tv Armed Services Chairman Expresses Frustration Over Lack of Afghanistan... CSPAN June 13, 2017 12:36pm-2:16pm EDT
the judges and prosecutors are actually elected, donations are part of that system, is a correct? >> yes, that's true. >> when you get disqualification for somebody in the special counsels office who had represented ms. clinton in the past to serve? >> it would depend on the facts and circumstances. as a general mental i think the answer is no. >> and isn't that much closer to comfort of interest? >> i don't answer hypothetical. an footings to make a determination based upon the facts and -- >> how would you did it before the special counsel? what process could a member of the senate use to inform the special counsel that you have a concern about hiring somebody that represented clinton? >> we have process when the department of justice so i would encourage you if you have those concerns to race in with the director mueller or teresa with me and i will make -- >> should i do it to you or to him? >> you could do to both and we have career -- >> i don't know if i would do
that. i don't think donations are disqualifying at all but if you represented the clinton foundation or clinton herself, it would be a bit disturbing to me but i will take care of that. as to russia, do you have any doubt that the 17 intelligence agency report that was submitted last year or early this year, that russia interfered in our election is acted? >> senator, this is an issue discussed in my confirmation rate and trouble of you attended that. at the point i access only to the public -- >> right. >> public admission which classified information -- >> but what can you tell us down? >> i know access to classified information and i think that assessment made by the intelligence community is justified based upon investigation, the evidence they had. >> jeff sessions will testify on capitol hill today. he's expected to get questions from lawmakers about his contacts with russian officials during the 2016th election campaign. this will be the first time he's testified before congress since his confirmation hearing in february.
live coverage begins at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3, and if you miss any of the hearing live you can watch it tonight at eight eastern here on c-span2. >> c-span where history unfolds a daily. in 1979, c-span was created a aa public service by america's cable-television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> sunday night on "after words," utah republican senator michael he talks about forgotten historical figures who fought against big government in his book written out of history. he is interviewed by former acting solicitor general neal cowgill. >> when you're on the lookout for them they come to gradually. ask friends come of the people i knew who they thought should get more credit than they get picked
in the case of -- this is an indian chief who is from i tried many understood federalist because he led to for centuries before we were our own country. i was intrigued by the from the outset because it is not in a most americans know anything about. and yet he had a profound impact on our system of government. he's the guy who enable benjamin franklin to learn about federalism and benjamin frankel was a conduit through which this information flowed to the rest of the founders. made its way first into the articles of confederation and think anymore percolate into the constitution. >> watch a sunday night at night eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> james mattis says the u.s. is not winning in afghanistan. he was on capitol hill today to talk about the 2018th defense budget. he told the senate armed service committee is working on a new war strategy and hopes to have
the plan ready for congress by mid-july. here's some of the hearing while the senate is on break. >> well, good morning to the senate armed services committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the department of defense fiscal year 2018 budget request. we welcome secretary mattis,, chairman dunford, secretary norquist, and thank you for your many years of distinguished service and your leadership of our men and women in uniform. before we begin, with all want to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of sergeant eric howe, sergent william bates and corporate dylan baldridge. these three soldiers from the armies 100 first airborne division were killed this week in in afghanistan. the thoughts and prayers of this committee are with their loved
ones. the sacrifice of these heroes is a painful reminder that america is still a nation at war. that is true in afghanistan where after 15 years of war we face a stalemate and urgently need a change in strategy and an increase in resources if we are to turn the situation around. we also remain engaged in a a global campaign to defeat isis and related terrorist groups from libya and yemen to iraq and syria, where just drips are helping to destroy isis and reclaim mosul and rocker. meanwhile, threats around the world continue to grow more complex and severe. north korea is causing in on the development of nuclear capable internet continental ballistic missile that can target our homeland. and iran continues to destabilize the middle east, and seek to drive the united states out of the region. at the same time we entered a new era of great power of
competition. russia and china, despite the many differences, are both modernizing their militaries, developing advanced capabilities to undermine our ability to project power globally, threaten our neighbors and challenging the rules-based world order. russia in particular continue to occupy crimea, destabilize ukraine, threaten our nato allies, bolster the murders i thought regime in syria, and pursue a campaign of active measures to undermine the very integrity of western democraci democracies. with thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines deployed in harms way around the globe, those of us who are charged with the awesome responsibility of providing for the common defense must ask ourselves if we are doing everything possible to support our brave men and women in uniform to meet the challenges of increasingly dangerous world and succeed in their mission.
i'm sad to say that we are not. in response to rising threats we've asked our military to do more and give more, but have given less and less to them. our witnesses opening statements are harsh indictment of the failure, but they are right. i import my colleagues to listen carefully to their testimony and heed their admonition to us. since 2011 spending caps mandated by the budget control act have led to a 23% cut to the defense budget. these reductions compounded by growing fiscal uncertainty and continuing resolutions have left our military with shrinking forces, depleted by dennis and aging of equipment. this has put the lights are men and women in uniform at greater risk as this committee hazarding testimony for years from our
civilian defense leaders and senior military officers. the administration fiscal year 2018 budget request, if enacted, could help to arrest the decline in our militaries readiness but ultimately and unfortunately it falls short of the presidents commitment to rebuild our military. the proposed defense budget of $603 billion is both arbitrary and inadequate. arbitrary because a top flight is simply what was written into the budget control act six years ago prior to the sequester cuts and are not equipped because it represents just a 3% increase over president obama's defense plan. it is hardly surprising then that this committee has received unfunded requirements from the military services totaling over $31 billion, all of which secretary mattis testified last night in the house armed
services committee that he supports. our military service leaders have testified to this committee that this budget would staunch the bleeding but we all are men and women in uniform more than that. it's been said that this budget request focuses on readiness, and it is true that the request of funding increases will make the common current force more ready for the next year. but ultimately writing this is more than training hours and time on the ranges. real readiness requires sufficient capacity to enable our troops simultaneously to conduct operations, prepare for deployment, rest and refit common focus on the challenges of tomorrow. this budget delivers no growth in capacity, which means that the joint force will continue to consume readiness as quickly as it is produced. these increases in capacity are reflected in these services
unfunded requirements. true readiness is also modernization. because if we mortgage future capability pay for present commitments, we have achieved a little, spatial at a time when adversaries are moving at an alarming rate to erode america's military technologicall technole and call into question our ability to project power. here, too, unfortunately, this budget request poses the old false choice between readiness and modernization. the fact is that $603 billion simply is not enough to pay for both priorities, which is why the services unfunded requirements are heavy on the procurement of new and additional capabilities that are desperately needed. all of this presents this committee and this congress with a significant choice. the administration's budget request is just that, i request. ultimately, it is our
independent responsibility to authorize an appropriate funding for our military at levels and in ways that we believe sufficient to provide for the common defense. i believe that this budget request is a start, but we can and must do better. this will not be possible, however, as long as the budget control act remains the law of the land. this defense budget request and the additional funding that our military needs is literally illegal under the budget control act. this law has done severe damage to our military. it is harm the departments ability to plan and execute a budgets effectively and efficiently, it is -- appropriations process to a halt. and worst of all, there are four more years of caps to go. we cannot go on like this.
our men and women in uniform deserve better. it is time for the congress to reinvest in our military, re-storm readiness and capabilities, rebalance our joint force, and renew america's military advantage. to do so we must revise or repeal the budget control act. we must give our troops with the need to succeed today and in the future. with the politics of this be difficult? yes. but the question all of this you must answer is, how much longer will we send our sons and daughters into harms way unprepared before we get over our politics and do our jobs? senator reed? >> thanks very much, mr. chairman crowley dishing dishing to consider funding levels for department of defense to make arm patient filtered. i also want to welcome our distinguished witnesses this morning. thank them for the service to the nation to i want to with the
which we need to be focused. secretary mattis and general dunford you've been professionals and steady hands in a tumultuous time. we face many difficult decisions both strategic and budgetary that demand the kind of leadership and engagement that old background and focus president can provide. i look forward to working with you and my colleagues as we dress these important issues. i'm proud of this committee has on his work in a bipartisan fashion during this process and is afford to working with the chairman and all the committee members to come to reasonable agree but again this year. thank you very much, mr. chairm. >> secretary mattis, welcome back. >> thank you, chairman, mccain, ranking member reed and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to testify and supportive present budget request for fiscal year 2018. mr. chairman, i request the committee accept my written statement for the record. i'm joined by chairman dunford, the department control under secretary of defense david norquist. thank you mr. chairman and mips
of the committee for your swift consideration and the senate confirmation of defense department nominees. this budget request whole to be accountable to the net and women of the department of defense. every day more than 2 million servicemembers in nearly 1 million civilians do their duty. pondering previous -- veterans and civil servants have sacrificed for our country and it's my privilege to serve alongside them. we in the department of defense are keenly aware of the sacrifices made by the american people to fund our military. many times in the past we have look reality in the eye, met challenges with help of congressional leadership, and built the most capable, or fighting force in the world. there is no room for complacency and we have no god-given right to victory on the battlefield. each generation of americans from the halls of congress to the battlefields earns a victory through commitment and sacrifice. and yet for four years the
department of defense has been subjected to or threatened by automatic across-the-board cuts as a result of sequester, a mechanism meant to be so injurious to the military it would never go into effect. but it did go into effect, and is forecast by then secretary of defense panetta, the damage had been severe, hollowing out our force. in addition during night of the past ten years congress has enacted 37 continuing resolutions to fund the department of defense, thus inhibiting our readiness and our adaptation to meet challenges. we need bipartisan support for this budget request. in the past by putting to pass a budget on time or to eliminate the threat of sequestration, congress sidelined itself from its constitutional oversight role. continuing resolutions coupled with sequestration locked a new
programs, prevented service growth, stalled industry initiative and placed troops at greater risk. despite the tremendous efforts of this committee, congress as a whole is met the president's challenge. i retired for military service three months after sequestration took effect. four years later i returned to the department and i been shocked by what i've seen about our readiness to fight. while nothing can compare to the heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no inning in the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military than sequestration. we have only sustain our ability to meet america's commitments abroad for our security because our troops have stoically shouldered a much greater burden. but our troops stewart commitment cannot reduce the growing risk. it took us years to get into this situation. it will require years of stable
budgets and increase funding to get out of it. i urge members of this committee and congress to achieve three goals. first, fully fund our request which required an increase to the defense budget caps. second, passive fiscal year 2018 budget in a timely manner to avoid yet another harmful continuing resolution. and third, eliminate the threat of future sequestration cuts to provide a stable budgetary planning horizon. stable budgets and increase funding are necessary because of for external factors acting and the department at the same time. the first force acting on us that we must recognize is 16 years of war. when congress approved the all volunteer force in 1973, our country never envisioned cindy our military to war for more than a decade without pause or conscription. america's long war has placed a
heavy burden on many women in uniform and their families. a second concurrent force acting on the department is the worsening global security situation the chairman spoke about the we must look reality in the eye. russia and china are seeking veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions on their periphery. north korea's reckless rhetoric and provocative actions continue, despite united nations censure and sanctions. while iran remains the largest long-term challenge to meetings stability. all the while terrorist groups murder the innocent and threaten peace in many regions while targeting us. a third force is everson actively contesting america's capabilities. for decades the united states enjoyed uncontested our dominant superiority in every operating domain or realm. we conjure to put our forces when we wanted, assemble them
where we wanted and operate how we wanted. today, every operating domain out of space, sea, undersea, land in cyberspace is contested. a fourth concurrent force is rapid technological change. among the other forces noted thus far, technological change is one that necessitates new investment, innovative approaches, and new program starts at a been denied us by law when we been forced to operate under continuing resolutions. each of these four forces, 16 years of war, the worsening security environment, contested operations in multiple domains, and the rapid pace of technological change requires stable budgets and increased funding to provide for the protection of our citizens and for the survival of our freedoms. i reiterate the security and
solvency are my watchword as secretary of defense. the fundamental responsibility of our government is to defend the american people, providing for our security. and we cannot defend america and help others if our nation is not both strong and solvent. so we in the department of defense only to the american public to ensure we spend each dollar wisely. president trump is nominee for senate approval specific individuals will bring proven skills to discipline our departments physical processes to ensure we do so. ..
>> however we all recognize it will take a number of years of firefighting delivered on time to restore readiness. to strengthen the military, president trump requested a $639 billion top line for the fy 2018 defense year budget. this year's budget reflects five priorities, the first priority is continuing to improve war fighter readiness begun in 2017 , filling in the holes from trade-offs made during 16 years of war, nine years of continuing resolutions and budget control. the second priority is increasing capacity while preparing for future investment, driven by the results from a national defense strategy we are working on now. our fiscal year 2013 budget request ensures the nation's current deterrent will be sustained and support continuation of its much needed modernization process. the third priority is
reforming how the department does business. i am devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar that's spent on the fence, thereby earning the trust of congress and the american people. we have begun implementation of a range of reform initiatives directed by the 2017 national defense authorization act. we are on track to enter into a full agencywide initial statement on it as required by statute. i urge congress to support the department request for authority to conduct the 2021 base realignment and closure or ground. i recognize the careful deliberation that members must exercise in considering this but bracket is one of the most successful and significant efficiency programs we have. we forecasted a properly focused closure effort that will generate $2 billion or more annually and over a five-year period that would
be enough to buy 300 apache attack helicopters, 120 and f-18 super hornets or for virginia class submarines. the fourth priority in the fy 2018 budget request is keeping faith with servicemembers and families. talented people are the department's most valuable asset. but we must continually balance these requirements of investment in our people against other investments critical to readiness equipping and modernizing the force to ensure the military is the most capable were fighting force in the world. >> investment in military compensation blended retirement, the military health system and family programs are essential to feeling the talent we need to sustain our competitive advantage on the battlefield. our fifth priority is support for overseas contingency operations, for fiscal year 2018 presidents budget request 64.6 alien dollars focusing on operation
in afghanistan, iraq and syria, increasing efforts to sustain nato's defenses to deter aggression and global counterterrorism operations. isis and other terrorist organizations represent a clear and present danger and i'm encouraged by the willingness of our allies to bear the burden of this campaign alongside us. moving forward, the fy 2019 budget informed by the national defense strategy will have to make hard choices as we shape the 2019 to 2023 defense programming. the department will work with president trump, congress and this committee to ensure future budget requests are both sustainable and provide the commander-in-chief with viable military options that support america's security. in some asian, first i need the bca lifted and budget, not a continuing resolution passed on time and
elimination of future sequestration cuts could provide a stable and adequate way ahead on budget. for those who are concerned, we are not asking for sufficient dollars. please consider the following. 2017, as a supplemental, we ask for $30 billion in the congress provided $21 billion for our administration to address readiness shortfalls. second, the fiscal year president trump is requesting 574 billion+29 billion in the department of energy budget plus $65 billion for overseas contingency operations. this is a five percent growth over what the department had for2017 . this request is $52 billion above the budget control acts defense. we have underway at this time a national security strategy review and that will give us
the analytic rigor to come back to you for the fy 19 to fy three budget request when we will build up our military from the situation that the chairman and i have laid out in our written statement. i am keenly aware that each of you understands the responsibility we share to ensure military is ready to fight today and in the future. i need your help to inform your fellow members of congress about the reality facing our military and the need for congress as a whole to pass a defense budget on time. thank you members of the committee for your strong support over many years and for ensuring our troops have the resources and equipment they need to fight and win on the battlefield. i pledge to collaborate closely with you for the defense of our nation and our joint effort to keep our armed forces second to none. thank you ladies and gentlemen and chairmandunford
is prepared to discuss the military dimensions of the budget request area . >> chairman mccain, ranking member reed, thank you for the opportunity to join secretary mattis and norquist with you today. i'm honored to represent you men and women in uniform and it's because of them i can say with confidence yourarmed forces remain the most capable in the world . however, the competitive advantage the united states military has long enjoyed his eroding. a number of factors have contributed that erosion chairman mccain, you mentioned several in your opening comments. since 9/11 an extraordinarily high level of operational tempo has accelerated the wear and tear of weapons and equipment. meanwhile budget instability and budget control act as force the department to operate with fewer resources than required to strategy record. >> as a consequence, we prioritize near-term readiness at the expense of replacing aging equipment and
capability development. we also maintain the force that consumes readiness as fast as we build it. we lack sufficient capacity to meet our current operational requirements rebuilding and maintaining full spectrum readiness. the secretary and service chiefs have addressed that dynamic in their testimonies and i fully concur with their assessments. but beyond the current readiness, we are confronted with a significant challenge that i assess that we now near-term. we've been primarily focused on the threat of violent extremism, our adversaries and potential adversaries have developed advanced capabilities and operational approaches, specifically designed to limit our ability to project power. they recognize our ability to project power is a critical capability necessary to advance the homeland and advance our interests and meet our alliance commitments. secretary mattis alluded to russia, china and iran have fielded a wide range of cyber, space, aviation, maritime and land capabilities specifically designed to limit our ability
to employ and sustain our forces. russia and china have also modernized the nuclear arsenal while north korea is on a relentless path to field nuclear armed icbms that can reach the united states. in a few years if we don't change the trajectory we will lose our qualitative and our quantitative competitive advantage. the consequences will be profound. it will affect our nuclear deterrence, our conventional deterrence and our ability to respond. alternatively we can maintain our competitive advantage which is sustained, sufficient and predictable funding. the fy 18 budget is an essential step. this request alone will not fully restore readiness or arrest the erosion of our competitive advantage. doing that will require sustained investment beyond fy 18. civic recommendations for fy 19 and beyond will be informed by the forthcoming national defense strategy, however we know now the
continued growth in the base budget of at least three percent above inflation is necessary to preserve just the competitive advantage we have today and we can assume our adversaries will stand still. as we ask for your support we recognize the responsibility to maintain the trust of the american taxpayer. we take this responsibility seriously and we continue to eliminate redundancies inefficiencies where possible. >> thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you this morning and more importantly thank you for ensuring american sons and daughters never find themselves in a fair fight and with that chairman, i'm prepared to take questions. >> secretary norquist? >> i have no separate opening remarks. >> thank you, secretary mattis, you've received unfunded requirement list, to make sure the military services amounted more than 31 billion. every review goes unfunded requirements list. >> i have. >> do you agree these are military requirements that should be funded?
>> i think we have our priorities right in the base budget but i've reviewed the unfunded requirements, i believe it $33 billion and i think we would receive more money does request are appropriate. >>. >> i guess my question is is it your request that we give you $31 billion more? >> chairman, i'm here to defend the budget as it stands because i can defend every priority there. >> if the congress were to allocate additional funds to national defense, i believe the unfunded priority list gives good priorities. >> so you are satisfied with a budget basically at three percent increase in budgetary requirements? >> chairman, when it comes to defense serve, we had this
point, i think the president's budget if allocated appropriately to the priorities, the priorities listed by the service as we go more deeply into the readiness challenge are certainly, well tuned what we need. >> i be happy to see more money if the congress was to allocate additional funds and along the lines of the unfunded priority list, >> i appreciate your willingness to cooperate , a lot of times we depend on your recommendations in order to shape our authorization and appropriation. >> yes sir. >> i can't of any priorities i'd put less in place then the unfunded priorities list ifwe are given additional money , that would be a decision by you. i have to represent the president's budget since he's having to deal with a water
portfolio and just defense. >> let me put it this way, will this three percent increase give you the confidence that we need that we are doing everything we can to make sure that our men and women serving in uniform are adequately equipped to train and ready to fight? >> chairman, it took a good many years to get into the hole we're in. it will not be enough in itself to take us where we need to go. it's going to be a campaign as i laid out started without request for an additional 30 billion during this fiscal year. the growth that we had 2018 budget and when i get done with the defense strategy and review, we will be coming back to you for more probably along the lines of five percent growth, 35 percent growth but no, it will not take usthe hallway in the right direction . >> mid-june congress asked at
least a physical fiscal budget, something that should embarrass every member of the senate and house, either the house or senate is starting to wrap this but considering appropriations bills because there's no resolution on the top line. this body knows what needs to be done, a bipartisan budget deal to set the budget levels but has refused to begin such work. if we don't begin negotiating today is likely the military once again will begin the fiscal year on a continuing resolution. what would be the impact of starting this year on a continuing resolution at the budget control act levels or $52 billion in your request? >> chairman, it can only worsen the readiness situation we face now which has been laid out starkly i believe by the service teachers if we're going with a continuing resolution. >> conversation you and i had was about a strategy for afghanistan.
we are now six months into this administration, we still haven't got a strategy for afghanistan. it makes it hard for us to support you when we don't have a strategy. >> we know what the strategy was the last two years, don't lose. that hasn't worked. you just mentioned in my opening statements we just lost three brave americans. >> when can we expect congress of the united states to get a strategy for afghanistan that is a departure from the last eight years which was don't lose. >> i believe by mid july, we will be able to bring to you in detail that we are putting it together now. and there are going to the actions being taken to make certain that we don't pay a price for the delay but we recognize the need for urgency and your criticism is fair, sir.
>> i'm a great admirer of yours mister secretary and so are those men and women who have had the honor of serving under you. but we just can't keep going like this. you can't expect us to fulfill the three requirements that you gave, funding increase, pass the budget, prevent a stable budget and present a stable budget if you don't give us a strategy. i hope you understand that not criticizing you but there are problems within this administration. >> i was confident that within the first 30 to 60 days we would have a strategy on which to start working. >> so all i can tell you is that unless we get a strategy from you , you're going to get a strategy for us. and i appreciate our wisdom and knowledge and information and all of the great things
with the exception of some to my left ear but the fact is, it's not our job. it's not our job, it's yours. and i have to tell you, the frustration that i feel is obviously palpable because it's hard for us to when you don't give us a strategy which then leads to policy which then leads to authorization, which is our job. so i hope you understand that we're going to start getting more vocal in our criticism of not having a strategy for afghanistan. do you agree that we are not winning in afghanistan? >> understand the urgency, i understand it's my responsibility. we are not winning in afghanistan right now.
and we will correct this as soon as possible. i believe the three things we are asking for stand on their own merits however, we look more broadly at the protection of the country. i in no way does that relieve me of the need to deliver that strategy to you sir. >> i thank you general and i understand very well as you members of this committee that some of this is beyond your control. but at some point we have to say look, congress and the american people oh b, congress does the american people a strategy which will then lead tosuccess in afghanistan . i am sure that the three names that i just mentioned in my opening statement, their parents and their wives and their husbands, families and their members and family are very aware that we have no strategy. so let's not ask these
families to sacrifice any further without a strategy which we can then take and implement to help you. i'm fighting as hard as i can to increase defense spending. it's hard when we have no strategy to pursue. i hope you understand the dilemma that you are presenting to us. >> i do sir. >> thank you very much mister chairman. mister secretary, as we discussed in your testimony and in the chairman and my testimony, even if you get the additional $2 billion with sequestration in place, you would essentially have to turn around and forfeit that at across-the-board cuts, is that your understanding? >> yes, sir. >> and those across-the-board cuts would be more disruptive than anything i could conceive because there would be no prioritization and it would just be taking from the
most sensitive programs. leaving money and programs that might not be? >> that's correct, it would be injurious and again it would timeline both this committee and myself in making wise decisions. >> did you make that point to the president in terms of the ultimate consultation about about this budget? >> in your role as commander-in-chief. >> i assure you sir, president trump is keenly aware of the situation. >> and what is his position on sequestration? >> i prefer to mine serve, because i can speak most authoritatively there but the bottom line is the administration believes that congress has to repeal the budget control act and the sequestration thatfollows . >> but wouldn't it be not only appropriate but conventional that that be incorporated in the present budget because the ramifications of sequestration are clearly
played out in every aspect of the budget and remaining silent as i believe we did in the budget leads a lot of people wondering what is his real position or does he even understand what's going on? x said to read, for part of the executive branch and one of the constitutions gives you the authority to deal with that very situation. >> though i think we all know what needs to be done. i heard from republicans and democrats on this committee for a long time. >> the interesting thing is i haven't heard a clarion call from the president and also a practical response and solution as to how we not only undo the dca but what are the properties and to allocate resources to defense spending, domestic spending and other spending and without that again, it goes in the same trajectory of no
strategy, there's no budgetary strategy here either. it's just do something and i think the chairman! is very late in the game and the ability for us institutionally to, we write budget and reallocate resources and defense and nondefense, to increase defense spending without any guideline or framework from the administration is not possible, it's very difficult, use is that? >> senator reid, we submitted a presidential budget for the department of defense. we believe that is guidance. we submitted the unfunded priority list on the pentagon in accordance with the will of congress and we believe that is guidance for what we need. >> just let me final point, i respect you immensely but the budget that's submitted will not work. >> if nothing is done to the aca and sideline bca, the $52 billion we give you we will
take back in a more harmful fashion even if we didn't give it to you, if we left these levels, at least you prioritize. >> let me change gears for a moment. >> have you received a direction, you and your colleagues on the national security agency from the president to begin intense planning and preparation for what appears to be an inevitable renewal fiber attacks by russia against the united states, particularly in the context of the elections? have you received any guidance? >> we are in constant contact with the national security staff on this and we are engaged, not just in discussing the guidance but in actual defensive measures. >> and has guidance then the president been laid out in some type of authoritative way on the mission to protect the country in this respect
or is it something just collateral to your discussions? >> senator, i'm under no confusion whatsoever of my responsibilities in the organizations i have national security agency and cyber command about what we are supposed to be doing right now. we're taking active steps on that but i can reach you in a closed hearing. >> so general dunford, i think you testified that russia represents the most significant threat to the united states, not only in their new aerial denial systems that you i think alluded to but also in their cyber operations, is that your position? >> it is senator and i included the nuclear capability as well as behavioral. >> finally, my last few seconds, do you believe that's the position of the president of the united states that russia particularly in all these new dimensions is the most significant threat to the united states? >> mister secretary. >> sir, i prefer to let him
speak for himself on that. i can assure you that from law enforcement to the intelligence agencies and all that information is available and the brief to the president. we are recognizing the strategic threat that russia has provided by its misbehavior. >> but you recognize that the question is this, he recognizes this? >> i had full support for example with the european reassurance initiative where we are sending more troops to europe, they are not being sent there for any reason other than to temper russia's designs. that had full support on the things we had to do in order to address russia's choices. >> thank you. >> at you so much. >> thank you for your service. let me say this about sequestration.
>> are not thinking about the failure of this congress and this government to deal with this, i'm looking in the mirror and i take my share of the responsibility. one thing that hasn't been said is the reason we got sequestration to start with is that there's two thirds of americans spending that on autopilot. >> is a very popular program, the entitlement programs, medicare, medicaid, social security and of course interest on the debt and sequestration was meant to focus us on that two thirds of the budget that we don't deal with every year. we've been unwilling politically to do that. on both sides of the eye and until we do that, we're not going to really be able to back to the problem that.us to sequestration it to start with. >> let me talk about something secretary mattis,
it might save us a good deal of money and that is multitier procurement authority. >> which is assumed in your budget proposals for destroyers, fast attack submarines and be 22 aircraft. it is my understanding that the cost assessment and program evaluation that the navy and omb all agreed that savings would be significant if we go with multitier procurement authority, but we'd laugh at this point a preliminary determination to begin to implement this. a final determination can come later, but we need a preliminary determination. so are you aware of the situation, secretary mattis, do you agree that the
assumption in your budget is correct and that this will save money and can you help us on this? >> i have no doubt it would save money to have multitier procurement, especially of things that take a lot of steel, a lot of equipment build. the economies of scale allow for enormous savings. we would have to have a repeal of the bca in order to give the confidence to the industry that can buy that stuff that won't sit in the shipyard when funding dries up the next year. so again, we come right back around to the very thing chairman and ranking member that's been discussed about what dca does to us. it removes the chance for even wise investment of the money you give us. >> okay, but at this point the immediate situation is that i need you to commit to this committee that you will intervene to ensure that we get the preliminary determination necessary to
move us forward at that point. we don't need to repeal bca to get that done, will you help us on that? >> we will help you, yes sir. >> thank you very much. let me ask you in the remaining time, i appreciate what has been said about winning in afghanistan. i know it's over the last few days a group of my colleagues have advocated that it's been too long, we need to look at the timetable. a decade and a half is too much, we need to pull out and let afghanistan take care of itself. what is your, and let me say i think that would be a massive mistake which would affect security of americans, i hope you agree with that. if you could comment on that but also define for us what winning in afghanistan means, and if we are successful there, and have a follow on
force that's not involved in combat, much as we have had for 70 years in europe and a long, long time in southkorea , that would be certainly something that i could live with but if youcomment on that . >> i believe you are correct that to walk away from this, we've already seen what can come out of these kind of ungoverned spaces. problems that originate there do not stay there. they come out, they threaten all of us. they threaten world order and our economy. they threaten our very country. as far as what this wedding look like, the afghan government and with international help we will be able to handle the violence and drive it down to a level that local security forces can handle it and with our
allies we probably require a residual force during training and maintains a high-end capability so that the threats, should they mature, we can take them down and keep this at a level of threat that the local government and local security forces can handle. it's going to be an era of frequent skirmishing and it's going to require a change in our approach from the last several years if we are to get to that position. >> do the people of afghanistan want us there? >> there is no doubt the majority do serve. the reason the taliban have used bombs is because they cannot win at the ballot box and they know that. and the people who want us there and that's based on the outcome that's a rather large assembly of local and provincial and national level leaders plus it's based on polls not run by the united states, by other organizations and i have no doubt that they want us
there, not all of them do but the ones that don't are not the ones who are looking forward to afghanistan's future as we think it ought to look. we and the afghan people. >> to serve. >> thank you mister chairman. i want to continue the line of questioning started by the ranking member. i'm concerned about the success of russian information efforts in influencing the course of the 2015 elections in the united states as well as efforts to destabilize democracy across the globe. how is the department working with agencies to counter russian information warfare in the united states and acting of our electoral system and how are you working with our partners and allies to fight these efforts? >> secretary mattis. >> first of all, ma'am, there's constant information defining the problem is critical because they tried to do it in a deniable manner. so we work inside our
interagency efforts, law enforcement puts everything from fbi and any other police organization that gives information on this but it's mostly been fbi, our intelligence agencies work together to. we have been sharing of information and we also work with our allies sharing information back and forth and you've seen some of that, some of it can be released. you will see it in the newspaper about what's going on in other nations elections right now, for example in europe this morning bloomberg reported russia managed to hack 39 states electoral systems and attempted to alter data though it was not successful. last week late nsa documents suggested gr you, russia's military intelligence agency attacked the company to manage voter rolls in eight states including new york. the attackers use that information they sold the lot started attacks against 122 local election officials just
12 days before the election. this information highlights the urgent need to protect our elections infrastructure from cyber attack to protect our process. during the last election national guard units assess election systems with those type of intrusions. you think there's a role for the national guard in securing election systems? >> there may be ma'am. i think i our organization right now is still adapting to this new domain, one of the reasons we don't want a continuing resolution as we have to do new things. i also assume in something like this that what you just outline is not the whole problem, it's worse. >> do you think we should consider a 9/11 style commission to just do a deep dive on where are our cyber vulnerabilities, what are the things we need to do to prevent cyber attacks in the future. in the same way the 9/11 commission made recommendations that frankly have subverted her attacks in new york over the last decade
because those recommendations did have an impact on how to protect against future terrorism? >> center, i have to look at what is the problem we are trying to solve. i think reorganization of cyber command and nsa along the lines that have been proposed congress, that also is part of thedefining the problem and defining the defensive measures we need to take . >> i would not be against something like that. i have to look at what the problem is that we would be assigned to do you'd make recommendations to prevent another cyber attack of our elections the same way the 9/11 commission did. basically paddling non- artisan experts to come up with the 10 things we need to do . >> i'll just tell you we have efforts underway to do these type of things right now but at the same time i'm not against what you're proposing. >> okay. i want to talk a little about
the world order in my last minute and a half. president trump's decision to withdraw from the paris climate agreement was one of several signals tothe world that the administration is repositioning the united states not as a global leader but as a country focused on his interest . upon his return national security advisor hr mcmaster and gary cohen wrote in the wall street journal the president embarked on the first morning trip with a clear outlook that the world is not a global community but an arena where nations active businesses engage and compete for advantage. our defense strategy has been predicated on talking with allies to maintain stability of regions in the world and yet is offense against we would only work with our and partners, the department redrawing his defense strategy around this paradigm? >> we do work with allies, we have alliances. we had bilateral agreements. i think we would continue to be working alongside others. the greatest generation came home from world war ii and
like it or not, we are part of the world and that is a loss that guides our foreign policy as well as our military policy. >> admiral mike mcmullen, former chairman of the joint chiefs and national security adviser jim jones just wrote an opinion piece on the same topic and you said something similar several years ago that the less we invest in diplomacy, the more we invest in bullets. you still agree with that analysis? >> yes ma'am, it's got to be a whole government approach to the world. >> thank you mister chairman. >> thank you mister chairman and good morning gentlemen, i'd like to thank you both for your service and for being here today. first i would like to note my appreciation for this budget strong support for nuclear modernization in the comments the both of you made on this issue in your prepared comments and i know mister secretary, you alluded to that in your opening statement as well. i was pleased to see the
departments request reflect the necessary prioritization for that nuclear modernization so thank you for that. general, in your opening statement you said that you assessed that within five years we will lose our ability to protect our. >> can you put that in context, what is being unable to protect project power due to our ability to project the homeland and deter conflict meet our obligation to our allies , article 5 under nato for example. >> i can center. from my perspective really since the 1990s, china, russia, other countries and study us capabilities for position munitions to our ability toproject power. he identified that as our center of gravity , the ability to protect our and when necessary to advance our interests to meet our alliance commitments. we think that plays an important role in terms and ensuring our allies that we can meet our commitments and
the specific areas where there invested in and cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, electronic worker capabilities, cyber capabilities, all focused on projecting power when and where necessary. to accomplish our objectives so they want to keep us from getting into the area and this is the case of russia with regard to nato alliances in china with regard to meeting our commitments in the pacific. they want to keep us decline forces in the area and to operate freely within the area. let's talk about competitive advantage. the problem we are trying to solve is to continue to be able to do what we have historically been able to do and that is to project power when and where necessary. we mention the role it plays in meeting our commitments and i also believe that sources lazy role in deterring potential adversaries from initiating provocation or conflict. >> you mentioned five year period, do you believe that it's in doubt now? >> it is eroding now. we have historically had the
ability to do that not uncontested but in a decisive way. i think our competitive advantage has eroded now. we would be challenged in projecting power today. we've done careful analysis of the class v level looking function by function at our capabilities, our adversaries brought capabilities. the path of capability development we are on, the path of development our adversaries are on and what we seem is an erosion over the past 10 years in our judgment. we will get to the point where we would suffer significant cattle casualties and time delays in protecting power in five years. >> do you think now that regardless of our intent, we don't have the capability to ask unless we change the path we are on?>> center, i don't think there's any question that unless we change the path whereon were going to be at a competitive disadvantage qualitatively. >> that consequential, isn't it? >> to me it affects our
ability to deter conflict. it affects the confidence our allies have in our ability to meet our commitments and at the end of the day, it makes it more interest world because both nuclear deterrence and conventional deterrence would be effective. >> if we are unable to meet the needs of the force that we have now, they are incapable of and they are not ready, do you believe that any leader will send that force in the battle? >> i think it would be very difficult for a leader to send the force into battle when his military leadership will articulate the rest associated with doing it. i want to make it clear i believe we have a competitive advantage over any potential adversary today and what i'm doing now is projecting to the future based on a timeline we've seen over the past decade where we would be if we don't turn it around. >> thank you and secretary mattis, in the last four weeks the united states has conducted three strikes against pro-regime forces, that threaten coalition soldiers in syria.
do i have your assurance that we will take any and all measures necessary to protect our forces in that area? >> absolutely, those are self-defense rights and men on the ground have the authority to do whatever action necessary and i support that question. >> during her confirmation hearing you talk about how russia had chosen to be a strategic competitor and with respect to engagement with russia, he stated i'm all for engagement but we have to recognize reality and what russia is up to and there's a decreasing number of areas where we can engage cooperatively and increasing numbers of areas where we are going to have to confront russia, do you believe this is still an accurate characterization of russia's behavior? >> i think there are modest expectations for finding areas of cooperation right now with russia until they change their behavior. >> thank you sir, thank you mister chairman.
>> thank you, mister chair, first i want to consult with the views of 16 former senior military leaders who submitted a letter today for foreign assistance and specifically made the following points, quote, proactive conflict prevents strategies are far less expensive in terms of resources and lives expended. the reactive use of our armed forces and this is signed by a number of folks we will all recognize from general breedlove to admiral mullen to general traits and crystal. i think we should keep that in mind when we review the president's budget. i believe is particularly shortsighted with regard to foreign assistance. i want to move now to secretary mattis something you said your confirmation hearing in january. i asked for your assessment
of the key threats to our vital interests and in what priority level and you said that the principal threats start with russia. >> you still view russia as a significant threat to the united states? >> yes senator i do. >> can you walk us through how this year's budget request invests in the resourceareas, the programs and initiatives that can help counter those threats ? >> center, i think the european reassurance initiative alone of $4.8 billion is designed with one target in mind, that is to dissuade russia from thinking this is a time when they want to test nato or the americans. >> i would also point out that in terms of technology we are looking at specific technology to address some of the maturing threats that they have. air, space, underwater. that sort of thing. and i think also that the
investment in pre-position equipment that allows us to move courses quickly into an area would cause a change in their strategic calculus as far as the risk on their behavior and their perspective would go up. there's also a fair amount of ground munitions and airfield announcements that are going on specifically targeted to your concerns. >> i want to thank you for that.i think those are all important investments. >> one of my concerns is that the russians employed a set of hostile, highly asymmetrical tools during our election last year and that for the cost of a fraction of the single ship they were able to use very low cost tools like actors, trolls and social media box to manipulate our media and even penetrate ourpolitical and election structures . >> do we have an overall strategy to meet that threat,
now mister secretary. >> the treaty allows for aerial surveillance in military forces, us and russia are both parties. however, in the state department russia has not been playing ball, denying the united states overflight of parts of their territory and have a resolution with russia on these matters and my understanding is those efforts , indeed. we believe the us believes that russia is in violation of the treaty. we are meeting on that issue. i've been briefed on it when the state department and national security staff in the near future. there is, certainly appears to be violations of it. i've got to go into the meeting and figure out that i've got all the information. >>. >> would declare to elaborate in an unclassified matter in this setting on the nature of those violations? >> there are areas that we've been prevented from over
flying . i think some of the other aspects of it i'd prefer to talk privately with you but that's one of the clearer violations. >> can we get your commitment to submit a response on the record, i don't unclassified as appropriate, once you have those consultations? >> i prefer to do it even before i have a consultation, i can tell you what we know right now, what we believe right now and then we can update you later. >> that's fine, if we could get that on the record.>> general dunford, while her on the topic, our general testified in march saying russia has repeatedly violated international agreements and threaten to underpin peace and stability including the intermediate rangenuclear forces treaty and the treaty on armed forces in europe. if you agree that russia is in violation of those trees?
>> i do senator. >> so let's put this plainly then, vladimir putin wanted, he can hold us traits at risk with nuclear armed cruise missiles and our only choices would be one, we send -year-old f-16 with 30-year-old nuclear weapons that can state-of-the-art russian defenses or we have a choice to escalate a tactical strike to a strategic one by responding with long-range bombers for intercontinental missiles or submarine launchedballistic missiles, is that the situation we face? >> that's a good reason why we argued to modernize our nuclear enterprise to make sure we have an effective deterrent and response. >> one of the modernization priorities is the air launched cruise missile that's going on 40 years now. general syllabus", a decade from now air comes will not penetrate russian defenses and there's an urgency to their replacement. given russia's treaty violations between american and russiannuclear forces , we can agree is an urgent priority to replace the
long-range standoff. >> as you know, were going through nuclear posture review right now. what i would say is this, the third leg of the triad, the bomber needs to be able to penetrate, needs to be ableto achieve fax and that the criteria we should have going into nuclear posture review. >> thank you, to conclude we had admiral harris come in a few weeks ago as well, he pointed out that although china is not a party to the treaty, if they were over 90 percent of their missiles would be banned by its only situation we face is the iron at three gives china illegal advantage over american forces in the specific. russia is outright ignoring the treaty in europe. we have no matching response to either of those threats and even if we did it would be illegal because we are literally the only nation in the world that restrains himself from developing intermediate range was missiles, is that right? >> it is and i think what's important about the chinese capability is that in that
category and my access that we discussed earlier where a large number of missiles and rockets they have to present a challenge as we tried to project power. >> is a critical strategic problem that we face and i know you gentlemen are working to address it. i hope we can do everything possible to help you, thank you. >> there's a wide rangein the fy 18 budget and restored in 2017, a wide range of capability areas we requested capabilities designed specifically for the challenges you've articulated. >> . >> thank you mister chairman and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. i want to ask about what's happening between qatar and its neighbors. saudi arabia severed all diplomatic and economic ties with qatar and almost immediately, bahrain, egypt and yemen did the same. this crisis began in part because it was reported that the leader of qatar gave a speech freezing around and criticizing other countries in the region. >> now it appears that that was fake news.
and that the leaders of qatar gave no such speech.the media has reported that the fbi believes that it was actually the russians who planned the story. >> i don't want to ask a question that depends on classified information so let me ask this question instead. if the news reports are accurate, what motive would the russians have had for doing something like that? mister terry, might you be able to answer that? >> i think a disruption of the international order is something russia in a shortsighted way works to their benefit. i think it does not but i can't speak for them. i think what you're seeing here though is continued, the continued problems and threat not just to our own country, not just to western europe democracies they are trying to break any kind of multilateral alliance i think
that is a stabilizing influence in the world. >> good, and i hope good in terms of your description, this is very helpful and i hope we will be able to get to the bottom of this. in our intelligence agencies have told us the russians conducted a successful cyber attack against our 2,016 elections. a few months later the russian strikes the same thing in france and now it appears they're trying to take us to a whole new level so i also though would like to ask for your help to clarify but us policy on this current dispute. after the saudi's cut off diplomatic and economic ties, the president immediately tweeted his support for the move, saying and i'm going to quote here, so good to see the saudi arabia visit with the king and 50 countries already paying off.but soon afterwards, secretary of state tillerson called on
those countries to ease the qatar blockade, saying it was quote, entering us military operations in the region and the campaign against isis. then in testimony to this committee, the air force secretary contradicted secretary tillerson and said the dispute was in fact not impacting air operations at our airbase in qatar. secretary mattis, can you clarify what is the policy of the united states government toward current dispute among gulf countries in the middle east? >> yes now. senator, the secretary of the air force was referring to the operations at that one airbase but more than that going on in the region so she was quite correct in what she was saying about that. secretary tillerson was nonetheless correct if you look more broadly at the situation where we have to work with many of those what we call gulf cooperation council states. together, we have friends in
the region senator who have problems. they admitted. one of the issues that came up when president trump visited saudi arabia was their effort to turn off the spread of rapid ideologies that undercut the ability to create the kind of ocean in which the terrorists swim. that sort of thing. so we have friends out there, we got to work with them. our policy is to try to reduce this problem but at the same time we have got to make certain that we are all working together and there is no funding whether it be from a state or from individuals in the state who can get away with it because of the lack of oversight or a law or that sort of thing. there's a lot of passions at play here, it's not ideas we deal with. >> and i understand it qatar needs to do more to fight terrorism in the field. i just want to make sure i clarify the point and
understood it correctly. general dunford, the qatar blockade affecting us military operations? >> it is not and we're watching that very closely but we've had good cooperation from authorities to make sure we continue to freely in and out of qatar where we have important airbases as well as the headquarters ofthe united states dental command. >> that you very much, i want to say this cyber threat appears to be getting bigger and bigger, more and more dangerous, taking on multiple permutations. i think that means it's important and i'm going to ask you later for an update on the status of trying to implement our cyber command elevation but this is something we've got to fight back against. >> we are on track with elevation. i don't see any issues there, there are other things about splitting them we are working through what we will work through it , thank you mister chairman.
>> thank you mister chairman, thank you for your service to our country. general, general, secretary mattis, do you see any way the current budget could be operational with the budget control act still in existence? >> i believe congress is going to have to remove the budget control act in order for that to happen for this letter to improve. >> it would be fair to say that a continuing resolution has never saved money with regard to any of the defense programs? >> i guarantee you continuing resolution cost us more money for less capability. >> last week, doctor wilson and general goldstein talked about bb 21 program and reiterated the importance that stay on time and on budget. the program ramps up next year from 1.3 billion to $2 billion requested for 2,018.
i also understand that acr or a return to dca funding levels could jeopardize funding for this and ultimately affect the timely feeling of this critical component of our future national security. general dunford, you mentioned the fact that we absolutely have to have a long-range bomber with regards to our plans or delivering any type of weapons against the upgraded press about your competitors. would you care to comment on the need for the continuation on a timely basis of the development of 21? >> i can't comment on the timing. what i can tell you is we've done three posture reviews since 2,010 i'm aware of. all of them validated the need for a triad and emphasize the need for a bomber they had a short access and so completely supportive of that and i know that general goldstein and the secretary of the air
force havetestified as to the challenges with the timing of the b 21 and i assure the committee that their leadership will be decisive in that program. >> thank you. secretary mattis, for more than a year we've talked about cyber and about the need to find policy with regards to cyber attacks within the united states. we but within the nda a a directive that the administration deliver a policy or a proposed policy back to congress by december this year and i believe that this is coming to the nda is going to fall under your purview to see that it gets done. this would not necessarily identify an act of war but rather those acts of aggression which are of significant duration similar to what a connecticut pack would be that would impact our country. do you know if the study or the planning is ongoing or if there is specific direction for the administration to
comply with that directive. >> i want to get back to you with a detailed answer on that. i understand the question, i'm not prepared to answer it right now. i know we got a lot of work going on. we are engaged in the operation but the specific answer to your question i don't have right now but i will get back to you. >> thank you sir. general dunford, the need for cyber security, cyber superiority. sometimes when we talk about air, land and sea and space, sometimes we forget to add in the fact that cyber is connected in all sequences, they are all connected. could you share a little bit with the committee about the need to upgrade the cyber capabilities and our ability not only for defense but to be able to attribute the attacks, not to defend against them but to go back in and respond and one step
further than that is to be able to survive the attack in such a fashion that we actually can respond afterwards. >> senator, thanks at first i would tell you that as we've analyzed today's conflicts and future conflicts, i would agree completely and we say we used to talk about multi-domain, now we talk about all domain and you refer to all of them, see, land and air into cyberspace. we expect cyberspace to be integral to any campaign we would conduct in future. the requirements start with making sure our own network is protected. we provide support for the rest of the government but our network is defended to include our command-and-control systems and we talked earlier about nuclear. our nuclear command and control systems but our mission of defense also requires us to take the fight to the enemy which is an integral part of any campaign we would wage and that
requires us as you suggested one, to be able to attribute it to ask and improvise the president with options in response so i will i would tell you one thing we emphasize is just because the enemy chooses to fight in cyberspace, doesn't meet our response has to be limited to cyberspace. in other words, we may experience a cyber attack but we will take advantage of capabilities we have to respond. >> thank you mister chairman. >> thank you mister chairman and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and service. in march, you each testified before the defense subcommittee of the senate appropriations on a topic that i care deeply about which is authorization for use of military force and the ongoing efforts against isis. you stated quote, i would take no issue with the congress stepping forward, i think it would be a statement
of the american people resolve if you did so.i thought the same thing for the last several years i might add and have not understood why the congress hasn't come forward with this. i believe isis is a clear and present danger. the testimony of general dunford saying in the hearing quote, i agree with the secretary. i think not only would it be a sign of the american people resolve but our men and women would benefit from an authorization of use of military force that would let them know the american people in the form of their congress were fully supportive of what they are doing out there every day as they put their lives in harm's way. is that still an accurate reflection of your views >> it is senator for me. >> absolutely center. ask center play can and are members of the foreign relations committee have introduced an authorization trying to square and difficult circle dealing with these nine state actors, isis, al qaeda, trying to exercise congressional
oversight without micromanaging functions for the commander-in-chief and his staff. i would appreciate very much both of you individually but also the administration generally trying to work with us at the head of senate foreign relations as indicated the desire to move on this and we would like to work with you to hopefully get this to a place that will express congressional resolve that you've discussed in this testimony >> i'm happy to work in concert with you, sir. >> absolutely senator, thank you. >> i don't have any other questions, thank you mister chair. >> thank you chair. i want to clear one thing up, first of all i have the utmost respect for you and god help us, we got to have you be successful. but there is zero chance, zero. i'm on the budget committee, there is zero chance the budget process is going to work. the best we can hope for is that we will and, there are
43 days left before the end of this fiscal year. we're headed toward another cr. unless we have an omnibus so the best thing we can hope for today is an omnibus. it's why we're sitting here today, it's why we're at a historic low in terms of spending on our military and we will fix this long term. we can argue about 20, 30,$50 billion. i need help on two things, one, help us with an audit. you have my full support, we're going to get the money for you but we've got to have an audit. we need a bottom-up analysis of mission-based need. were going to hypothesize about how much you need, you've answered questions but i want to give history today . in my lifetime we've invested inthe military , this is significant. once in the 70s, once in the 90s and once in the last eight years. such that today we're spending 3.1 percent of our gdp on our military.
the low point was 2.6 and 2,000. a lot of people refer back to 2,000. prior to all the things that have changed our world in the last 15 years but we recapped only one time in the 80s, we called ourselves recapping in the 2000's but we chewed that up in 16 years of war as you said. we haven't built new aircraft carriers or submarines or airplanes and here we are where most of our major platforms are touring at the same time that we have to rebuild and recap. it's estimated that by 2000, russia will have 70 percent of their nuclear triad will be absolutely new technology. it's estimated it will take us 30 years to get to 70 percent they are so we have an estimate here that says that based on historical averages of 4.1 percent, that the red line, the difference between where we were last year, 3.1 percent and 4.1 percent, that's $,200 billion. the other way to triangulate about me is bob gates in
2,011 put a five-year mission-based need requirement out and in 2,016 estimated that his estimate for 2,016 is $,130 billion more than what we have and the last one i want to give you is this, that is that general, you said our mission is to make sure our sons and daughtersnever have to fight in a fair fight. historically though, the country with the biggest economy is always , today china has reached us in power, their economy is the same size as ours. there's every reason to believe they will outpace us with the population of four times our size. there's no reason to believe that will continue to happen. my problem is this, china this year would spend$,826 billion in equivalent money , that's if we get everything you want so already there spending more in equivalent terms than we are, significantly more so when i triangulate this, this is
this year, 130 to 200 billion. that doesn't recount the that were talking about, and by the way gates did that before isis, a lot of the things we know today so what we're looking at is a situation where over the next 30 years, just the navy alone to rebuild, this is the ceo estimate is 2,016 or secretary, my question is i know you are a historian. how do we not just this year, how do we develop a long-term plan to make sure in an environment where every dime we are spending on the military and all the domestic programs is borrowed, that are discretionary spending, 25percent of what we spend. every dime of that is borrowed . and in the next 10 years we're borrowing another 30 percent of what we're spending and in that environment, how do we develop a long-term strategic plan that helps us achieve what the general has said our mission is and i agree with that mission, by the way. >> we need to have a strategic dialogue with the congress and determine what
you can do and at that point we will have to adapt a strategy to whatever level of resources you can give us to avoid a strategic mismatch and protect the country. >> with due respect, you mention one time before you are working on a mission-based estimate and it's going totake some time to come together . is that correct? >> there's a strategy review underway, is that the agenda? >> center, is really two pieces and we have been involved over the past 18 months in doing a comprehensive analysis of what we're using as benchmarks joint force so we look carefully at china, russia, north korea and violent extremism that has not predicted as that being the only threats we will face but with a key assumption being that if we benchmark our capabilities and capacities against one or a combination thereof of those challenges, we will have to
write force, we carefully gone through and on a functional analysis that we're going to share with the committee at the top secret level that basically takes a look at our relative advantage or disadvantage, by functionalareas against each of those challenges and in the aggregate , effective of those competitive areas in our ability to meet our objectives in a conflict. regardless of where the secretary goes with a defense strategy, what we intend to do is provide the secretary with us or a bottom-up need-based prioritization. i believe we are in a position right now to provide the secretary recommendations for a bottle needs based requirements. and again, what we've done is taken all the analytic work is been done against each one of those problem sections and dissected so we can make clear recommendations to make our competitive advantage but identify where we need to be five years from now and what specific programs will help us get there and that's obviously the latter part of that is a work in progress and we continue to review that constantly but i feel
like for the first time in many years, as a result of an emphasis on assessment over the last 18 months, we're going to be in a position to have a good constructive dialogue with the secretary and the secretary would be empowered to have a constructive dialogue with congress and the to outline our requirements and more importantly, the specific in black meeting or not meeting those requirements in our ability to achieve our objectives against those states we are using as a benchmark x when can we expect that? >> is available right now, we started to talk to the committee about that and we are informed now by some detail work that's been done on a couple of those problem sets. the work is reflected in this year's budget recommendations. >> you can find the rest of this hearing online at c-span.org. live now to the capital for remarks bylawmakers . >> the