tv Defense Secretary Russia is Competitive Adversary Not Partner CSPAN June 12, 2017 10:18pm-11:10pm EDT
final will you following leader marks, senator paul or his designee be recognized as under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if ness to further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: we will stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m.
. >> mr. chairman secretary mattis i'm a new congressman and i have to tell you i am surprised but we have across the globe and i quickly became the captain of a 335 ship me. with that to future defense strategy might change or evolves? and don't want to put words in your routes. so soweto's major conflicts simultaneously so do you
envision and i know your crystal ball may not be perfect but what about that aspect changing over time?. >> the enemy or our adversary that is like what he uses with that unpredictable phenomenon that they deal with that is called war. that is why you have to be prepared for that is everything about the of military that has a shock absorber and then to be more than one adversary and in
one arena if they have mischief in mind they will take advantage and then to be more proposed over one thing. >> but if somebody asked you with that billion dollar reduction with the shipbuilding accounted. i did not understand your answer would you mind repeating it?. >>. >> but it reduced that shipbuilding account that the ships that you have already bought into the
money into readiness and this of the ships not to be maintained to get more use out of them. and then to put the maintenance money there as much as seven above to build new ships it is a balancing act. >> so do you reject as it characterization of those accounts levels to be reduced?. >> i just ask for your patience as we dig out of the readiness whole if we
did not have to deal with this reality coming data and the budget control act? as to be unable to maintain those ships. >> i apologize but at what point in the future to you think making strides to that 300 to fy 18 ship?. >> with the nine ships at least starts as a retraction. to share the impatience or the concern and in 2019 or 2023 be needed growth as the chairman was referring to. of three or 5% per year we
need a larger fleet. so it is a matter to allocate resources. >> mr. chairman takes for being here. and that the readiness levels that there are units that are really good with equipment and to get back to that level that was sustained that with that of 603 billion we need to be closer as a center for. that with that overseas contingency operations and
trudy cocoa fund -- oco front so right now what i see it is all underhanded so with that assumption so with those active components and to transfer that to us and to fall in to help us get through little blame them the doesn't help with long-term readiness as a national guardsman i have to have the tape i can add achieve the effect that i need to achieve communications don't work. with this active reserve when restart try to take the equipment in the old army
that i grew up bin -- if you did not use other people's equipment he painted your name on it and you all of it and it was yours. now they don't have to do that because they don't deployed with their equipment but somebody else's and they'll leave it over there for the next guy and now they can trade because of readiness. what we do about the spare parts and not transfer readiness but actually start to build the ranks of these units?. >> server, the first up is the $21 billion that congress gave as for the supplemental was directly targeted because the budget this year is designed to further that but it took us a long time to get here and again i share your
impatience but i would tell you through the oco will not tell industry with any confidence with another line to be put into the money because they know of that will be there next year for gore passed to be part of a budget plan everyone them to make that industrial contribution that the stockholders will have to put money up for for them to go broke is not part of their responsibility so there was to help us expand the industrial base for public they will not build more of their vice. >> then why don't we ask that 640 instead of 603?. >> that is an option we're already violating the budget control acts we have to
recognize as some point though laws that you passed and they don't have an answer because that was passed with the idea that it would be sold injurious it would never go into effect but it has been in effect over years now only congress can change that law. >> i agree wholeheartedly. but i do think we need a higher number and certainty to go with that if we give that to you kid you trained from negative can you train we cannot send those and soldiers to those developing class's. can you spend that money and to give money on the top line. with that multi-year money.
major defense downturn in the last 1980s and 1990s merging to form a five mega times of today. my question is do you think there's enough competition and the defense industrial base, and what steps are you taking to create more competition. >> it's hard to create the competition based on how much budget we have and how many different companies feel they can compete and stay healthy. the secretaries of defense looked at each case where they
had fewer and fewer companies but there was no way to maintain the vitality of the companies if we stood on the way of it so we were worried about it then and we saw this coming whether it be less competition but we were not able to sustain the efforts to maintain the industrial base. >> i hope you will consider having your competition if it is possible. my second question, your testimony was eloquent where you said the nation has been at war for 16 years the longest war of the country has faced and this is in part why does resources have been strained. if he were to look you were to look objectively at iraq and afghanistan and
libya and ask has the country met the objectives we set out to meet with them. caliban still controls 40% of afghanistan. so where i come from in silicon valley, when you have a business and become for more funding, one of the questions bowlby is the strategic plan working, or do we need a change in strategy? i have great confidence in the troops and less confidence in the policymakers. before we talk about more funding do we need the sense of what the strategy is going to be. so, we note that the last 16 years if we haven't achieved the goals that we both in these regions. in the big exchange between the
congress and the level of resources they believe is appropriate to the department of defense and i would start by saying it makes the congress a spectator to all this. we watched them put us into the position that some of the serving members who've been in the national guard say is destroying the very military readiness so it is a balancing act of the dialogue determining what level of the government's treasure we are willing to put into defense and make certain that what we have are well-defined objectives that we can accomplish and i'm not going to condemn what someone has done it before.
i'm here to deal with the reality of the threat of the country today. the common demand was closer to 54 than the nominal marine corps unconstrained goal of 38. is that still the case? >> that is pretty close to being the case. i remember those numbers. >> if anything i would submit the 2016 assessment with a formal requirement raised from 34 to 38 suggests in the great threat environment that demands are growing. despite this trend the budget request doesn't support another until fy 2020. the navy officials have supported the certain shifts with certain modernization that will take them out of the fleet and reduce the capacity. the request also reduces the connectors from six to 17
instead of three so i guess my question at the end of the day does the fy 18 budget request improve or degrade the capacity of the team to project power? >> i have to go back and check the numbers but it certainly doesn't enhance the power. >> the answer is in the five or so shipbuilding that he's chosen to prioritize the readiness over long-term shipbuilding. that is my word between the readiness and long-term shipbuilding in the budget. >> it is a good question
congressman. and i don't take any issue with where you're going with this. it's not a budget that has taken readiness or modernization lying down. but we have to marry our time. congress has the budget control act in effect. if we walk in here acting as this there is nothing that you set and put into law has any effect, you would understandably or at least some members of the congress would question the judgment. we've got to at least deal with this and if you come out and tell us that you are willing to go right now as a congress. you know where the problem is
more broadly. please guide us, talk to us. we are eager to do what you're talking about. >> i guess my only difference of opinion on that approach suggests that the pentagon and the president are past the spectators in this process and what the congress shall market can bear. when we know that leadership from article one can change the market dynamics themselves. >> article one if i remember right. >> why does the budget extend the reductions under the bca from 2021. it is down to roughly 20% of gdp. when you are looking at the numbers they are placeholders. the reference is when the studies were done to include the
out years and implications but right now they are just placeholders. going back to the line of questioning that was brought up, . what is the department assessment of what we have been able to buy from the last round? >> we could show the amount of money that we have saved. and it goes into the defense budget. we can give you some examples of what i was showing that the savings would translate to but we can certainly go back to show what we have saved from the past and then tell you what that translates into and turned to the number of ships or airplanes or tanks, whatever. >> we all appreciate that and in the assessment of what the investment and readiness are prepared to forgo.
the cost on the front end mr. secretary, the last round took more than ten years to break even. part of the reason there is concern on this committee and last time i checked they didn't have a break even yet a. it took ten years, not a couple. so that has led to a bitter taste in a lot of folks mouth. just an editorial comment. i'm happy to continue to talk as i know other members are.
i don't accept the current. thank you mr. chairman and your patience and leadership. a lot of great insightful comments and one of the ones that stand out we have the wave of modernization is the chairman pointed out and you had to work with them in the top line that you've been given. today only 32% of the combat commanders, airborne intelligence are deemed by the capabilities of combatant commanders requirements. they are choosing between providing support for the
counterterrorism or the collection that competitors like russia and china. is 30% good enough? and does the current budget proposal by you or the executive branch is it helping to narrow that gap? >> we've actually grown the isr enterprise by 1200% since 2001. we increased the numbers and platforms by 600% since 2008 and we are currently meeting 30% of requirements. so, this is one of those areas in the department i don't think we can buy our way out of and it is probably number 140 in terms of the innovation initiative in finding a different way to feed the decision-making. we won't be able to buy enough platforms by the combatant commanders and get we still need to get the intelligence necessary to feed the decision-making so i guess what i'm suggesting is we do have
your growing from the 60 to 90 the next couple of years that is our program growth, so 50% growth and at the end of the period of time, i suspect we will be a 34 or 35%. so the areas we need to burn some intellectual capital on in this particular problem is at the top of the list. >> secretary, do you have anything else to add to that? >> the military has a shrunken down to the need for the more precise intelligence to mitigate the risk that the smaller military. so part of this is a growing need for a level of what is over the next hill and what's going on as we have gotten a smaller military that we are still committing as you know around the world. we didn't pull everybody out as we had anticipated a few years ago and reconstituted at a time we could have put more effort into this, more finances into it.
so, we are going to have to continue to work this. that's what we are doing right now is challenging to shrink the gap. >> another concern, when i came in a 1985, we had a dominant electronic warfare capability compared. but in the '90s and i think in 2000 i would say today the russians and the chinese are producing electronic warfare capabilities technology and capacity that exceeds us. does this budget over and narrow the gap in the electronic warfare realm? >> i couldn't agree more that the competitive advantage over the warfare when we talk about the ability to project power into adversaries like china and russia to move into the operational area within that
area you've heard the term electronic warfare for the competitive edge. you have endorsed the efforts to add a feud thousand additional troops to prop up the afghan security forces in the face of the attacks so i want to dig more deeply into the testimony provided. why would the new approximately 15,000 troops be decisive when just a few years ago there were close to 100,000 in afghanistan?
have the interests or the mission changed? >> as you know they've been fighting hard we just have to look at the figures to see that reality. the troops that are being asked for a don't want to characterize them all this way but they will be trained advise, assist. to go out on the field and apply them with the brigade. remember the three-star headquarters into the division headquarters then you get down to the one star and they are talking about putting nato air support down so when they are in contact the high ground will now be owned by the afghans. it's a change to the superiority
to help them. so we are not talking about putting the troops on the front line and save a few thousand in the front line alongside them to help by closing with the their rifles and machine guns. it's going to be people specifically equipped to go in and advise them how you get than the air support and artillery support and rocket support. does that help to address the question? >> like you i am supportive of showing the birds that want to attack and that are unable to gain a safe haven again in afghanistan and i support those efforts. but when it comes to corruption and ensuring the investment is a sound one in afghanistan, what do we need to do to ensure our
support for the afghan security force is used appropriately and effectively? >> i think corruption has been the biggest strategic vulnerability that we faced in terms of the government of afghanistan gaining the respect and trust of their own people. the authorities that we give to these people that are plugging him down at the lower levels one thing that will help change that furthermore i went to afghanistan a month and a half ago and met the officer but as you know this is a society that is run by reciprocity and it is a tribal society by and large and we have to deal with it in a way that is consistent with that society. they recognized that something
has to be done about it and this is a critical problem. we will be dealing with it and we will do our best to address it. we've got to. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> i appreciate your time here this morning. there is no more important obligation than then providing the resources necessary for the nation. it doesn't matter how much hope here. we can't get this right without repealing the act. having said that, laying out the
gravity that we face and the seriousness of the situation and the adversaries that are making against that including in the areas that we may not be able to counter or to defend against and the dominance lost. in your testimony, you talked about within five years the potential that we would lose the ability to project power but the budget that has been presented is at best a holding pattern best when we face an existential threat and the budget cuts for missile defense that cuts the directed energy funding. how can we possibly justify? we heard this is a holding pattern before we get to growth. how can we justify the appalling pattern and why isn't it better
today than when we should have began yesterday? >> when i talked about that in five years and we will talk in more detail on wednesday night we came up with it by analyzing the competitors looking at where are we to take it where will we be in five years based on the projected resources and where are the potential adversaries and where will they be in five years. so i am trying to share the problem but i cannot -- i also emphasize if we do not turn around at uptrend and it changed the trajectory we will be at a competitive disadvantage for trying to do the best that we can in the situation as it exists today and what it will be in five years if we do not take action. >> are we talking about the omb?
>> that is corrected as a growth of about 5%, a little of her 5% in 2017 and as i said, it is 52 billion above the cap. at some point, we have to get some free time and they will need the same. >> thatbut with all due respect mr. secretary, we are in a hole that may be later than we have been in the 1970s we were facing an array that's that physically more volatile than anytime in your career and so i am trying to understand how it is that we can possibly have an administration saying it's okay we can wait until next year to begin a serious buildup. >> i don't think anyone is saying that, ma'am. 5% growth, that is a bit of a change to say the least. >> it is 3% as i understand. over the obama administration request for 2017.
>> congresswoman, we are growing the budget and dealing with readiness problems that we inherited that the congress has watched for some time, and we are going to do our best to create the combat capability as quickly as we can using an all volunteer force and trying to get the shifts back to see and airplanes back in the air. >> i'm sorry but i just don't understand when you say we are going as quickly as we can why tonight you said we will begin real growth next year widely have to wait until next year to begin that real growth? >> the one thing we have to put some money into their readiness where we are already in the hole. i mean we can look at the unfunded priority is list and after the priority we already said i agree with of the unfunded priority is as well. that is $33 billion more.
but the bottom line is, you are asking us to come in with a budget request beyond what we have now that would be more of a violation of the act congress has passed. i mean, frankly as i recall the six textbook they don't even have to send a budget. it's up to you. >> with all due respect my time is up just to echo what my colleague said, the president has to lead on this and in terms of the budget proposal that came out but i know you dealt with in this issue of the proposed cap on the president's budget extends the budget control act out of six years so we can say it is a placeholder that foresees the budget control act and the cap going beyond where they are supposed to be today so i think we can all agree that we've got to repeal the budget control act is crucially
important that we cannot be in a holding pattern in my opinion with all due respect for a year while they face the grave nature of the threats we face. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. norquist i am grateful tonight to see the bipartisan appreciation of your service. it's clear we don't want you to be successful for american families. the vice chief of staff of the army testified that, quote based on the current readiness levels, the army can only accomplish defense planning guidance requirements as a high military risk "-end-double-quote. general, what is your assessment of the impact on our soldiers being able to accomplish the requirements at a high military risk, how many casualties does this mean for the army to incur to fight a military risk how many casualties at a low military risk?
>> without talking about a specific scenario i cannot talk about the casualties but when general allen did testify, we look at the two variables when is the time it takes to accomplish the objectives and the amount of casualties that we estimate under the particular circumstances. so i think what the general was suggesting is readiness translates into casualties and i would subscribe to that as well. >> i appreciate that the kernel has reflected such concern and wants to work with you obviously. mr. secretary, i'd want to thank you for your warnings about the destructive consequences of the sequestration. but at the same time, the budget level and request, how many years do you think it would take to address the high military risk? >> it is a constantly moving target because they don't stand still but i would just say
between this time be intended to significantly grow the force of the navy fleet and army brigade and the fighter squadrons to reduce that risk. >> i'm very concerned. the defense budget request states the condition of the missionsthemission facilities, airfields training areas directly impacting readiness for the units and the morale of the soldiers and civilians in families coming at the budget also tells us that the army has 10.8 billion unmet needs and they may be short and the air force is $25 billion short. how long will it take to fix these critical backlogs, five years, ten years, 20 years? will be able to be a coup ever be able to fix these for the sailors, airmen and marines to train for war and for their families to the?
>> we are increasing the budget. as we look more broadly at this and as i said earlier congressman wilson, we didn't get into this overnight, and it is going to take time to get us out of this. we were given a topline as the president's budget have to deal with a lot of priorities, and we are doing the best we can with the money that we have been given which is an increase over what the past years have committed. is it enough, can i give you a timeline on this? probably not right now. but it's going in the right direction and i think we would all agree with that even if it is not sufficient in terms of getting it where we need to go. the congress has the pursestrings and if the congress decides to fund the unfunded priority list, some of these issues are listed right there.
then that money could be applied to. >> specifically commend mr. secretary, the navy had unfunded requirements within $690 million for the critical repairs to the war and other facilities. the air force asked for 858 million. the army for 820 million. what is the explanation for the committee, and how should we accept over the budget request is adequate when the services are asking for so much. and really, it has been a great description by the congresswoman that we are in a holding pattern and so, we want to work with you. how quickly can we get this done? >> it's not sufficient to address all the shortfalls that grew over the years. i would be the first to admit that. and if the congress sees fit to
give us enough money to do all that, then we could probably do it a lot faster. but for me to give you an estimate would take a lot of analysis and a firm stable budget horizon that we have not enjoyed in a decade. >> thank you very much again for all of you being here tonight. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm not sure when the secretary said he kept others up at night he quite had this in mind. [laughter] mr. secretary, please know that the war fighters in my district in northwest florida are as proud of you as i'm searching you are of them. we have spent four hours in the hearing to essentially answer this question if we gave you more money than the administration requested with a stable budget horizon, could you use it effectively?
>> yes, congressman we could. >> with that above and beyond what the administration has requested to make the troops safer in combat? >> we would ensure that it did. >> and width of the money we could provide above and beyond what the administration has requested to do a good deal to advance the interests throughout the world? >> i would presume so, yes. >> and as we sit here today is it accurate that the average airplane and our air force is about 27-years-old? 27-years-old? >> i would have to confirm that, but it sounds like it is in the ballpark. >> at any other time in air force history has the average age of an aircraft then higher? >> i don't believe so, but again i would have to look at the specific data. >> today in the air force, what we have to say that more or less than half of our fighter
squadrons are fully spectrum that the? >> again i would prefer not to get too specific but you are about right. >> in the fact that we have in air force where we are perhaps the readiness is less than optimal with aircraft that are older than any other time in air force history could you take just a moment and reflect on the impact that has on the ability to project power and the safety of those we send into combat? >> congressman i think that you've heard we have pilots that are not current enough to stay in their creek or they have the confidence to stay in the aircraft. we have readiness problems across the force and for anyone who's been on the committee for more than a year this probably is not a surprise it was a bit of a shock for me coming back to the department.
but when you are outlining it appears to be a pretty good definition of the problem. >> earlier in response to a question you indicated that you thought that they were moving in the right direction. i appreciated it but did you say should because it is quite binary in the a world that is always moving, things are always going in the right direction or in the wrong direction. what characterization would you apply to turkey are they going in the right direction or the wrong direction? >> and with regard? >> in the same regard which you answered the question as it related to qatar. >> it is whether they were moving away from the funding and much of it was private funding not governmental funding of any kind of violent extremists and in that regard they were moving in the right direction. i'm not aware of turkey funding violent extremists. >> been in the broad sense
mr. secretary, of the interaction with the world and our allies taking into account the utilization of the turkish airspace and military assets and also taking into consideration the challenges that we have with the greeks and turks are they moving in the right direction or the wrong direction? >> turkey is a nato ally as you know it's got an internal political issues that they are dealing with. they've provided an air base that has been invaluable in the fight against isis. it's a mixed bag in that regard. but i think right now we are doing the best we can in areas that we have a common interest in order to take advantage of the situation that they provide being right on the border in into front-line states against terrorists. >> thank you so much mr. secretary. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you both for responding
to all the questions that this committee put forth to you. i think you can tell there is bipartisan interest going above 603 and also bipartisan interest in working with you to reform the department to be more agile and efficient which is also a part of the equation. so, needless to say we have worked together yet to come. without objection members of three legislative days to sit at extraneous material for inclusion in the record, consistent with the committee policy limits and with that, the hearing stands adjourned [inaudible conversations]