tv Defense Secretary Says Looming Threats Outstripping Budget Resources CSPAN March 28, 2017 2:49am-4:37am EDT
able to take the tax code and rezie zien things. pfizer ceo on cutting costs. >> the exchanges don't provide them access. so i think we do need to reform the way the health care is delivered and the consequences will be the patients. epa administrator scott pruitt on environmental policy. >> clean coal technology across the globe, nuclear space, exciting. but that's happening in europe because of the disincentives we put into place in this country with respect to nuclear. c-span available at c-span.org, on our home page and searching the video library. defense secretary james mattis and joint chiefs of staff chair general dunford briefed
the senate appropriations defense subcommittee on the military's readiness and the upcoming fiscal budget. it was on the income overseas offensive and defensive abilities. many of them related to the 2011 budget control act. this is about an hour and 45 minutes. the subcommittee on defense appropriations on the united states senate will come to order. today we are receiving an update on military readiness and
defense budget matters. we're pleased to welcome to the committee the honorable james m. mattis, secretary of defense. general joseph dunford jr., chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. the fiscal year 2017 department of defense appropriations agreement has been approved by the other body in the house of representatives. and i look forward to our completing work on that bill in the coming weeks. we're well into the fiscal year and members of the subcommittee understand the poepimportance o enacting appropriations. as we complete our work on the 2017 defense agreement, we also recognize that a request for additional appropriations in fiscal year 2017 has been submitted to the congress. we welcome comments from our
panel and as well as on the submission for 2018. it's a distinct honor to have the secretary of defense before us in his first appearance as secretary. i also am pleased to welcome back to the chaeirman of the joint chief of staffs before the commit eech committee. we look forward to hear about your plan to increase military readiness and strengthen the department of defense. turn to the vice chairman senator dur ban for any opening remarks that he has. >> thanks chairman cochran. i welcome secretary mattis and general dunford. i have tremendous respect for both of these leaders and give special respect to secretary mattis. our nation has been at war for
16 years and the toll of these conflicts can be measured in more ways. more than 6,900 americans have given their lives in iraq and afghanistan. more than 52,000 wounded. our va clinics and hospitals are serving 2.5 million veterans of these wars. $1.8 trillion to support the men and women who continue to serve overseas. it's not surprising that we find our armed forces are currently under strain. but the evidence is moupting that it's not necessarily decade and a half of war that is straining our military but instead a self-inflicting congressional wound, called sequestration. it limited $35 billion from the department of defense base budget virtually overnight. the shockwave of these cuts which were never ever supposed to happen rippled through the training readiness of our
military such that the military services estimated it will take until 2020 to fully recover from sequestration. we could take off through -- we could take off through sequestration's impact, the jobs in our economic growth just as easily because it hit just as hard on deposition spending. the administration has proposed $30 billion in additional defense spending. 25 billion to build readiness, 5 billion to increase spending on afghanistan and counterisil campaigns. congress has already addressed $5 billion of the requested funds in the pending defense appropriations bill. of the remaining funding only about 8 billion -- 8 billion -- is for near term training and maintenance. in addition we are not being told that this package will accelerate the timeline for the
services to fully recover their readiness. number two. the $5 billion in overseas contingency operations funding is being requested without a strategy to support it. in fact, the president's new counter-isil tragedy may not be presented to congress until may of this year. secretary mattis, and general dunford, i hope you can provide insights on what this tragedy may be, what are we getting ready for, what are the priorities? that's not a hard question. it's an important question if we are being asked to appropriate this money. in short, it's a read aniness package the department says won't approve and a war recourse kiss connected from a strategy. third, the administration package proposes $18 million in cuts to nondefense programs. the administration has provided no detail on these cuts but we
all know what's on the chopping block. the white house is already proposing extremely reckless cuts to agencies like the state department for the next year, which would jeopardize our nation's ability to deal with crises without resulting to arms. i wish they would have listened to mattis then. general mattis stated if you don't fund the state department fully, then i need to buy more ammunition ultimately. end of quote. but the harm will go well beyond hurting our national security. some of the cuts could cut into medical research, something that many of us on this panel feel very strongly about, education and everything in between. our armed forces depend on healthy, well-educated american workforce to sign up and serve our country. cutting these programs will ultimately shrink the pool of
americans who can serve in our military making these proposals today and in the long term short sighted. finally, the administration does nothing about sequestration. if congress enacted this package tomorrow as is, omb submitted it, it would trig an across the board sequestration of military programs. can you believe it? more money triggering a cut? omb is asking to spentd more than the law allows on defense but didn't ask us to address this sequestration law. omb is asking to spend more than the law allows and we need to do something about it. previous administrations did this frequently when asked this request but not this administration. president trump's request is incomplete and doesn't address this issue in a serious way. mr. secretary, general dunford
we recognize that there are holes in the defense. congress needs to know why you think this is a spending package that needs to be passed. considering the problems with this proposal, the cuts to domestic and diplomatic spending, the act for counter-isil spending and the lack of sequestration, the congress needs to consider significant changes. let me say as i close, one floor up i'm on a judiciary committee hearing with the supreme nominee. i'll be on the docket. excuse me if i'm gone, i promise to return, whether you want me to or not. >> thank you, senator. welcome to the committee witnesses, we appreciate your being here. we'll now hear from the secretary of defense, james mattis. >> chairman cochran, vice chairman dur ban, distinguished
senators, i appreciate the opportunity to address the president's. i ask that the commission accept my statement for the record. thank you sir. as you know the president is committed to strengthening the military. the security situation facing our country has become more challenge, the looming threats have outstripped the level of resources we have been allocating to defense. we in the department are keenly aware of the sacrifices made by the american people in the form of the additional $30 billion budget request. we take seriously the responsibility to spend wisely this money, to enhance the protection of our nation against emerging threats. we also recognize that hesitation now to invest in defense would deepen the strategy mismatch between our future security and the military means to protect our people and freedoms.
our military must ensure that the president and our diplomats always negotiate from a position of strength. global threats require a global response, applied in the full weight of our own and allies' power. diplomatic solution will remain our preferred options but we cannot deny the our military and setting the condition for diplomatic progress. military deterrence is only credible if military strength is sufficiently formidable that allies can confidential align with us in tempering adversaries defense. we see china and russia seeking veto power over the security decisions of nations on their periphery. terrorist groups murder innocents and target us. north korea's reckless rhetoric
and provocative actions continue despite united nations censure and sanctions. this situation calls for the department to maintain a safe and secure nuclear deterrent and a decisive force that can fight regular enemies since our military must be able to counter all threats. i'm here to request for $30 billion for fy 17. general dunford and i will outline what this additional founding will do for our nation's defense. the reason we're appearing here cannot be considered in isolation. while some might prefer more funds, we limit the request. it is late in the fiscal year and the $30 billion is the number we believe that we can execute responsibly. in concert with this budget request, we must have continuity of effort that is not possible
under another continuing resolution. only an fy 17 can start us on the long road back to military readiness and ensure we can fight effectively. i must note that there are readiness gaps so i will discuss in closed session. the request before you represents the three-phase multiyear effort. phase one is this year's budget appropriation including the $30 billion request for additional appropriates for fy 17. get our troops and ships back in the ship with proper training. we need the capacity to fight and win on the battlefield. phase two starts with our
fy-2018 budget request to balance the defense program. this funding will allow us to acquire capabilities we do not have or cannot execute this fiscal year and will allow us to adapt to the changing character of war by providing cyber space and electronic warfare capabilities. phase three looks beyond 2018. we will work with the congress and this committee to integrate our fy-2019, and 2020 budget. to ensure our strategy is fit for its sometime we initiated the review directed by this congress to reimagine our strategic concepts in all areas and we will complete the review by this fall and our long-term planning. i know we will have to make hard choices. with the help of the congress we
will create a military that is forceful with undue burden. additional funding and regular on-time budgets. thank you for your strong support 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 on the defense of our nation and keep our armed forces second to none and i welcome your questions. >> thank you, general. general joseph dunford, the chairman of the joint chief of staffs is here today and we welcome you and ask you to make any opening statement. >> chairman cochran, ranking member, distinguished ladies and gentlemen. i submitted a report and request that will be accepted for the record. >> it will be principled for the record. >> it's because of our soldiers,
sailors, air men and marines and your support i can say with confidence that your joint forces can defend the homeland and we will maintain an overall competitive advantage over any potential adversely. i think that's an important point to begin with and a point that shouldn't be lost on our adversaries and american people. we have a competitive today, sustained operation budgets instability and advances by our adversaries have eroded that damage. 15 years of war have taken a toll on our people and equipment. our platforms, weapons and equipment are showing signs of wear. in many cases we've far exceeded the plan and service life of vehicles, aircraft and ships. additionally, eight years of continuing resolutions and the absence of predictable funding
have forced the department to prioritize. we now face what has been described as a bow wave of mod ternization of our nuclear and conventional forces. potential adversaries have accelerated capability development in space, cyber, electronic warfare and missile defense. it's important that we reverse that trend. the fy-17 budget plan is a much needed step. it helps us address the readiness concerns by funding poli operations resources. it allows us to procure needed equipment to fill holes in our deploying units. sufficient and predictable funding will be needed to fully
recover readiness, balance our inventory of readiness and maintain the advantage. thank you for the opportunity before you this morning and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your statement. maybe ask you about our timeline and what are the pressures that we face in bringing this bill to the attention of all of our members of the committee and the senate. and in your judgment, what is the impact -- this is for both of you. what is the impact if congress does not approve the additional $5.1 billion for overseas contingency operations? would you have the funding flexibility to conduct and accelerated counter-isis fight,
for example? >> chairman, obviously, we'll keep the forces in the field at the top of their capability. that's not only a military obligation, it's a moral obligation. and we can continue the fight. the problem is it would eat our readiness again and would deepen the hole that we're in leaving us in an even worse situation, and it will cost even more to get out of this in the future. we have done this for several years now where we've continued to maintain the operational tempo, but without the backdrop of sufficient funds to keep the forces back here at home at the top of their game, and it's worsening as it goes on. let me pass this to the chairman for his thoughts. >> chairman, thank you. there are two things we'd like to do as we move forward. one is to accelerate the campaign and two to position
ourselves. not having the money will restrict our ability to accelerate the campaign and seize opportunity. we'll lose flexibility. as secretary mattis said we'll make sure that the men and women who deploy will have the wherewithal to complete the mission. but we won't have thepl flexibility for a dynamic threat. >> mr. secretary, what is your assessment of the russian aggression in europe and the investments that we will need to reassure our european allies of our abilities of function? >> chairman, russia has decided to become a strategic competitor with us. and as i mentioned in my opening statement to try to achieve a
veto authority over the diplomatic, economic, and security interests of the nations along their periphery. so what we have got to do is ensure that the nato alliance stand firm, it stand united, and stands unambiguously for a unified response to any kind of russian adventurism, such as we've seen in crimea and the ukraine and with the mischief they're causing inside the elections in europe that are ongoing. if we don't have the funding to maintain the reassurance initiative, then, frankly, the reassurance goes away. it's as if we're denying a reality that has been pretty revealed to us over the last several years. so i strongly endorse the european reassertment initiative and i noticed that the nato
alliance reduced its funding and overall the funding has riaisen for the first time. so they're on line to maintain then commitment. >> i'm going to recognize the distinguished senator, m mr. durban. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i asked my staff to explain this to me twice because i wanted to make sure i understood. it under the budget control act, if we give you, let's put oko over here. if we give you $25 billion more in the department of defense in the supplemental request, the budget control act will require the department of defense to a 5% across the board cut in order to make up for that 25 billion that's being sent to you. that, of course, makes no sense what ever so. i can't imagine that you want to go through that exercise. so my question to you is this.
did you consult with omb before this supplemental request was made to congress? >> senator, we consulted extensively with them on our requirements, the mechanism for how to actually address this as you point out complicated and i would take no issue with how you recognized the budget control act and the effect of sequence ration. i'm aware of it, it's not something that i can give you a solution for in my position in the department of defense. and i share your assessment and i take no issue with how you've characterized it. >> thank you, secretary. this is omb's job and i don't know why they're playing this game with us. they need to waive the budget control act if they truly want to provide more money to the budget of defense to the safety and security of the united states. if they don't, i don't know why we're wasting our time with this
hearing. the civilian hiring freeze announced by the president. this hiring freeze affects the civilian workers at the department of defense. we estimate 742,000 civilian workers, 1.2 activity members of the military. president trump issued a hiring freeze at the department of defense. how has this hiring freeze impacted the department's day-to-day operations? what impact does it have on the resources you will have available when it comes to readiness and the advancements you believe are necessary for a national defense? and are we hiring contractors to avoid this flereeze? >> senator, we are not hiring contracts. i think that would violate the spirit of the president's order. i've dedicated liberal exceptions authorities, waivers,
frankly, in order to keep shipyard workers, aircraft depot workers on the job, everything right down to day care workers so that our troops can drop their kids off and be at work on time. so we've had to do a rather liberal waiver policy in order to address this. and it so far has kept us out of ex-tremis. >> i now a hiring freeze is a great headline. when it comes to a hiring freeze in the department of defense at the same time we're told to give $30 billion more because we need more resources to get ready to protect america, it doesn't work. it doesn't work. the civilian employees, i hope you'll agree with me, are an important part of our national defense. i'm glad you're getting these exemptions and i hope they're adequate and you don't turn to more expensive contractors to
fill in the voids. when i went to europe a month ago to visit in poland, lithuania, and ukraine, they're very worried. they were encouraged by statements that you made and statements by vice-president pence in munich. that seemed to give them some relief in the -- in their belief that nato was still alive and well. you talked about russian adventurism or however you characterize it, and they live it every day. they can look across the border at the planned military exercise in september of 100,000 russian troops in bell ruse and see some real threats to the countries that i've just named to you. i want to know why in your supplemental request there isn't more money being set aside for the european reassurance initiative? >> senator, we prioritized the request for what we could execute this year. that was one point.
a second point is that as you know, there are four framework nato nations, the united states included, canada, germany, et cetera, that are actually mounting reinforced battalion combat team to the some of the nations you visited. poland, lithuania, estonia, latvia, to make a clear message to any further adventurism by russia. this is a time when miscalculations occur and we want to make sure moscow does not miscalculate. and we've led out of brussels to send a clear unambiguous message to the russians. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. >> thank you. we recognize the distinguished senator from alabama, mr. shelby. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i just have a -- mr. secretary, always a general,
we just have a few minutes here, but would you briefly sum up our strategic challenges, if you can, our challenges asymmetrically and how do we meet them? you're in the right committee, and we've had a history of supporting the defense, and we're -- i believe we will here. but we need -- i think the american people really need to know the challenges that you face as our secretary of defense out there. >> sir, i think the most important issue i deal with is how do we keep a high-quality force, all-volunteer force, fully capable of carrying out its responsibilities. the strategic challenges i would lay them out in a couple of different packages. one is where we have great powers, russia and china, very
different powers adopting different modes, but challenging the international situation such as we've put together to create an environment for peace and prosperity. and you see it with both of their efforts to revoke or veto the security of the economic and diplomatic interests of nations on their periphery. in russia we see it with little green men and passing out passports to russian-speaking people in other countries and undercutting democratic processes. in the south china sea we see china shredding trust as they adopt a tribute nation for all other nations have to pay tribute or ak quiescence to the more powerful nation, the larger nation. we see in the case of north korea and iran, a proliferation issue, one that has been delayed in iran, but we see the reckless
behavior novrth of the dmz, unsettling, northeastern pacific, east asia area then we deal with the terrorist threat and we're going to be dealing with this for a long time to come. we're in an era of frequent skirmishing. >> what about the cyberchallenge? that's something that we've got to get our hand on. if we don't, we will pay dealer, will we not? >> cyber cuts, sir, across all three aspects. nuclear commanding control, conventional war fighting and irregular fighting. space operations, cyber operations, electronic warfare, these are inherent to everything we do today. >> gentlemen, what are we going to have to do keep all of our
troops -- when we say all, combat ready. you need flexibility. but you also need resources, do you not? >> we do, sir. in this budget's mission begins to get after this. we used our equipment at a higher level than planned. we need to maintain and we're short of spare parts. we need ammunition. you'll begin to see the services add people to reduce some of the stress i spoke about. we do have many of our people that are home about an equal amount of time to the time they're deployed. i visited one u.s. naval ship last september they were under way previous 12 months 70% of the time they're at sea because an important ballistic missile defense capability. that's part of the force that is running pretty hard. the other thing, senator, we have asked for some equipment in this particular submission. in some cases we don't any longer have the equipment to maintain. so there is literally shadows and a ramp.
so in addition to maintain the equipment that we have, the get the spare parts back up, have the ammunition to continue response, we need to replace equipment. in the aviation enterprise, they don't have what they need to go to war, and they don't have sufficient aircraft to train. so our pilots also have degraded readiness of not having sufficient aircraft. >> is the bottom line we can't be accountable to the american people with a defense that's second to none on the cheap. we have to pay for it, do we not, mr. secretary? >> well, we do, senator shelby. and america can afford survival. my priorities going into the department, to strengthen the military and allies, and to
reform the business practices so i can come in front of and you confidential say we're spending the money that you're giving that the american people are giving us in a responsible way. and so we can't do it on the cheap, but we also owe you an audit of the defense department. we also owe you some very strong internal processes to make certain we're not wasting money. >> the time of the senator has expired. the distinguish the senator from rhode island, mr. reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and mr. secretary. thank you for your testimony today. senator durbin made two important points. first, with $18 billion in unspecified cuts to the deposition side of the ledger, how can we make a decision if we don't know what the specific
cuts would be? that's something we would need to know before we thoughtfully make a judgment. the idea about sequestration, we're giving and taking simultaneously. oko doesn't trigger the funds, but it will be subject to sequestration. so your ability to move money around even to oko could be limited. but those two factors, unspecified domestic cuts plus a giving and taking because no attempt has been made to deal with the issue of sequestration doesn't undermine your credibility and seriousness but undermines the proposal in terms of its credibility and seriousness. the specific question. one of the issues you made, mr. secretary, is that you've suggest -- not suggested, but directed that these programs be executable in this very short
window, from now until october 1st. what specifics of benchmarks did you give out in terms of execute ability. >> sir, we had to analyze what we could actually get under contract and appropriately not just throw money at money, but monitor to make sure it turned into a readiness result and we had specific benchmarks. for example, i think we'll double the number of deployable army brigades at top legal of readiness. we actually got into that level of detail to make certain that what we walk away with here, if you support it, will deliver a readiness that would help us should we have to fight. >> again, this question for both of the gentleman and yourself. some things that just stick right out in terms of readiness. flying hours, parts and
equipment for plat forms that you have. you alluded to some of the new platforms. can you give us an idea where that line is between near term readiness, flying hours, versus we have to build the force up which would take a year or more to recruit. perhaps, gentlemen, you can comment. >> sqir, thanks. we're at the point where we've deferr deferred money. i've asked around for services of why do we need new helicopters, the f-18s and how do i explain to the committee these are directly related to headiness. a navy squadron, at oceana that raids ten aircraft actually has five ready made in the squadron. you can't go to war with five of
ten war craft. you can't get training proficiency. over time it's a more aal issue. i have a much broader definition of readiness. to me it's about what actions are flnecessary to make units whole. today it's a combination of not only maybe containing equipment that we have, addressing the spare parts shortfall, and replacing shadows and a ramp where equipment doesn't exist at a unit at a material issue that would allow us to deploy. both are necessary in 2017. i think the consequences of not addressing at '17 because we don't notice an immediate
response because we have pushed to the right our readiness. we won't realize a readiness benefit in 2019 or '20. if we don't take action now, it will become 2021 and '22. >> i appreciate the effort after more than a decade of war. and we want to address those, but we have those huge issues of what's to pay for in terms of not only the $18 billion of domestic spending but, you know, are we really going to pay for this? frankly, we've been at war for now, what, 16 years and we haven't devoted any revenue, significant revenue, to pay for preparedness, personnel, et cetera, and the other side is the sequestration issue, which is hugely complicated and challenging and taking as much
as it gives you. thank you. >> the senator's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary general, first let me begin by thanking you both for your lifelong commitment of service to our country. it is much appreciated. the navy recently updated its four structure assessment goal to 355 ships, which is a significant increase from the previous goal to address the increasingly complex military threats facing our nation today. in addition, there have been other independent studies by the mighter study, the center for strategic and budgetary assessments that have also recommended significant increases. following up on the concerns raised by my colleagues, what impact does the budget control
act have on the ability of the department to fulfill the president's promise to build the larger fleet that the navy and these other independent studies have found to be necessary, mr. secretary? >> senator collins, i can find nothing in the budget control act that helps our national security, and you've brought up one of the most direct impacts. it's all negative. i believe it also sidelines the congress. i think it puts you in a spectator role when we need you in an oversight role in the department because it's your knowledge of what we're doing and understanding of the strategy that allows you to commit american dollars to the defense of this country. as it is now, we're all watching as this, i would call it near centralist approach to
budgeting, goes on its automatic pilot and we stand there mute, saying there is no mute, saying there's no way you can dignify it. we are going to need to build more ships. we're going to need to have a more maritime strategy in the future. it's clear that that is the case, and right now it does not help us at all. it hurts us in terms of readiness and in terms of long-term capability to defend the country. >> thank you. i completely agree with you. it is an abdication of responsibility, and i hope it's something that, whatever the administration does, our committee deals with and the congress deals with. general, the shipyard has been called the gold standard, which we're very proud of, that shipyard, indeed all of our public shipyards, have major infrastructure needs to prevent
significant negative impact to fleet readiness and operational availability over the next 30 years. it's my understanding that the navy's developing a plan for shipyard dry dock recapitalization. could you give us some sense of when we can expect to receive that plan? >> senator, thank you. i know, and i think you know personally, that both the current cno and the previous cno have traveled to your state to speak about the infrastructure you spoke about. and it's going to be linked to the ability to do what you spoke about, which is not only to grow the fleet but sustain the fleet we have. i know admiral richardson is focussed on doing this as soon as possible, senator, and i'd like to get back to you, for the record on exactly when he e expects to complete that study, but we have had several conversations about that. and i can assure you, as well as
a admiral richardson, it's the number one priority. >> thank you. general, international partners and allies on the f-35 program play a critical role in helping to drive down the costs of bad aircraft as well as ensuring interoperability within our nato allies. could you tell us where the program stands with our international partners, and can you quantify the role that they play in reducing the overall cost of the f-35 for our government? >> senator, you know, i can't quantify exactly the cost difference as a result of allies and partners, but i can absolutely state before the committee, that there is is a
significant advantage to our foreign military sales of the f-35 in driving down the cost to the united states. i can also talk to you -- we reviewed our national military strategy over the past year. and we said, one of the key questions we asked is what is the source of strength for the united states military? and the first source of is strength from the strategic level was the network of allies and partners that we have developed over the past 70 years, and a key element of those relationships is interoperability. commonality of parts and equipment. so we can use our capabilities in a fight. so the two reasons that you identified, making sure that our capable partners have access to the f-35 and that we include them in sales is critical. >> thank you. >> senator, the time has expired. now recognize the distinguished
senator from new mexico, mr. udall. >> thank you secretary mattis and general dunford. thank you for your time and service. i've submitted additional questions to you for the record on the military bases in new mexico. so i hope that you'll give us timely answers there, they're in questions that are important to me. but i wanted to focus on one of the issues that senator durbin brought up in terms of the war in iraq and the war in syria. the president is asking congress for a supplement for 2017 and a significant increase in defense spending in 2018. and i want to discuss these requests in the context of our current war against isil in both syria and iraq. in the last couple weeks, the american people have read reports that additional marines and owner u.s. forces have been deployed to syria, up to 1,000
troops. the american people are told they are being there to help counter isil. to paraphrase st. thomas aquinas, the war must be ordered by a legitimate authority. alexander hamilton and other founding fathers wanted this to be done by congress. the responsibility to make decisions about war and peace is one of the most important powers given to congress under the constitution. when the iraq war first began, we were not an invited force but an invasion force, an invasion force that required an authorization for the use of military force from the congress. 14 years later, we still have forces in iraq in a train and assist role, and they have been invited by the iraqi government
to counter isil. and they required an aumf specific to iraq. but as to syria, u.s. heavy artillery have been seen in syria, and it's easy to argue the united states has effectively invaded northern syria, violating the sovereignty of a country in the middle east which is a de facto declaration of war. are you concerned that the congress has not granted an aumf for syria? >> syria, i would not characterize it as an invasion, but i don't want to, i don't want to spend time on that aspect. i think we have to play the ball where it lies right now. the clear and present danger of isis that bulldozed the border in their supposed geographic
caliphate and actually removed the border between the two nations was a reality in terms of the war that we had to deal with. we could not draw that imaginary line in the midst of an enemy and say on one side he's safe, on the other side we can take him on. i think that what we've got to do is look at the changing character of this enemy threat, and i would take no issue with the congress stepping forward with an aumf. i think it would be a statement of the american people's resolve if you did so. i thought the seam thiame thinge last several years, i might add, and have not understood why the congress has not come forward with this, at least the debate, because i believe it's a clear and present danger that we face. i've dealt with this enemy for many, many years. i don't patronize them. they mean every word that they say. in light of that, the commander
in chief, the elected commander in chief, boast tth the last administration and the current administration i think have a duty to protect the american people and what we stand for from this enemy. >> thank you very much. general dunford, do you have a comment on that. >> senator, i do. we have been participating in several reviews of this issue. and what we do assess that we have the legal authority to do what we're doing right now in accordance with the authorization and use of military force that was provided in the wake of 9/11, i agree with the secretary. and not only would it be a seen of the american people's resolve, but truly i think our men and women would benefit from an authorization of a use of military force that would let them know that the american people and the congress were fully supportive of what they're doing every day as they put their lives in harm's way. >> thank you very much. and i have additional questions on what you would recommend in terms of limitations and things
like that, but my time's up, so i will submit those for the record. thank you. >> thank you, senator. distinguished senator from missouri, mr. blunt recognized. >> thank you, chairman. general dunford and secretary mattis, both. i want to talk about airplanes for a moment. we've talked about aircraft carriers, that's important part of being ready. you have to have enough planes on those aircraft carriers, and i see in the supplemental that the super hornets have been at the top of the non-requested list for a long time are now on the requested list. i know there are a lot of people that argue that readiness issues need to be addressed by being sure that we have pilot training time and maintenance hours, but also we have to have a line of
planes that coming along with that, and just a response, maybe, on how important it is you have both the equipment and the training time that you need. >> senator, the super hornet, the ones that we are requesting restores squadrons to the full number of aircraft compliment that they need to have in order to fight. but ultimately, we'll have a mix of super hornets and f-35s on the carrier decks, so this not only contributes to immediate readiness. it also contributes to the longer term readiness of keeping the carrier air wings fully capable. >> i think the committee's been pretty strident, pretty effective for a while in making those planes available. but as i've talked to both of you about it, really one of them that it's important to ask for them and not say here's what we'd like to have, we're not asking for it because we're
pretty sure you'll get it for us anyway, but seeing that line stay open. it allows the growler plane that's part of any future flying package to be there. i don't have a lot of time, so i'm going to move on it to another topic, which is a bill that we had in our defense authorization bill last year that really would address the needs of families when someone's being reassigned to create a, not just the option that you might be able to get, a way that your family could stay a little longer at the post you're currently at or go a little earlier, but actually a requirement that if the person serving was willing to deal with their own amount of expense to either go early or stay, that the family would have an option that families now don't have, and, you know, i know that both
of you believe that families are the backbone of the military. i'm hoping if we get that legislation in the bill again this time that we'll have the support of the pentagon and the joint chiefs. there's no cost. the way that bill was currently written because, again, the person serving makes the decision that they can either find quarters available to a single individual as their family moves earlier, or they can find quarters similarly available if they move earlier, or they can simply decide that it's is so important that my family be able to stay until my spouse's job is transitions properly, my kids finish this year of school or the reverse of that, that they do that and i know general mattis, you and i talked about this, and you were immediately encouraging in your support of that kind of change. i'd like you both to talk about that. >> senator, we had a good talk
in your office. i went back and checked on it. apparently, it's not budget neutral because of entitlements. so we may have to come in and get legislative relief, which i'm fully committed to doing if that's what it takes so that we don't have to run two different payments to the person for maintaining two households. so i'm not sure why we need legislative relief, and i've got the staff researching it now. but i'm in complete agreement with the program. it's just how do we do it in a way that's consistent with your view of budget neutral, and we will get there. >> i'm sure we can get to budget neutral. if that's the kind of legislation that you need, we'll see that that happened. just for a quick story, i was hosting a breakfast for ft. leonard wood two years ago when i filed this bill, sat down at a table with general solve ray and his wife, and a retired sergeant major, mentioned i'd filed this bill. every one of them had a story
when this would have made an incredible difference to their family. >> senator executed in excess of 20 pcs moves and education for our children and so forth, i do appreciate what you're trying to do here and without talking about the specific challenges of this piece of legislation, i think allowing the services to have the kind of flexibility that you're suggesting would absolutely be helpful and i know would have full support. >> thank you, thank you, chairman. >> thank you, senator, senator's time has expired. recognize the distinguished senator from vermont, senator leahy. >> thank you. it's the first time i've been able to call you secretary and not general. it's nice to have you here. and general, my schoolmate, different years, but we both have degrees from st. michaels and from georgetown, and i know
that in vermont they're excited you're going to be coming to st. michaels next month. no, in may. chairman, i'm going to put my post statement of record, but of i note that since 2012, the sequestration law has forced congress to enact legislation in both defense and non-defense. today only one third of army combat units are ready to be deployed. for two years in a row, the navy's faced annual shortfalls in excess of $700 million in ship maintenance, which critical maintenance has been canceled. but sequestration has produced terrible consequences for the public as well. employment is down.
education funding lies behind. that impacts our national security too. failing infrastructure, weakening economic growth creates vulnerabilities in our bridges, our water system, our electrical grid. we have money cut in education and nutrition. it impacts our men and women for things they need in the future, which is disease prevention. national security is not solely the mission of the department of defense, president says he prefers hard power to soft power, but soft power is not weak or wasteful.
failing to invest in america or cutting programs worldwide that feed millions, prevent aids, treat tuberculosis, malaria, all the things we do worldwide, if we cut that, it makes the world less stable. it makes your job more difficult, mr. secretary. if we do not fully fund the state department, we should be prepared to buy more ammunition for the military, i don't think that's a trade you want to have to make. it's not a trade i want to make. so let me ask this. we know that not all national security comes from d.o.d. we have to have a strong economy, healthy population to be secure. could you both speak about why a strong economy is essential to
maintaining a strong military? and what about non-military power, such as diplomacy or development, what parts to that does that play to our national security. >> senator, the engine for national security has always been our economy, a strong economy equates to a strong military, and history is pretty compelling. nations that didn't keep their fiscal house in order, their military is strong lost their military power. i'm here, addressing a readiness issue when i came back to the department in my current role that is severe. and that is why i am here today, fighting for this budget addition, the additional $30 billion, $25 billion of which goes to direct readiness. and in my role, to keep the president and the secretary of state and our diplomats always
negotiating from a position of strength is, is an obligation that i carry. i don't take any issue with the way you've characterized the budget sequestration and the effective sequestration on all of our spending, and i would add that we're keenly aware of the sacrifices made by the american people and the other departments in terms of providing the military budget that we're getting, and i owe you a good audit and gain your confidence that we're spending that money wisely, but right now i want to make certain that we've got our diplomats in a position of strength when they negotiate in this increasingly perilous world. >> i didn't know whether, i'll ask them to submit it for the record and submit a number of
questions for the record. >> thank you, senator. the chair recognizes the distinguished senator from montana, mr. danes. >> thank you. thank you for your service. at son of a marine from billings, montana, my dad's very proud that i get to be in the room with both of you and thank you for your leadership and service to our country, truly. secretary mattis, i want to welcome you as your first hearing as sec def. we're here today to discuss the state of the military's readiness, which many agree has been neglected over the past eight years. i'm pleased to see president trump's budget submissions have challenged the status quo. secretary mattis, as you know,
malmstrom air force base is home to one third of our nation's icbms. most of our missiles have been in service for almost 50 years. our air men have diligently maintained this aging system, we must field a modern ground base strategy e strategic deterrent. some argue that modernizing is too expensive. but as the cbo has pointed out, the entire nuclear tri ad accounts for just 6% of our budget for defense. how much do you value a land-based nuclear deterrent in your arsenal to keep americans safe? >> senator, the need for a nuclear deterrent to ensure those weapons are never used requires a tri-ad. to determine what level a tri-ad must be at, we have a nuclear
posture review that's getting under way, but i would tell you that the land-based leg of the tri-ad. the intercontinental ballistic missile is a sobering reminder that we could soak up a lot of their weapons in order to take out a single one of those. and as a result, it is a stabilizing influence to have the icbm forcefully capable in its deterrent role. >> one of my favorite commander coins comes from malmstrom, and it insists scaring the hell out of america's enemies since 1962. i am concerned that the air force is no closer to replacing the vietnam-era hueys than it was when i met with secretary james last year.
as a result, the air men will operate inaccurate equipment another year. if the air force is given the increase, when might we expect to see a new and more capable per helicopter deployed >> i expect that the hueys will be gone and replaced around 2021. that's my goal right now. i've got to get into the budget in detail and look at where we can, what years we can get what amounts of money, but i recognize that the security forces need the proper helicopters. the force in the field needs the proper helicopters. and the huey's done a good job, did you it's time for it to go. >> thank you. i want to shift and talk about our guard and reserve training. as we look to modernize our weapons, we want to make sure we
don't neglect the readiness of our families. most are not rei am bembursed f costs they incur. service members should not be taxed on money they spend to subsidize their own training. i'll be introducing tax relief guard and training act, which will allow guardsman and reservists to deduct lodging and training to make sure they aren't penalized for serving their country. can you speak to the unique challenges that guards men and reservists face on drill weekends that you've experienced in your 40 years in uniform? >> obviously not personally, my brother did spend 20 years in the reserves. i had an opportunity to see him and the men and women i visit with routinely, and they do have unique challenges. i only have one thing to worry
about, which is being full-time active duty. you've goat you've got to be a soldier, sailor, marine and then your personal life. when they give up a week, two weeks, a month, a year. they do have unique challenges, and appreciate your interest in making sure that we can mitigate some of the consequences of those challenges. >> all right. thank you, general. >> thank you, senator. we now recognize the distinguished senator from montana. >> back to back. >> mr. tester. >> thank you claihairman. it goes without service, thank you for your service and your willingness to continue to serve. like you, i fully support ensuring that our troops have everything they need to make this nation safe. the president's budget goes about it in what i believe is the wrong way. while gutting the budgets of
other agencies critical to preventing conflict, the president's budget puts operations on a credit card and forces our children and grandchildren to pay for this increase and we should not take away money from seniors. some equate this with american leadership. i do not. our nation's strength is only reflected by the size and camebility capability, but also in our schools, our infrastructure. our trent strength is reflectedr economic security and national security as you pointed out. it's about team thime that our priorities and investments reflect that reality. i want to dove tail on just a little bit of what senator danes said, it has to do with the helicopters coming in to malmstrom air force base. as pointed out, these are
vietnam-era helicopters we are using, far past their time of expected usefulness. and we were told for time and time and team agaime again on t committee that they would be replaced by 2019. i just heard you say that they would move to 2021. i went back and looked at my notes. they would probably be due to be in long before 2019, even. we worked on construction making sure they have the housing. we've got that done, so we're ready for them. i checked back on what we did last budgetary cycle. we plussed up the president's request for replacement on this committee. and it was due to the work, i believe senator danes and i and other members of this committee that were able to do that. the question is, is it really money? or is it the procurement process? or is it something else that we need to fix to make sure those helicopters get there, paubecau
quite frankly, it's important. >> it's absolutely important, sir, for the crews, the launch crews and the security forces. i can't tell you how we got into this position in past years. i can tell you that the impact of budget sequestration ripples through everything we do, and not always do we maintain the process that we come up and testify on when other dynamic issues intrude. and now we've got an alarm on getting, keeping our b-52s in the air, an alarm on ships that can't go to sea. and we have to back up and reprogram, and all the chaos, that, again, is a ripple coming out of brunl udget process i th has frustrated the house and senate as much as it's frustrated the department of defense and military services. but i intend to have theis
solved, sir, and i'll work it. >> i know you guys need continuity and predictability. but we budgeted around sequestration last year. we took it off the table. we're going to have to do it again. and then we plussed up what the president was asking for. so i would just ask you to take a look at that. you're a solid, you're a solid man, and i know you're in it for all the right reasons, and i just bring their up is up so it your radar screen. on saturday, president trump tweeted that germany owes vast sums to nato and the united states. i've been arguing for years that we need our nato allies to contribute more. we can't afford to fund the whole ball of wax. in your opinion, are we owed money by germany and other nato
allies? >> the alliance owes full membership by each member nation. i can't give you an accounting for past money owed, because that's not the way we do that in nato. we do it through capabilities. that's the commitment each nation makes. houg however, we are seeing germany is committed to going to the 2% that's been reinforced by their minister of defense when i spoke with her, and also by the chancellor. and i think they're on the right track to lead the development f of 2% budgets. right now there's five nations making it. i anticipate four more in the next is 12 months, and we'll see more nations coming online assuming their economies can hold together the way they are right now or improve. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you, senator. the senator's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the
distension wished natter frsena kansas. mr. maran. >> you both, in your testimony, in your written testimony talk about the threats, a number of threats, but one of them that you both mentioned is russia. i want to focus a moment on russia and its role in syria. we have learned within the last week, it's become clear that an organization of militia group called syrian kurdish ypg have formed a bilateral relationship with russia in creating a facility in northwest syria. this, i believe, is one of the groups that we are supporting in our assist and train funding efforts. your budget request includes an additional $600 million for the counter isis training equip fund
that i believe includes funding for this organization. my question is both broad and specific. what do you see the role of russia in our efforts to have success in syria, and how do we make certain that the money that we provide to militia groups in support of that effort, what now relationship, what kind of consequence is there with a relationship to russia? >> very quickly, i'll let the chairman address this specific group. ypg has actually got two different areas. one of them the kurds that you're referring to that russia has developed a relationship with, but right now, we're in a position to have de-confliction reque with russia. let me let the chairman get into
the details of your question. >> i can confirm for you that the specific group that's being supported by the russians is not a group that has received training, equipment, resources from us in the northwest part of syria, and for the secretary's point, we're very clear that we don't have political alignment with russia and syria, so at the military level, and we're also very clear with the specifications for not cooperating with russia. what we're working very hard to do is just make sure that our people on the ground are safe, that our aviators are safe and that we're able to prosecute the campaign in syria, de-conflicting our operations with those being conducted by russia. in the specific groups that we do provide support to and the ones we've asked to provide additional support to, we have a very detailed vetting process that we use to eliminate the risk of those weapons falling into the wrong hands. >> what about the groups we
assist and their relationship with russia, is that a component of the vetting process? >> it is a component of the vetting process. and i'm going to be clear with you, the group we are supporting certainly has been engaged with russia. the ypg has an office in moscow itself. but the groups we're providing support to on the ground are not being supported directly by russian military forces. >> thank you. we'd be expecting a report, a strategy from the department of defense in regard to our efforts in syria. is that soon forthcoming? >> it is, senator. we've got the skeleton plan put together. we're fleshing it out. it's an interagency developed report where it embraces economic, diplomatic, military, covert means, and we should have this done in the next couple of months if that long. it may not take us another month, but we're still putting
it together, sir. >> thank you, sir. this budget amendment includes some military construction funding that we're anxious to also take a look at in our subcommittee. one of those areas that you are requesting funding is the military construction project at guantanamo bay. that is designed to redesign new barracks for enlisted men and women. men, i believe in this case. for the detention operations at guantanamo bay. would you like to highlight the value of why those dollars were included in this request, and what they mean? we had a kansas national guard unit that deployed to gitmo for providing security services, a long list of military officials have decried the condition of the facilities at guantanamo bay, and i wanted to give you the opportunity to make certain
that we know why that's included and its value. >> sir, i've, in the last few months been down to visit our men and women in guantanamo bay. and as you can appreciate, i think that is as arduous and demanding work we have going on inside the department of defense, and they are living in facilities that are, that are old, well past their time. and i believe that for right now we do need to provide them with suitable living facilities and a new barracks, as part of that reason is part of the question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator, and the chair now recognizes the distinguished senator from hawaii, mr. shots. >> thank you for being here. i'd like to follow up on a couple questions that were asked earlier in the hearing. can you walk me through what a 28% cut to the department of state would mean for the department of defense?
>> just off the top of my head, sir, it would probably replicate what's been going on with the department for several years due to the impact on readiness and why i'm here in front of you right now, a 28% cut to the department of defense -- >> an it 28% cut to the state department which is being proposed by the administration, how would that impact your department? >> that i can't quantify. i'd have to look at the programs being cut and equate that to impact on our operations. i would have to look at it. i have not looked at it leine byline to s by line and see what are being cut. >> how critical is your relationship in terms of the asia-pacific rebalance. >> senator, i work very closely
with secretary tillerson. we get together at least once a week. we're on the phone three, four teams a week. h -- times a week. his officers are helping us draft policy. it's a team effort as we tie pl diplomacy and military together. it's a critical team effort, and we intend to keep it that way. >> omb has put us on a course for substantial cuts to the coast guard, and i'm wondering if you can talk about the partnership between the coast guard and department of defense, and my own judgment is that the coast guard is incorrectly categorized as non-defense spendi spending when at least some portion of it are expenditures in partnership with the department of defense. and i'd like you to flesh that
out for me. >> senator, the coast guard's efforts, for example, in maritime control, along our coasts, beyond search and rescue i'm talking about interdiction of drugs, interdiction of human trafficking, and certainly, in the cases like the arab gulf, where the coast guard vessels are deployed alongside our navy vessels. it's a good team. we need them for their special role they have, which includes law enforcement, as you know, we don't do those kind of things. arrests, that sort of thing. if we have to do that with a u.s. navy ship, we bring law enforcement teams from the coast guard on board our ships to maintain that red line that the u.s. military not engage in that kind of activity. so it's a good relationship. it's a strong relationship in
terms of cross fertilization in looking out for america's interests. i hope that answers your question. >> it does. and thank you, mr. secretary for your first, if not one of your first overseas trips as sent to be in the asia-pacific region. thank you for your clear reassurance to our allies and your message to our adversaries in the region. the asia pacific stability initiative is something senator mccain has put forward in the face of chinese military modernization, and i'm wondering if you can talk about whether you support the idea and how that impacting your 2018 planning. >> senator, the asia h-pacific region will be a priority region. we obviously have worldwide responsibilities. but we have five states that are pacific ocean states, have
coastlines there. and we have interests that entoe endure in the pacific. the reason i made my first overseas trip out there was based on cia estimates of where we face the biggest immediate challenge. and to reassure our allies that we were with them, i thought was necessary at that point. i fully support what i've read. i don't understand all the details in senator mccain's plan, but i support the themes that he outlined and the importantsy assigned to that region. >> i'd like your view on whether we're still on track with edca, but your ability to maintain a relationship with the defense in the philippines as well, thank you. >> the time of the nattsenator expired. the chair now recognizes the distensidi distinction wish
distinction -- distinguished senator from alaska, ms. murkowski. >> regarding the f-35 and the bent down near fairbanks, alaska, this is the first f-35 location in pac-ab, we're anticipating those in 2020. the construction has been approved. can you tell me what the plan is to budget for the procurement of the 54 f-35s that are coming, and could you anticipate any delay in the bed down? >> i'd have to get that to you
on the specific airplanes, air frames that will support that one unit. i don't know that right now. but i'll get back to you on that. >> i would appreciate clarification there, as i'm sure you're aware, the folks in the interior are following this very, very carefully and just wanting to ensure that we are on track with the timing. i'd like to also raise a question regarding russia as several of my colleagues have, general dunford, you, during your confirmation hearing, back in 2015, you indicated at that time, and i quote, if you want to talk about a nation that could pose an extension threat to the united states, you would have to point to russia, and at that time, you characterized their behavior as nothing short of alarming. of course we in alaska are watching our neighbors to the east very carefully. we've got 57 miles that separate alaska from russia over the
berin beri beri beri bering strait. so i am asking if you still see them as alarming. what do you make of the activities in the arctic, and then, if you can speak to the issue in the arctic of defense cooperation in certain areas, certainly in the areas of search and rescue. that is something that as the arctic nations are working and collaborating, we look to that as an opportunity. but, but again, you've got a tension, if you will, between what we see as the military buildup juxtaposed to the other issues that we're facing in the arctic.
>> senator, thank you. first on my overall assessment of russia, my assessment of their capabilities and their behavior haven't changed since 2015. in fact, i think, if you look at our request in 2017 and what we're anticipating in '18, '19 and '20, a good part of it is against russia. undersea warfare, electronic warfare and the full range of capabilities. so my assessment hasn't changed. in terms what they're trying to do, i think they're trying to do two separate things. they're trying to undermine the alliance commitments. and secondary, when you look at their military capabilities, whether in the arctic or europe, they're trying to prevent us from being able to move military power into the region or operate freely within the region. again, connected to our ability to meet our alliance commitments. so i think they're very clear
about what our trent istrength n and where we're needed to advance our national interests, and i look at their political activity, you know, what we really call adversarial competition that has a military dimension but falls short of warfare. so cyber capabilities, it gets after, again, trying to erode our allies, and then when we look at their military posture, whether it be in the arctic or europe, their intent is to keep us from projecting power. i do see increasing concern by arctic nations to work together, to mitigate the effects of russian capability development and behavior, and i think the importance that we place on the arctic is reflected in the fact that the department rewrote the track for the arctic in 2013. and i think without the guidance that he'll give us soon, i anticipate the article will be a
critical part of it. >> i would submit a question to you, secretary mattis, along the same lines of the interest in the arctic, the investments in the arctic in terms of equipment necessary to defend the country in this, in this very changing and very dynamic world up north, thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. the chair recognizes the distinguished senator from wisconsin, ms. baldwin. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i welcome mr. secretary, general dunford. you've received several questions already about the partnership between state and defense and the potential impact on the defense department with regard to cuts that are contemplated at this point in
the state department. i want to look at that a little more closely, and i want to start with general dunford. part of the mission of operation inherent resolve is to enable whole of coalition government action to increase regional stability, defeat the ideology of isil and stem the global flow of foreign fighters. according to that mission statement, that means enabling america and coalition nations to counter isil with the full might of their national power. and here i'm quoting directly, including diplomatic informational, economic, law enforcement and other aspects of national power. so general dunford, in your professional military judgment, would it be, would it be strategically wise to reduce funding and staffing levels for civilian agencies like state and
usaid and as we review these budgets, can you point out any particularly important aspects of the partnership in the fight against isil that we should keep a close eye on in terms of fighting maybe to restore the funding that's been proposed to be cut? >> senator, thanks. with regard to isis, we really have nine areas that we've identified that are critical to our strategy, and although we're in the process of revising our strategy, i think the relative distribution of labor across the government won't change. the department of defense leads on two of those nine. and the other elements the government leads. and you identified some areas where the state department or other elements of our government will lead. but, if you look at what must be done to deal with the isis threat, we do have to deal with the flow of foreign fighters. we do have to address the
resources, undermine the credibility, the narrative, those are three of the most important tasks. in the lead for dealing with all of those three are other elements of the government. and although i can't talk to the adequate levels of funding for any other element of the government, what i can say is that in order for us to be successful against isis or any of the threats that we face right now, it will be important for us to fully leverage all the capabilities our nation has, diplomatically, militarily and economically, and now in the information space as well. >> i know that the policy is under ryevision, but can you tik off really quickly the two elements of defense and the other seven? >> sure. good governance is one. dealing with foreign fighters is another, addressing the resources is another. dealing with the narrative is another. building the capacity of our partners on the ground is another. denying the enemy sanctuary is another. and then the economic tools that
we have would be the last. >> okay. thank you. secretary mattis, you've also, from senator udall, had a question already about the lack of an isil specific authorization of use of military force. nonetheless, you are in the process of revising, if you haven't already concluded the process of revising, the elements of the operation to defeat isis. isil. can you give us details of how you plan to spend the $2 billion that you are requesting, specifically for acceleration of the defeat of isis? for example, can you give us any
early detail about additional troops that you would be sending to iraq and syria with this funding? and i recognize that some things need to be shared in closed settings, in classified settings, but i do think it is important, especially if you're encouraging us to engage in public debate about a new authorization of use of military force, which, by the way, i support, and criticized the previous administration for not, not pursuing that more aggressively, so some information then does need to be shared in an open setting in order for us to have that debate. >> senator baldwin, when i leave here today, i go over to foggy bottom, where secretary tillerson has 68 nations, senior representatives, his counterparts gathered, where we're talking about the very issues you've just brought up.
we're talking about how we're actually going to orchestrate the international community's efforts against them. when you switch over to the aumf issue, again, i think a firm statement by the u.s. congress would hearten our allies as well as give our troops a sense of purpose. on the $2 billion, i would tell you that we're going to confront the enemy with an increased number of fights in various locations so they have cascading problems to collapse them as quickly as possible. the idea being right now, senator, that they have imminent operations to attack our allies overseas. in order, what they call their external operations, we intend to throw them on their back flip. and as far as any additional troops, i'd have to see the additional military problem where working by, with and through allies it requires our troops, but i'm not at that
point right now. the few troops who have been added have been for fire support or monitoring. these are things that only we can do with the timeline we're on right now. but they're not there permanently, we remain with a by, with and through our allies stance. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> the team of the senator has expired. the chair recognizes the distinguished senator from south carolina. >> thank you. the marine corps should be honored, very big swell of the marine corps that both of you are here. get through as much as we can. i know we is just have five minutes. if you were going to do a tlorization to use military force, secretary mattis by the congress, would you suggest we limit the authorization to a particular period of time? >> no, senator, i do not. >> what about geography?
we can only fight the enemy in certain places? >> senator, due to the nature of this enemy's threat, that would only work to help the enemy. >> and take means off the table, take away from the ability to deploy means, how you would fight them. >> senator, i think it would be best if the congress would say what they want us to accomplish and we bring back, i have no reservations about sharing in closed session with you how we would carry that out. >> got you. so my view is, if you want to destroy isil, you shouldn't limit yourself to time, geography or means, you should just destroy them. do you agree that soft power is the essential element in winning the war on terror? both of you? >> america's got two fundamental powers, the power of inspiration and intimidation.
and inspiration is part and parcel of how we defeat this enemy. >> do you agree with that. >> i do. and undermining the narrative of the threat is critical to our success, and i think that's been defined as soft power. >> i admire you both. you will never win this war by just killing terrorists. look forward to iraq. would you support a residual for staying in iraq to make sure that isil doesn't come back, if the iraqis would accept one, secretary mattis? >> sir, i believe it's in our national interest that we keep iraqi security forces in a position to keep our enemies on their back, put our mutual enemies on their back. >> general dunford? >> i agree with that senator graham, and i brielieve the ira security force is clear, they're going to need that support for some time. >> to reconstruct anbar province
it's going to cost about $50 billion. so we'd have leverage in baghdad. >> secretary tillerson's meeting today does address this issue. it's going to be an international effort. it should not be carried fully by the u.s. taxpayer. >> we should be part of it. do you brielieve it's for the taxpayer's best interest to regain influence we may have lost in baghdad? >> i don't see any reason to pull out again and find the same lesson. >> do you agree with that general dunford? >> i do agree, senator that we do need to remain decisively involved in iraq and the region. >> do you brielieve we should lt caps on defense spending forever?
>> i have seen no value to the bca caps in the past years, so i certainly wouldn't take issue, senator. >> i think i can concur with that without hesitation, senator. >> is it fair to say the sequestration has done a lot of damage to our military capabilities? >> it has done more damage to our readiness, sir, than the enemies in the field. >> i think it's also been a very inefficient use of the resources that the taxpayers have given us. >> well, i'm glad you all didn't beat around the bush. 2018 is 603 for defense by the trump administration, senator mccain has a defense budget of 640. who's right, general mattis? >> if you think i'm going to pick a fight with the senate armed services.
>> i wouldn't want to do that myself. the point is that more defense spending is needed, but what are the limitations on increased defense spending? >> sir, we have to make certain what we ask for is executable and that we can taen isustain i what i need to do is complete the strategy review i'm doing right now so i can come to you with a compelling reason why the american people have to sacrifice this money out of their pocket to national defense. >> general dunford in ten seconds, can you take a little longer, don't you agree we need a budget based on the threats of today, the potential threats of tomorrow, to win the wars we may engage in and deter fights we may never need to fight. that's what the budget should be about, and not a number. >> i agree. and in the previous question, i work very close with the sent o secretary to make is sure this is what we deliver. we owe you the right pry torization of capabilities. in the context of the dynamic
you just described. >> both spend $30 billion wisely between now and the end of september? >> we do, sir. >> i'm confident we can. >> thank you, both. >> thank you, senator. thank you, all. our distinguished panel of witnesses and members of the committee and staffs who helped us with this hearing. we hope that you will respond to any written questions that we may have as follow up following the hearing today. we would request that you would respond to the request in a reasonable time. until then, this is defense subcommittee will reconvene on wednesday, march 29 at 10:30 a.m. to receive testimony on the defense health program. until then, the subcommittee
c-span's voices from the road. we recently visited 17 historically black colleges and universities asking students what issue would you like congress or the administration to address in the first 100 days? >> i am a student at north carolina central university and in trump's first 100 days in office i would like him to understand that even though we didn't all vote for him we are all represented under him. i'm a senior at gram begin state university. what i would like to see for the first 100 days of the trump administration is taking care of the schools and better their
education. public education, and i'd also like to see better medicare, expanding the obamacare. as student and as a black man i would like to see that. i'm a senior p.r. major here at howard university and in the first 100 days of trump's presidency i would like for him and congress to address the issues with federal funding towards women's services. that affects people like myself and other middle class and definitely lower class people. >> hi, i'm a junior here at j.c.s.u. and for the first 100 days i believe that trump should improve his immigration policy. i mean, for one, the muslim ban is i don't agree with the muslim ban because for one i have a friend who is muslim and, plus,
not all muslims are terrorists. and as for the wall policy, i don't think it's going to work either. i do believe that illegal immigration shouldn't -- it's an issue and all but building a wall isn't going to help. >> i'm a communications major. and a junior at buoy state university and my message is to president donald trump i know a lot of candidates make a lot of promises when running for president but i would like him to lower the rate of unemployment. voices from the voroad on c-span. c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, tex foundation kyle parmerleau will examine democratic, republican and biparti