we cannot turn a blind eye to isis in regions outside of the middle east such as southeast asia. there are many news reports that have shown those areas are very active and reports from last year, i noted over 57 philippine government forces have been killed in battle's linked with isis groups. there was also an attempted u.s. embassy bombing in manila and other areas of the region.
secretary carter agreed with my assessment of isis in southeast asia and president obama was made well aware of my concern, however we have yet to develop a strategy to combat isis, especially in those regions where we are not focusing and how should our new administration address the rising threat of isis in southeast asia and will you commit to working with me on this. >> absolutely senator, the way we do this, i think we have to deliver a very hard blow against isis in the middle east so there is no sense of vulnerability or invincibility. there has got to be a military defeat of them there, but it must, as you point out be a much broader approach. this requires an integrated strategy so you don't squeeze them in one place and then they develop in another and were back to square one. we have to have an integrated strategy on this and it has to be one that goes after the
recruiting and their fundraising as well as delivering the military blow against them in the middle east. that way you slow down this growth and start rolling it back by whipping through allies. >> i appreciate it. thank you and god bless you. >> general matters, in your 44 years of service, you have built a distinguished resume and demonstrated an unwavering commitment to this country. having said that, we need to weigh your qualifications today against the need to change an important law that seeks to preserve the ultimate civilian control of the military. in doing so, i believe believe we also need to consider another factor which is the temperament of the incoming white house team, something you said earlier struck me. it was crises and war start by miscalculation. i want to go back and remind folks about something that could've happened a number of years ago.
during the cuban missile crisis, air force general curtis lemay and other military commanders urged president kennedy to launch a preemptive raid on cuba many people believe that would've provoked the soviet nuclear response. in the end, we averted a nuclear exchange and we are fortunate enough to have individuals in the white house who shared a great deal of both restraint and calm during a very intense crisis. we hope it's not so, but the next administration could wellin encounter a similar situation. granted every situation is unique, what assurances can you provide that it confirms your approach at the a time of crisis with the same temperament you've shown us today? i would point out that isn't always consistent with your nickname, and provide sound policy and guidance to the president, particularly as it refers to something as serious as the use of nuclear weapons.
>> first and show you that nickname was given to me by the press and some of you may have experienced similar occasions with the press were perhaps they didn't get it quite right. >> touche. >> i would just say, senator, what you must always have is a team of people, who it might not be a pretty process, but you look at all options. you don't default to one and i want to point out default particularly to the military one prematurely. you have your diplomats, you have everyone in the room as we look for every possible solution in that regard, what the military can do by being strong is provide the strongest deterrent unless you provide the strongest support for our diplomats to try to find a nonmilitary option. it is the peace through strength idea that goes back all the way to george washington. that is my overarching approach, if that addresses your question.
>> in a related question, i am fortunate fortunate enough to represent the men and women who work in our national labs, people who work every day to ensure that our nuclear weapons are safe, secure and reliable. how important do you believe that deterrent is in terms of priority within your mission set, and will you continue to support the civilian control both in authority and administration of that deterrent >> i consider the deterrent to be critical because we don't ever want those weapons used and so either the deterrent is safe and secure, it is compelling or we actually open the door for something worse, whether it's an accident or a political accident to me at the absolute priority. >> the issue of civilian control? >> no reservations. you testified before this
committee back in january 2015. you probably remember that. you suggested that if you were in our shoes at the time, one of the things you would ask the obama administration is the following question, what are the key threats to our vital interests, and in what priority level? how would you answer that question. >> i would consider the principle threats to start with russia and it would certainly include any nation that are looking to intimidate regions nearby them, whether it's with weapons of mass distraction or a usual unorthodox means of intimidation. at the same time, we face an
error will where we will be facing the terrorist threat. that is just a reality that we will have to address them. >> general matters, welcome and thank you for the generous amount of time you spent with me in my office. i will go back to a couple things we discussed. secretary collins characterization of braveheart couldn't more perfectly put your personality and legacy in proper perspective. now, i want to talk about this. they brought up once or twice, it's the only incidents in two years that i was able to correct him and know that i was right. he said it was a 200 page rfp for the next generation handgun. it's almost 700 pages.
i want to talk a little bit about why this is making our men and women on the battlefield less lethal, less prepared than they should be. when you start a program in the air force in 2008 and then you decide it should be the next generation handgun and then in 2008 and 2017, you create a nearly 700 page rfp 700 page rfp and we haven't even down selected the suppliers. frankly, i think we should be replacing them sooner than that if it makes our soldiers safer on the battlefield. this is a great testament to what is wrong with acquisition. this is about saving lives and killing the enemy. this is what we have to fix.
i wanted the exact numbers so i had my staff tell me what the exact page count was. it was 680 pages. interestingly enough they will probably come back and say it's only 340 because you printed it out in single page not double-sided because they are ready came back said there's only 39 pages of technical specs what is all the other garbage in this document because that's the stuff that's preventing us from getting a more lethal, more reliable, more effective weapon on the battlefield. i'm going to keep on pounding on this thing. i cannot possibly imagine the capabilities you bring in terms of recommending to us on how we should fight wars and take the battle to the enemy. i do know business in the business of the dod has to change in a have to start with this kind of stuff.
680 pages, nine years and were not even in down selection. a decade for a pistol? i can break down and put together my 40 caliber pistol pretty easily with a blindfold on. in other words, they are are relatively simple devices print i know we have simple devices for special operations, etc. cetera. that can be dealt with. as one size fits all, it's okay to go nine or ten years has to stop. what i want from you, i know you will do a great job of leading our armed services. no doubt about that. i would not question to presume to know how to take on the enemy and eliminate them. you know how too do that and i look forward to supporting your nomination later today. i need your commitment that we will get away from the words i heard in the last administration to fixing defense acquisition and we start operating. when you come before this
committee you can almost assume that it's going to be about what progress we've made to and the cycle. it's costing us money and making a more dangerous place for our soldiers were taking the fight to the enemy. i have your your commitment. >> you do senator, and i can't defend this. i will say there has been times where regulations required us to do things. >> i will stay true to time, general, and you are one of the last people that i want to want to interrupt, but i want to get this point in and get finished within my 36 minutes. the other thing we need to do, if somebody goes back and review this, they are going to find out congress is responsible for some number of these pages. as i told you we need to put a mirror down at the witness table and tell you it's this long because someone got a provision or someone got a provision in an
appropriations bill that caused the to be less discussion. i hope i have your support to say it is this way in part because of the muscle memory of the dod and in large part because you guys are forcing inefficient processes that are making my women and men on the battlefield less safe and less capable. i would welcome that feedback from you as secretary. >> i will be with you and it requires collaboration with this committee and i'm willing to do that. >> thank you. >> excellent questions. >> welcome to the committee. >> thank you, it's an honor to be here. thank you general matters. thank you for meeting with me last week. i'm hoping we can follow up on the conversations we had and i'm hoping you can give me yes or no answer so we can cover as much ground as possible. we all learned that
technological threats to our nation are evolving and growing and we need our best in our brightest to face those threats. massachusetts leads the nation in innovative dispense defense work in scientific research that helps protect our service members. they have developed cutting-edge equipment for nutrition and protective gear, to strengthen our air and missile defense, cyber security and other capabilities. cambridge is one of only three places in the country where the defense innovation unit that leverages the expertise of entrepreneurs and tech firms to accelerate the delivery of advanced products. general, do you agree it's
critical for dod to invest in innovation, to enhance our national defense - absolutely. >> good. >> do you believe dod should strongly way the intellectual resources of the region when evaluating where to locate resources and other research command especially in situations where the military is partnering with technological and academic organization. >> we should embrace those opportunities. >> thank you. i want to ask about something else. you recently edited a book on civilian military operations. in one of the book essays, thomas owens, another marine corps veteran wrote that good civilian military relations are not the same as constant agreement. this misperception may be, and i will quote him, the result of
promoting yes-men who are politically safe and will not fulfill their obligation to provide the best military advice as forcefully as possible. they also wrote that affective policy requires that quote, we insist soldiers present their views frankly and forcefully throughout this strategy making and implementation process, and this is key to healthy civil military relations. let me start, do you agree with the statements? >> i do, senator. >> good. defense secretary is a civilian job, but does your belief in the importance of frank advice extend to the relationship between the defense secretary and the president other national security advisors. >> absolutely senator, and i would not have taken this nomination if i didn't have that belief. >> good. what about the president
himself, under what circumstances will you advocate forcefully and frankly. >> on every circumstance. >> i am very glad to hear that. >> thank you. >> in public remarks, at a think tank in may 2015, you said russia wants to promote its own security through instability, and is trying to create the spirit of on stable state. i assume you would stand by this assignment assessment today. >> i do. >> since when it comes to advising the president on the threats posed by russia, will you advocate for your views frankly and forcefully to the president to speak about these threats and the need to take them seriously. >> i will. >> thank you very much. i hope that is right.
if you end up in this job, our nation security may very well depend in part on your willingness to voice your opinion even when others disagree, even when you are under pressure to remain silent. we are counting on you. i see that i am about out of time. i have some other questions i would like to ask about women serving in the military and lgbt queue in the military, but i will submit those as questions for the record. >> welcome and good to see you again and thank you for your exceptional service to our nation which is continuing to our nation. you cowrote an article where you are stated as saying the international system as we know it, as we created it is under assault from the forces that fill vacuums and corrode order when the united states is not
actively engaged. russia has filmed a vacuum left by the us, and as you know general, just, just in the past few years, the build up in the arctic by the russians has been quite dramatic. a new arctic, for new arctic brigades, new airfields, 16 deepwater 16 deepwater points, 48's breakers with 13 more on the way, three nuclear powers, huge new land claims in the arctic for massive oil and gas reserves, the most long-range air patrols since the cold war, a snap military exercise in 2015 that included 45000 troops, 300, 3400 military vehicles, 15 submarines, and hundred ten aircraft. what is the effect on not being engaged in the arctic.
>> i think america has global responsibilities, and it's not to our advantage to leave any of those advantages to the world absent from our efforts. >> what you think russia is trying to achieve in the arctic with that massive military buildup. >> i don't know. i believe, however that we are going to have to figure it out and make certain there were not seeing an expansion of these efforts to dominate what has been, up until now, part of the international commons. what role would you see of increase u.s. presence and involvement with regard to our role in the arctic versus what the russians are doing? >> with the new sea route of communication that are opening up, i think we are going to recognize this as an active area whether it's for search and rescue or patrolling and maintaining sovereignty in our alaska coastline.
that sort of thing. >> general, as you probably know centrals of america are in alaska. can i get your commitment to come to alaska and see our military in the state that the chairman knows billy mitchell called the most strategic place in the world. >> yes, sir, i will get there. >> excellent. >> we need to get the chairman up there as well soon. i want to turn to china. china's leaders have stated that they are not militarizing the south china sea. you agree with them. >> no i do not. >> yesterday in his confirmation hearing, rex tillerson commented that we should prohibit access to the islands in the south china sea, prohibit access to the chinese, what in your view should our response to china's militarization of the south china sea be? >> so we are going to have to put together a policy that is
put together by a state department, by treasury, by dod, we have to integrate this so we are not dealing with an incomplete or incoherent strategy, but the bottom line is , the international waters are international waters, and we have to figure out how do we deal with holding on to the kind of rules that we have made over many years that led to the prosperity for many nations, not just four hours. this has been part of why many nations have gotten more prosperous, because of this freedom of commerce. >> you've emphasized rightfully so, our allies as a key strategic element of national security. what role should they be playing with regard to our response in the south china sea. >> you always want more allies with you rather than fewer. i've never gone into any fight
with an all american formation. i've always fought alongside allies but i also believe they can contribute greatly to deterrence and modifying the behavior of those who would disrupt the order. >> there are a number of us who believe that over the last several years, u.s. has lost credibility internationally where our adversaries no longer fear us and our allies don't trust us. perhaps the most glaring example of that is rainy and actions in the persian gulf where u.s. naval ships are taking settlers hostage. i just want to finish with one question, how do we regain our credibility internationally, and you are a historian, do you believe the new administration will have its credibility challenged early in its tenure? >> if confirmed, i have to assume that our credibility will be challenged simply as part of
the responsibility that i carry. i think the way you maintain credibility is when you give your word on something you live up to it, and you put together policies even though it's more difficult by with and through allies so they are at the table as we put the policy together and there with us when the policies come under pressure. : keeping a safe and we all know the most important function of federal government is to keep its citizens safe at all times and you've done that with honor
and with integrity. so thank you on behalf of a grateful nation. many of my colleagues have quoted from your book that you edited warriors and citizens. i'm going to falsehood because i would like you to elaborate on a passage i thought was interesting and i think it is worthwhile for us to know more about us how you will approach this job as a strategic thinker providing strategic advice to the president as well as to the congress. i'm going to ask you to comment on this. this quote is because the american public old its military in such high regard, we are putting it at greater risk. we have allowed our strategic thinking to atrophy, allowing our policymaking to become flabby because our militaries high level of performance has lowered our sensibilities. this is both a political failure and a moral one. if you could elaborate on what you meant by political failures, moral failures and how those of us who are involved in
policymaking have become flabby. >> well, it certainly was not meant in any personal sense. >> i understand that. i understand that, although i do have that might fit bit, that's true. >> center, goes back to a belief i have that america has two fundamental powers. one is the power of intimidation. i was part of it. and america will defend herself and rdf, this experiment that we call america, and that's all it is is an experiment in democracy. but the other power i think that press will use less in the last, in recent years, last 20 years maybe, is the power of inspiration. i think the power of inspiration of america at times it's got to be employed just as strongly. because the u.s. military is devoted to be in the top in its game in a competition where
second-place is last place, we should not simply returning to the military because it's a very capable military, because it's well led. it's now and a national treasure. i am the first to admit that. it doesn't mean we should returning to the military to answer all of our concerns in our relations with the world. that's the source of where i was coming from with that statement. >> very good. in terms of strategic thinking which you will be intimately involved in as a student of history, you know as well as anyone else that we can't fight the last war, and throughout history that seems to have repeated itself all too many times and we need to be thinking forward. in our meetings, or in our meeting together, i was struck by a statement you made what he said that as a commander in the field you benefited from decisions that were made 10-15 years before you put on the uniform and was in command.
we are facing an unprecedented time of change. when we looked at technology and how it's transforming our world, we are probably one of the most exciting times to live in the world that we see today is going to be radically different in 10 years. that means a weapon systems are likely to be considerably different, that we can see a cyber has changed political warfare, has given language to political warfare in an unprecedented way, as has been evidenced by the russian attacks on our political system and their interference in our political system. in the biotech area we are seeing a dual use technologies like crisper that will get in his a low-cost yet very high impact weapon. and also carries an artificial intelligence. we recently had a steady came out the set artificial intelligence may be one of our most important weapons to maintain a unique asymmetric advantage over adversaries. how do you plan to be thinking
about when we need to be 10-15 years and utilize the strategies and understanding the threats much different? >> senator, we have to make certain where not dominant and irrelevant at the same time, dominant in a past form of warfare that is no longer relevant. and i believe the way you do this is you get your strategy right, and that starts with getting our policies right. so you match your strategy, economic, diplomatic, military, covert, education, all of this. you map that to ensure that you are going to be relevant for the future. once you do that you also adopt in the paradox of war the enemy always moves against your perceived weakness so you cannot opt out of certain things. bottom line, you get to a point where you have the fewest big regrets when the crisis strikes. you will no have no regrets because were dealing with something that is fundamentally unpredictable.
it also means were going to have to enlist the civilian communities, leaders in some of these areas that you and senator warren at both talked about, artificial intelligence and what the labs are doing, and make certain we are harvesting those lessons learned and the advances that have but more importantly we are integrating them. it does no good to be the best in just the lab and you don't mainstream what you learned from it. it's a matter of how do you maintain current writing is because if we fight tomorrow, the young men and women have got to get the top of their game but at the same time we have to be looking out. like me, somebody who is not even in the military yet, 10 years from now looks bad because of what we did today, wrote the headlines we want to read 10 years from now. >> thank you. >> on behalf of chairman mccain let me recognize senator perdue. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, thank you for your extraordinary lifetime of dedication and commitment and
service to our country and your willingness to serve again. i was very impressed in a conversation with your humility and with your acuity of the global situation today. several past secretaries of state have actually said in recent years that the greatest threat to national security is our own federal debt. do you agree with that, sir? >> i do serve. >> today, we sit in a situation 2017, the smallest army since world war ii. the smallest navy since world war i and oldest a small air force ever. do you think we can meet the missions of what we're talking about with a four plus one transmission we have today, with army, with russia and china, symmetric threats, traditional symmetric that's still growing, the asymmetric threats of isis and upstairs around the world, with rogue nations developing nuclear capabilities like iran and north korea, and then this new hybrid warfare that we're
seeing in eastern europe and around the world and even at home, cyber warfare and now the arms race in space. do you believe that is a tenable situation that we can meet the missions that we are looking at asking our military to do today? >> senator, i believe were to strengthen our military due to the situation as you described it. i think it's accurate what you are describing. >> in the last 30 years we have this invested in our military in the '70s. we recapped it in the '80s, we recapped it in 2000 and now in the last few years we this invested begin. today, if you know this but i do question for you because we need your leadership in this. you're going to be straddling the civilian advisor and also the military world as secretary of defense. today, we are spending about 100 basis points less that our 30 year average, about $200 billion less than a 30 year average. that's not the most important number. the most important number is the last unwitting secretary of defense do a bottom-up mission
requirement request for funds was secretary bob gates in 2011 did a five-year plan and for 2016 he requested a number that number that in today's dollars was $100 billion greater. that was before and what we allocated in 2016 and that's before i says, before crimea, before syria. you can't speak to a specific number but i would like to know how you plan to address your goal of the solvency and security in an environment where today every time we spent on a military, every time we spent on our veterans and every time we spent most of our domestic programs frankly is borrowed, given that in the last eight years we borrowed 35% of what we spent as a federal government and today the baseline budget for the next 10 years says we do the same thing. that means every dime you'll be concerned with a secretary of defense is fundamentally borrowed. in that situation general how would you approach being secretary of defense and addressing the needs of the military with us in that
imbibing? >> senator, as has been mentioned by several other members of this committee, one of the most important things we do government, the most important thing we do is maintain the independence and freedom of this country. so to me that's a priority. at the same time w we've got to try to figure out, you've seen the waxing and waning of our military sites and our strength. as we tried to adapt that military to the realities, we don't want a military that just breaks the bank but at the same time we cannot solve this debt problem on the backs of our military alone. this is why i think i need to support strongly the congressional leaders who are trying to repeal sequestration, the budget control act, to ensure that we put the congress back into a position to prioritize where this money is being spent. we're going to have to make hard calls, but i consider an application of our generations
responsibility to transfer a debtor decides to our children. >> thank you so much for your perspective, your willingness to serve, your history and for what you're going to do for a country in the next decade. god bless you. thank you spin on behalf of the chairman mccain let me recognize senator kaine. >> it's great to be back with you. i associate myself with a comments senator blumenthal, that the traditional restriction to secretary of defense that requires some. in civilian life before serving is a very important one. i also agree with him that features of the time, features a frankly my concerns about the incoming administration and features in your background i think make this an opportune moment to make an exception. and in particular the fact that you are somebody writes a lot and has a lot of things in your background you can write about, but that you chose work with others to write this book about
the warriors and citizens come about that very issue that is at issue in a way that connection between civilian and military life, the similarities and differences trying to understand the different cultures and find strategies to better enable each understand the fact that you chose that is something i think speaks particularly to your suitability for a waiver in this exceptional circumstance. you testified before as often and also having a long-term interest of mine is the belief that we shouldn't be going to war without a vote of congress. in march 2015 you said a strong authorization to use military force supported by majority of both parties in both houses of congress within an essential message of american steadfastness to our people into the global audience. its passage will demonstrate our country fundamental unity and enable a broader commitment to deal from it with the real and growing minister is that still
your opinion? >> yes, senator, it is. >> isn't it the case that congressional engagement around an authorization of use of military force is part of what civilian control is? with exercise sibling control as a military through appropriate congressional oversight answer taking our responsibilities like the article one war powers responsibilities seriously? >> i think congressional oversight and appropriations authorizations are a critical part of civilian control of the military. >> general mattis, you spoke and i was glad you did about the complex situation in the middle east and one of the items that should be on her table is difficult as it is is trying to do what we can appropriately do, to find peace between palestine and israel. it's a difficult just like finding a peace in ireland was difficult, but we shouldn't give up. we played a pivotal role in that important good friday accord in the 1990s and i think it's important we continue -- unhappy you mentioned that.
obviously this is a piece that we need to be hammered out between palestine and israel, palestinians and israelis. should the united states military stand willing to provide security assistance? for example, as it does to provide peacekeeping along the border between israel and egypt in the multinational force of observers, in your opinion? >> senator kaine, i would have to look at the specific commitment before he came back and answer that question, but i don't have a going in prohibition to engaging along those lines bu but i would haveo look at that. >> if you were to be in the desire of the parties, as they are talking about a potential peace, if they saw a valuable role for the united states to play in peacekeeping between the nations, would you think it would be an appropriate use of the american military, similar to the peacekeeping we provide on egypt-israel border since the late 1970s?
>> piece in that area is in our vital interest, and so if we can contribute, it sort is something we should look at. >> one last area of question. i was intrigued. you talked about in the middle east israel and others, arab nations in the middle east, feeling indifferent to the security concerns and that was the phrase you use, indifferent. when i travel i hear the same thing. i tried to match up to feelings because i will hear that and i think that's an accurate perception of water here when i travel but also cedar in this body where we approve tenure memorandums of understanding, spending significant american dollars to provide security assistance to israel. we are in multiple theaters of war in the middle east and we've been there since 2001. it's not like we are not there. i try to match up our investment of blood, talent and treasure with th a feeling of leaders in these countries that why are you indifferent to us? the only way i can understand it is we are actually present but
we don't communicate a clear strategy. we are kind of you on this issue and that issue, but there's a good deal of uncertainty about what and when, what we will do tomorrow and what we will engage in and what we want. we had a testimony before this committee a year or so ago from inner to officer, senior officers said we have old plans but no strategy. a lot of our plans for every contingency but the strategy is unclear. do you think that contributes to the feeling of indifference or concern among allies in the middle east and elsewhere? >> i think you summed it up. there's tangible and intangible elements to this. certainly on the tangible we are tangibly engaged across the board. in tangibly, people do not know where we stand. too often is a question and i believe that the lack of an integrated strategy at times has had as working against one issue with someone while working for the issue with, and it just
created confusion spirit thank you very much, general mattis. >> let me recognize senator cr cruz. >> thank you, senator reid. general, welcome back to this committee, a committee you spent a lot of time before and want to start just by thanking you for your many decades of service. your service, risking your life and leading your men into harm's way, to protect this country. we are grateful and you're being called back to service once again to protect this country. i think you're going to be an extraordinary defense secretary. i am proud to support your nomination. and i think you are going to be confirmed by a strong bipartisan vote. one of the reasons for that is over decades serving you have earned a for candor, for strength, for not blowing smoke, which is a rare thing in the
town of washington, d.c. and also as a marines marine. indeed, you will remember my chief of staff is a former marine and when you came by my office to visit, i don't think i've ever seen i chief of staff more excited. senators don't do anything for the is completely unimpressed by any of us but if elvis president walked into the office he would not have been more thrilled than to see you walk in, general. and so thank you for your willingness to come back once again and help pull this country back from the precipice. i think we are in very perilous times. when you and i talked you talked about what you called a strategic mismatch between the commitments being placed on our military right now and the capacity that's been provided to me to those commitments. can you share your views on what's needed to fix that? how do we rebuild the military to ensure we can get everything
is necessary to keep this country safe? >> senator, first point i would make is the hard used equipment that we brought back from the wars, if they're going to continue to use it, it's got to be refurbished. it's got to be at the top of its game. second point is that this committee and this congress has provided a lot of money for a lot of ships and planes and other equipment. if we don't maintain that, it's worthless. we will have to increase operation to maintenance funds. further, as the world situation dictates of this, we are going to have to adapt and strengthen the military. the one commitment i would give you is that as we are doing this i'm going to be working with our allies to make sure that it's not only the american taxpayer who's carrying this burden, those nations that share our values, those nations that share breaths just our security concerns, we are going to with
them so that we maintain the strongest alliances possible. so i'm not coming to you trying to get the american military to do what is rightfully more of an alliance kind of work or coalition or partnership work. >> so one of the areas we discussed was the need to maintain air superiority going forward, and you referenced that need just a minute ago. i think an important piece of that is the f-35 program. which i believe successful completion of the f-35 program is critical to future mission success. both for us and for key allies like the united kingdom individual. right now we're over 200 f-35 fielded today, and just this week the marine corps begin the first f-35 overseas deployment. all of us are concerned about limiting costs, and that needs to be a focus going forward, but can you highlight for this committee what separates the
f-35 from legacy aircraft and the advantages it provides to our military in future combat situation? >> senator, the f-35 is critical for our own air superiority in the future because of its stealth characteristics and some of its electronics capability that's inherent to the airplane, which actually magnifies each individual aircraft capability. but it is equally important if not more so to some of our allies, and i say more so because this will be that total fighter strength of the air force. so to them it's an all in sort of situation. so the f-35, the president-elect has talked about the costs of it, like he is in no way shown a lack of support for the program. he just wants the best bang for the buck. >> and i look forward to working closely with you to strengthen the program. my final question is, is you
have long been a defender of the warrior ethos. you and i both been concern that sometimes a political agenda at the pentagon has gotten in the way of a warrior ethos. can you describe for this committee the importance of restoring the warrior ethos, and why that matters for our ability to keep this country safe? >> senator, the primitive and often even atavistic aspects of the battlefield test the physical strength, the mental agility of everyone. but most of what it tests is the courage and the spiritual side of the troops we put in harm's way. and often time it's only unit cohesion, leadership and the belief in themselves and their comrades that allows him to go through what they have to go through, and come out as better men and women, not as broken. and so the warrior ethos is not luxury.
it is essential when you have a military. >> i'm confident that's the first time -- >> the senators time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i bring news from the intelligence committee where the opening of the ring on the new director of the cia, all the power went off in the room went completely dark. i think that proves -- >> cyber hack spin either the almighty or the architect of the capitol has a sense of humor. general mattis, one of the comment you made earlier about fear come on and interest are the bases of all wars is now in my telephone if it ever gets hacked vilifying that quote along with those of lincoln and churchill, so thank you for that thought. general mattis, you have been a warrior. this job, you need to move from being a warrior to a manager, two very different sets of
skills, and particularly the manager of the sprawling bureaucracy that the defense department has become, and as you know we are constrained for resources. even if were able to get rid of the budget control act, even if we can get rid of sequestration there's still always going to be limits on resources. i hope that you will examine with a fresh set of eyes the administrative structure of not only the civilian side, but the military side of the defense department in order to be able to find and free up resources for the modernization readiness, training, all of those elements. i just think this is going to be a very important part of your job. i'd like your thoughts on that. >> i agree, senator, 100% with this. i think right now what we face is a time when, with technology and with new approaches, we can do some of the things that lie
behind what you are asking for. for example, skip echelon where you don't need something in each echelon. you remove it and you actually expedite processes and this sort of thing. what we don't want to do is contingent layer upon layer of bureaucracy that's not value added. but how we go through and remove it is probably going to take collaboration with this committee because in many cases, those elements are there as part of our organization set by the congress. so i've had to come to you and show you what i propose to manage it better, and show you what the problem is. if i get your agreement there i think we can move forward on it spin i hope that can be a specic not just a general commitment but a project, if you will, that identified specific projects to look into this. i didn't expect to quote george osos and one of his comments you suggest, the sum total of all committee deliberation is usually no. that's what makes it a difficult
period nuclear modernization to one of the things that concerns me looking out beyond the budget of this year or next year is what i call the nuclear modernization bulge. the cost of the ohio class replacement, the b21 which is moving forward, missiles. also not often mentioned, a serious upgrade of the command-and-control system, the nail, national airport operations and as you know is a plane its own movement of the people in this room, not you and i but many of the people in this room. i think how we deal with that is something that has to have some special attention because if we don't find additional funding for that, then all the other acquisition programs will be squeezed out. do you agree with that assertion? >> i agree both that the additional fun has got to be found because it will squeeze out everything else if we don't find a way to do it but also the
command and control in light of the cyber situation we face right now, and is got to be a high priority when we look at the modernization of the triad. >> another subject. i believe i understand your position on this but are you supportive of elevating cyber command to a full unified combat command? >> i got to look at the actual breakout, senator, so i understand which duties stay in which place. because the way they are set up right now may not break apart quite as well if we hold that same organization. we have to look at it, and if we go down that road hump make certain they are fit for function at that point. philosophically, i am okay with it spin i appreciate the subtlety of your answer because the worst result would be too great a new unified combatant command and leave remnants of tn in other places so that you ended up with duplication.
i think that's -- >> you sometimes my concerns. >> general mattis, i am so pleased that you're willing to continue your service to the country, to come back to the side of the rockies, as you suggest, and i appreciate your testimonies are today thank you very much. >> colonel graham. >> thank you. appreciate that. general, what if i call you mr. mattis? how about mr. secretary? whatever works, right? >> or nominee. >> what is the capital of israel? >> a-uppercase-letter visual that i go to, sir, is tel aviv because that's where all other government people are, but -- >> do you agree with me the a-uppercase-letter visual is jerusalem? >> sir, right now i stick with the u.s. policy. >> okay. do you support moving the u.s. embassy from tel aviv to
jerusalem? >> i would defer to the nominee for secretary of state on that spivak do you support maintaining qualitative edge for israel against all potential adversaries in terms of the military capability? >> i do, sir. >> do support a two-state solution? >> i do, if that brings peace to the middle east. i'm eager to see it work. if there's another solution i'd be happy to hear what it is. >> absolutely. who is in charge of the palestinian community? >> that's a good question. i think there's a number of people who think they are. >> it would be hard of a two-state solution if one of the parties really doesn't anybody in charge. ..
they characterize the president elect, i would tell you the serious concern. >> how would you characterize what he said? he characterized on their icbm mission and said not point to happen. to me, i hope it's a red line. i'm not arguing with him, i'm not so sure i would've done it that way, but do you think we should have a redline when it comes to the icbm program in north korea. >> it is a serious threat and i believe we have to do something about it. >> do you believe it's in our national security interest to believe north korea never develops a missile that could hit the american homeland with a nuclear weapon on top of it. >> yes, senator, i do. >> do you believe it necessary
to be on the table. >> i don't think we should take anything off the table, sir. >> when it comes to iran, you, you said, in terms of the agreement we have, we gave our word. is that what you said? >> we did, yes, sir. >> i think president elect trump gave his word to the united states people that we are going to change this bill because its people terrible. do you expect him to keep his word. >> wants the security term -- team is confirmed, i will work with the other members to make it a safest possible situation for the american people. >> do think it's a terrible deal. >> it is not a deal i would've signed. >> how would you have made it better. >> the first thing is, i would ask the congress to have a joint committee from banking arm services and intel to oversee the implication of the deal and should there be any obligation
of it or cheating, then they would be kept informed on a routine basis of what's going on so that you know what's happening. at the same time, we are going to have to make certain that our intelligence services are fully staffed to watch over them, and that involves working with our allied services which have abilities to work inside. further we have put together a combined missile defense, air and missile defense capability for our golf allies so they can work together with us. every time we catch iran up to some kind of terrorist activity, we would take that to the united nations and display it for the world to see. >> thank you very much. do you believe iran behavior,
outside the nuclear program has been destabilizing in the mideast. >> absolutely. >> you believe when they held our sailors hostage, that was a threat to america. >> yes, sir. >> you believe they deserve to be sanctioned based on what they've done in the mideast, testing missiles in violation with the resolution and the regime deserves to be sanctioned for the behavior outside the nuclear program. >> i believe sanctions will work best if they are international so they don't, cannot evade them. >> are we going to give the world of veto of what we do. >> i would never give the world the veto. >> finally do support additional sanctions against russia for all the bad things they have done in the past and likely to do in the future? >> senator i would like to get with the new national security team, craft a strategy to confront russia for what it has done. >> are you familiar with the sanctions that senator mccain and i introduced along with democrat. >> i have not read -- >> i'm going to send them to you
and i would like you to respond in writing whether or not they will be a deterrent and if we should do it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> senator donnelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you general for stepping to the plate again. you have committed to being unrelenting. i appreciate your approach to treating mental health, just like like physical fitness as a readiness issue. it is not tied, as you know to deployments or to combat experiences happening across the board. as we look at this, one of the things they were able to do back in 2014 is this committee and the senate was able to pass legislation that provided a mental health examination for every servicemember, army guard reserve across the board, every year. this is the year, coming up that the heads of all of the services have said they are going to implement this.
do you, if confirmed, do you commit that you will move forward to a sure they they keep to that schedule? >> i will do my best, i will look if we've got the assets in place to actually allow the commanders to meet that schedule. it will probably be something where we have to make certain that we have allowed for that. >> what are the other things you talk about, assets, the most recent included a program to train military physician assistants in psychiatric care. that would help fill the gap to provide care and treatment to all who need it. if confirmed will you commit to caring that out. >> i suggest we make a program. >> there's no point in doing something if the backend is not in place. >> we will make very hard to make sure the backend is in place so it can be carried out.
my colleague and friend, senator blumenthal blumenthal was talking about mental health assistance for veterans. you know, obviously we want to make sure it's in place for service members as well, but, but we also want to talk about the handoff. when you are finished serving and you become of that, general corelli has extended antics incredible amount of time trying to prevent suicide among veterans, and talking to him, one of one of the things he told me was the biggest challenge was, when you are done on the dod side in your hand it off to the va, the drugs and prescriptions you may be receiving at the servicemember to help with challenges, they are not included in the va schedule so you may be receiving treatment with prescription acts and it's no longer available and that one of the most vulnerable times, you look up in the health and care you need is not
available. i would like your commitment that you will meet with the va, sit down with them to make sure there is no gap in the formulary, there is no gap in the handoff and we stand up and do what we need to do. >> i will make sure they are characterized in the handoff. there are a whole lot of them so we have to come up with some kind of process that addresses what the fundamental problem is, and that that is that we are not using the medical records coming out of dod for a seamless transfer and i realize there some law involved here about disability but we have to address the. >> there are a whole bunch of challenges, as you said, this particular one where you look up in one day you're being treated here and the next day you think your and the things you are being treated with are no longer available. that may be the most urgent. i to follow up on comments
regarding north korea. obviously, the icbm test would be an incredible game changer. if confirmed what approach would you recommend to the commander-in-chief as the more effective u.s. strategy to send a message to north korea? >> it is going to take an international effort. it will require patients in the region, as well as us to work together on this, and that will be challenging with at least one or two of the nations. also, i think we have to look at our negotiations stance. >> we look forward to working together on that because senator graham was talking about redlines, and sometimes when you send a message, obviously in your case it has always been that way, when you send a message message you keep it and you let them know what's coming and you do the appropriate thing.
the last thing i want to ask you about is nuclear modernization. it's very important. we have a lot of it moving forward and one of the things we have worked on his commonality that we have the navy, the air force and in many cases what the navy has done, we reinvent the wheel and have the other part of the services redo the same thing what i would like to make sure is that the air force and navy and the respected program managers, that we enhance the commonality because it can help save us money but at the same time it will also make the modernization more effective. instead of running two parallel lines that don't even -- >> your time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you chairman. general matters, thank you for your past service. >> that i just, senator matus
did you have a response to senator donnelly very quickly. >> senator i would like to talk with you or send someone over to talk to your staff about specifics under the commonalities so i know the problem. you have obviously studied the so i would just like to get some more data. >> thank you and i look forward to your nomination. >> do you think we have a broadly understood cyber doctrine. >> no i do not believe so. when will we? can you unpack for us a little bit of the past and offense of an defensive strategy? >> because of the cyber domain, it is not something the military can do in isolation. this is going to require us to work with homeland security and a number of other government elements in order to make certain what we do in the military realm is connected to what they are doing in their round because cyber cuts across everything we do today. you can't do something in
isolation, and that slows down the process. i've not been part of it up until now, but i anticipate that's part of the reason why i can't give you a positive answer right now. >> thank you, sir. >> i'm one of only about five people in the senate who's never been a politician before so i've been here 24 months, and over those 24 months, we have consistently heard we are right around the corner from having a cyber doctrine. you think we will in 18 months? - sir, i have got to scope this problem and figure out what are the issues that have caused us not to have an integrated policy right now. especially being this is going to take an integrated effort by the executive branch and probably on capitol hill, there are also, perhaps privacy concerns, constitutional concerns as part of us. we we will have to put all this together and take it one step at a time and come out with what we
think we can do quickly and i would hope that part of it can be done faster than 18 months from now, but this is a very big issue. >> thank you. >> it's possible that a traditional espionage operation could constitute an act of war? for example, if russia were to have and publish u.s. continuity of operation plans, without the inactive war. >> senator, i think i would have to study act of war and the ramifications of making that statement. generally, to me, an act of war means were going to war if it happens. that is a grave decision grave decision and i wouldn't put it on automatic pilot. i would make certain we know where we stand, make certain we know what happened, and then you would have to act appropriately. >> many of us here are concerned that the public crisis of confidence, the accelerating
public distrust is partly related to the perception that governmental response, in the executive branch to different foreign tax are treated differently, partly based on the partisan and political assumptions people make about them. if you look back to the opm hack 18 months ago, we were were told this was a fairly traditional espionage operation, but it seems to me when 22 million or whatever the exact number of americans who have serving their government have their information hacked and stolen and potentially leaked, that isn't just traditional espionage could you tell me, do you believe they should be actively deterring these sorts of cyber attacks? i assume you will say yes. can you tell us what the doctrine of deterrence looks like in the cyber domain. >> senator, the answer is yes, and my personal information was part of that week so i understand it in personal terms. i would also tell you have got to put together a doctrine that
works. i looked at nuclear warfare doctrine. we are going to have to come up with the principles for how we are going to deal with the sort of thing, and right now i can't give you a good answer. >> i have only a few seconds left so in closing, could, could you tell me a little bit about what you think human capital pipeline looks like. are we prepared for the kind of battles we will be facing. >> i think we have to get the best possible people in this is a complex area that requires technical expertise. once we get the policy, that will help us guide recruiting and organization and that sort of thing paid we have to get the policy right up front. >> thank you, sir. >> captain nelson.
>> you take me back a few years. those were very appropriate and thoughtful questions, and i think this committee is going to have a chance to do again in depth on a number of those as we explore with the future secretary of defense. those questions about cyber. in general, i think there are a number of us here that are quite disturbed about the president-elect attitude toward vladimir putin. how do you differ with what the president-elect has expressed about putin? >> senator, i'm not sure where it differs. i can tell you my view of putin
is that he has chosen to be both a strategic competitor, and an adversary in key areas and where i certainly go along with the president-elect thing he wants to have an engagement there, even in our worst years of the cold war, we actually still engage with the soviet union, for example, but i have very modest expectations about areas of cooperation with mr. boudin. >> what if the president-elect came to some conclusion with mr. boudin with regard to nato. you have certainly been involved in that because you were involved in the transitioning of nato.
what would be your advice to the president-elect about the best posture for nato in the future against the russians? >> senator, if we did not have nato today, we would need to create it. nato is vital to our national interest and it is vital to the security of the united states. it is vital to the protection of the freedoms of the democracies that we are aligned with. >> i certainly agree, but some comments by the president-elect have said that members of nato ought to be treated differently if they don't pony up with the money. does that start to tangle up and disentangle nato.
>> i am confident that the president-elect expects us to live up to our word including nato in and article five i hope you are right. >> i assume by your answer that you certainly will stand up. >> 100%. >> thank you general. >> you have commented on the political objectives must be clearly defined to ensure military success in iraq and syria. how will your recommendations for pursuing iraq and syria differ from the obama administration? >> senator i think the most important thing is to know when you go into a shooting war how you wanted to and. by setting up the conditions
upfront and coming to an agreement on that, you give it full resourcing to get there. i think getting there as rapidly as possible is possibly where it would differ from the current administration where it would be a more accelerated campaign from what the president-elect has already called for. >> you are a four-star, do you anticipate an intention with a three-star, general flynn and his position? >> no, sir, i do not. >> does that mean he will respect your rank. >> sir, the national security disc decision-making process, you don't want the tyranny of consensus of groupthink early. it's been can paired to a team
of rivals and it's actually healthy. it's not tidy, it will be respectful of that, i am certain and i don't anticipate anything but the best ideas will win. >> thank you. >> we are going to move forward right away. we want to thank you for appearing before the committee. i know you eagerly will look forward to appearances by the committee in the future. and so, we thank you. >> thank you very much. this hearing is adjourned. >> in about one minute we will convene a committee on the issue of the matus exception legislation. just wait a minute.
>> those folks who are not here, if their representative is not here to vote i. >> we now proceed the consideration of senate bill 84. we have a quorum to provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment, relief from active duty as a regular commission officer of the armed forces, the bill will authorize retired james matus to be appointed as secretary of defense. a copy of the bill should be before you. also before you is a copy of section 179 of the recently enacted continuing resolution that provides for x indicted consideration of a bill. s84 is the qualifying
legislation described in section 175 as qualifying legislation. s84 is entitled to an expedited procedure that will enable the incoming president to nominate him and for the senate to give advice and consent, for general matus to serve as secretary of defense. hopefully on on the evening of the upcoming inauguration day. i remind our members at this transition of administration takes place at a time of war when president obama took the oath of office in 2009, he had the distinct advantage to begin his term with robert gates as his secretary of defense. i believe our next commander-in-chief will be well served to have james matus on duty as secretary of defense as soon as possible in the new administration. i will invite the ranking member to engage in colloquy to discuss this historic legislation.
nearly 70 years ago, our nation was also at war and the congress took the extraordinary action to grant an exception to allow president truman to appoint general george marshall as secretary of defense and at that time they stated granting such an exception should not be repeated. during the hearing tuesday we heard from two prominent historians and scholars of civil military relations both with significant experience in the department of defense. both stated there support for the cooling off period in the law but they also said they would approve an exception for the second time in decades. i urge you to follow the recommendation to support your views so future generations can understand the action we take
today. otherwise i suggest this be left open for one week to allow many of you to include a statement to do so. without objection it is so ordered. i note that we have a hard stop for 3:00 p.m. for all senators classified briefing. without reason -- for that reason i recommend that you submit written statements for the record before we vote on the bill. i invite the intention of the members to the right garments of section 179. it provides for the expedited consideration of this bill. in order to avail ourselves to the expedited procedure, the bill may not be amended. it's also my my preference to have full and open consideration of our amendments and committee proceedings but today i request members refrain refrain from offering amendments since it's not allowed under legislation.
i don't consider this procedure as establishing a precedent on how this committee will conduct its business. this is an extraordinary time and i think all the senators members for their consideration. senator reid. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i believe i colloquy will be on the floor later as we consider the bill. thank you for completing this markup that would provide a one time exception that requires individuals to be at least seven years from their military service to be appointed secretary of defense. i'd also like to discuss the implications of military relations and the defense policy and strategy. upon the testimony of both expert witnesses were informative. as we consider this legislation
today, we must be extremely careful that we do not your revocable he harm control of the armed forces. as i stated earlier this week, the control of the military is enshrined in our constitution we must never take it for granted. i have a number of concerns about changing the statutory requirement including the politicalization of our armed forces and the impact of so many recently retired officers serving at the highest echelons of our military and how that may shape the advice that will be provided to the president. further on deep concern that it will set a dangerous precedent and an exception to the long-standing statute could be construed as an ordinary legislative change to be used frequently for future nominees. nevertheless i will support a waiver of general matus based on his testimony and his commitment
commitment and military expertise which i believe will serve him wellin serving the many global challenges we face. as history has demonstrated, congress has enacted an exception one time since the creation of it and it should happen no more once in a generation therefore i will not support a waiver for future nominees nor will i support any order down to repeal the statute. this has served the nation well for the past seven decades. it is up to this committee to ensure that the principle control of the armed forces remains at tenant of our democracy. thank you. >> any members that would like to make comments at this time, please seek recognition. >> all right, if there there are no further remarks, i will entertain a motion that the committee report out the bill. >> i move. >> second. >> clerk will call the role.
>> mr. heinrich. >> mrs. warren. mr. peters. mr. chairman. twenty-four yes, three know, the motion is agreed. i think members for their cooperation and hopefully we can get this done before the 3:00 p.m. so people who have plans can fulfill those. i want to thank every member for their cooperation, and if there is any further business, if not, this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.
[inaudible] president donald trump just after taking the oath of office today signed legislation allowing him to serve as press secretary. before someone could serve as secretary of defense. after he was nominated to be have defense secretary congress approved a waiver allowing him to hold that office. the new president signed that measure today. when the senate comes into session they will vote later on that confirmation to be defense secretary. and the confirmation of another retired general the nominee for secretary of homeland security when they go back into session.
that live on c-span. also tomorrow morning president trump and vice president pens will attend a prayer service. that will be life here on c-span two again at 2:00 a.m. eastern. the senate coming in at 4:00 this afternoon they will vote on the nominations for defense, secretary and homeland security secretary. right now we will show you that confirmation hearing for retired general kelly. please accept my thanks for considering my nomination to lead the men and women of the united states department. senator's thank you for taking the time to be here on my behalf i feel very kind. my wife and family had already