tv Joint Chiefs Chair Acting Defense Secretary Testify on Pentagons 2020... CSPAN March 31, 2019 12:07pm-2:20pm EDT
foreign policy. newsmakers today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on q&a, supreme court joan talks about her latest book, the chief, a biography of chief justice john roberts. now,wever john roberts is that anthony kennedy is gone, he will determine the law of the land. roles want him to inch over a little bit. but conservatives are trying to hold him back where he always was. you have a chief justice declaring there is no such thing as an obama judge or a trump judge or a bush judge. project not political and they all have their agendas of sorts.
at eight eastern on c-span's q&a. >> the chair of the joint chiefs and acting defense secretary patrick shanahan run capitol hill this week to testify honestly 20 budget request for the pentagon, which includes a nearly 5% increase in military spending. here is a two-hour portion of the hearing. >> one of the biggest debt for the relationship with the pentagon and congress is programming requests. it is a bit of arcane policy that even i did not fully understand. by and large, the pentagon is not allowed to simply move money from one account to another without coming back through the full legislative process. given the amount of money at the pentagon and given how much things change, we have given
through the congressional process the ability to reprogram i think it was $4 billion last year. one of the gentlemen's agreements was if you reprogram itey, you will not do without first getting the approval of all for relevance committees. for the first time since we have done that on the reprogramming request to help fund the wall, you are basic shifting money into the drug safety account, whatever it is. so that you can put it into the wall. you are not asking for our permission. the result of that likely is abusive -- the committee would the pentagone reprogramming authority. i think that is unfortunate because they needed. i guess my question is what was to discussion like, deciding
break that rule and what is your view of the implications of it going forward in terms of the relationship between pentagon and in general. and how much will it hamper you to not have reprogramming authority after this year? >> chairman, what was the second part of that? >> how will it hamper the relation -- i'm sorry. how will it hamper the ability to do your job if you do not have any programming authority going forward. >> right. i think you and i have also been party to this discussion, that by unilaterally reprogramming, it was going to affect our ability long-term to be able to do discretionary programming we had traditionally done in
coordination. it is a very difficult discussion. we understand the significant of leuven -- losing what amounts to a privilege. the conversation took place prior to did -- to the declaration of a national emergency. we said here are the risks longer-term to the department. those risks were weighed. then, given the legal order from the commander-in-chief, we are x kidding on that order. as we discussed, the first , $1 billion. i wanted to do it before we have this hearing. we have been talking about this for some time. i have been deliberately working to be transparent in the process, fully knowing there would be downsides which would hamper us. a billion dollars
, two $.4 billion out of the drug enforcement account? >> we haven't made the ,ssessment, considering these potentially we could draw $2.5 billion. when we look at the total weeral transfer authority, think beyond that, it would be too painful to be able to to maintain readiness and operations. we don't know what the a government is of funding and what that would look like. >> a final question, you are getting the money because i believe it is the army or the army and the marine corps that did not meet their goals. >> let me ask david. isthe source of the money .he military personnel account the army was falling short of recruiting.
the funds that would have gone to pay to soldiers who had to be on board was no longer needed for that purpose. that military account was more like mandatory in the sense that there were not a lot of other uses. it is available for reprogramming under those circumstances. 20 budget, does your personal request reflect to recruit? do you factor in that we would like to have this many but we do not? make sense of it is just going to wind up in the drug enforcement account and just build a wall? off oflanned the budget it -- >> i think to an extent, we rely
on that political talking point, the saw happens because the obama administration decided to do it -- it was passed because we were two days away from not paying our debts. to raise theefusal debt ceiling. the only way was to agree to sequestration and the budget control act. act ofa bipartisan self-flagellation in terms of messing up the budget for 10 years to come because we did not have the political's death clinical courage to live with the consequences of the money we had already spent. it was a bipartisan problem. in unwillingness to address the reality that you cannot balance the budget while cutting taxes and increasing spending. they choice has to be made. we decided not to make that point. into thed to punt it
sequestration act. not fond to the trump administration or the obama administration. the president several months ago thought they $700 billion defense budget makes sense. after that, before that, they in -- whichlion everyone was talking about. it had been 733. then it became 750. one thing is we always hear from you guys that we absolutely have to have this money. below 733 isthing
unacceptable risk. i kind of find that hard to believe. the statement anything below 750 becomes an unacceptable amount where is the rigor to make sure it is funding what the national security needs are. >> i can address the specific part of the budget that talks to the joint fighting capabilities we did an analysis of what we call competitive areas, space, cyberspace, electronic warfare, land and so forth. look at the plan to 2025 then we worked with the intelligence community and get did a similar study of china and russia for the capability development and we looked at the trajectory of the capability development russia and china
were on and looked at what it should look like in 2025 to make sure we have a competitive advantage and again that defined as the ability to -- >> as a result of the process he came up with the 733 billion-dollar number correct access the negatives informed by the analysis we did for the -- number, correct? that was informed by the analysis we did for the capability develop yes, mr. chairman. . >> this is worth noting that the presidents request was for 750 despite all that and i was a analysis of this 733. so, that's the type of analysis i think we need to get to a number and not just deciding we want to spend more money for the sake of spending more money so i appreciate that. >> let me just mention both parties are responsible for the irresponsible approach we took for funding
defense, and i also agree with chairman changing decades of the programming practice is going to have for the department of defense. mr. secretary, you heard me reference testimony that we and the senate have repeatedly received from secretary about the need for at least 3% to 5% growth through 2023 and that was endorsed by the bipartisan national strategy commission. i don't recall that you have ever weighed in on what sort of topline, and there's a lot of discussion underneath the topline.
i'm just talking about a top number. what sort of topline level is necessary for us to continue to repair readiness and also deal with the complex threats posed by russia, china and others ? >> quite often they look over time and say what should the number or the trend be. going back to the comments on the analytics behind the way we put together the national defense strategy, there are three trend is that our input
and that factor into the rate of growth in this is a real growth rate. we have to restore and sustain and probably the biggest driver for our growth is modernization with great power competition and a focus on russia and china the investment required to do that in parallel with these other activities drive the growth if we want to do it in a timely manner this is all about how much risk and how much time we want to assume. i don't think we have enough time to address these issues and that's why we need for greater growth. >> the flip side is without 3% to 5% growth, we are taking increased risk and cannot accomplish the three things you talked about. >> sometimes it gets broadly characterized and i look at the rest into elements.
-- two elements. you can take operational risk worth the risk on modernizations of the difference between the 700 billion-dollar number and the 733 was deciding where you want to take risks. we want to invest in modernization and have a smaller force, or do we want to have a larger force to deal with the threats of the world and forgo some of the great power competition i believe we have to do both and then i when i think of the risk, those are the two we have to manage. >> i'm not sure you and the chairman were exactly communicating. when you talked about the analysis that you all performed, did not result in a defense request, actually national security request $733 billion if
so, where did the three to 5% real growth come from because it is a 3% real growth. >> thank you for allowing me to clarify. what i was speaking about is inside the budget of the recommendations were the military capabilities inside the budget, those things that will directly contribute to the war fighting and in that area i'm confident of the analysis that we did, and i'm confident of the 2.9% growth in the joint war fighting capabilities. >> do you have any amendment or change to the testimony that you've given us before that 3% real growth is necessary to stay even and 5% is necessary to catch up on china, russia and the readiness problem.
>> that's exactly what our analysis highlights. okay. thank you. i yield back. thank you mr. chairman and all of you for joining us today. particularly to general dunford it is a privilege and honor to work with you over the years. i have a visit to the border and to the troops a few days ago and in light of that i wanted to address some of the issues the chairman just mentioned because i think there have been some confusions and as you are talking about the need to focus more on the national security needs of course and readiness, that raises the question of why we are not trying to answer the issue when it comes to the personnel at the border that makes the situation difficult as you can well imagine, and part of what we are trying to deal with. can you speak a little more to what's happening to
the transfer of money and plan is that going to be done? is that done? >> did you want to get the status of the reprogramming? >> it went to the committee yesterday and that is the notification of the intent to move from one account to another. it wouldn't be used until it was obligated under the contract and that takes some amount of time they want to make sure that the awareness and not rush things we just wanted to do it in the motivations of our will move at the point when it is necessary on the concept we just wanted to make sure they have the notifications we are moving it from one to the other if you haven't started
that process yet. from the department of homeland security receipt by the secretary and he then tasked out to the department to do our analysis joint staff general counsel, comptroller and others and come back with identifying which of those construction projects are appropriate that analysis has been done and he has identified the project is to use those fundings, and one of the steps before we can move that is the notification to the committee that age where it really changes inside of the financial system depends, but there needs to move before any contractanycontract is reworded.
>> and you said that the money is coming from the unallocated end strength for the army. it's coming out of the personnel account provided for the end strength recruitment that didn't happen, and that is why it is available. is that something that goes forward, or you are not worried about is going to make a difference down the line fax it is available until 20 of september from one to the next and it's a number that is requested in the budget and this committee would need to access separately. down the line since you see that you are not able to meet those targets.
the adjustments as the chair asked earlier in the budget, reflecting the fact that it wasn't meeting its original we are not asking for more money in 20 then we wouldn't be able to use again. we made sure we accounted for the concerns. >> but we also know that basically the congress denied the request for the dollars to build a border wall, and here we are. i know you said it was a difficult decision because it sets the precedent when we received the request from dhs, we go through the evaluation process and we know there are other issues going on in the congress, this is the direction we received from the administration regarding how we evaluated and responded to the request for assistance. >> i have to say i'm very concerned we are not able to meet our needs on the border
in terms of our border patrol agents, but there are reasons for that and we can deal with them in the budget to do three major things we don't ask them to do all at once the second is to look at the future and say the adversaries are beginning to threaten our superiority and plan for modernization. we've given you an fiscal year 18 and 19 the beginnings of rebuilding the military and we are planning of course for three to 5% real growth but we have a number of things to do, and i want to associate my comments with a broad areas in which we have bipartisan support. we have bipartisan support for the fact fact the military budget shouldn't be cannibalized for the
security needs however we have a partisan disagreement on how to accomplish that because the congress needs to fund closing the border and certainly the house voted last year to do so. i agree with the chairman of the bipartisan support but it shouldn't be used and i appreciate his comments that we will hopefully have a bipartisan budget agreement for two years to cease that because i know that it has effects on your operations and third, the statement that the bipartisan support for
the audit. the constraints when you still translate to we need to be able to effectuate modernization, rebuilding and at the same time ending our crisis on our operations. not just because the adversaries are beginning to bypass us in their modernization but the aging inventory the aging capabilities. even if russia and china were not modernizing, could you articulate why we have the need to modernize the stockpile and its current threat to remain an active turn? >> the fundamental issue we look at the program at the end of the decade it simply
times out the bomber program capacity capability to deliver nuclear weapons so first and foremost this is about a nuclear enterprise that has run its course in time. there's another very critical element to this and that is the nuclear capability command control and communication which is more complicated than just replacing the ballistic missiles. >> could you also add to your answer to try out and the issue of the vulnerability is as an effective deterrent because you currently already have some ability to avoid detection. tomorrow that cannot be the case and we would be in a tough situation if we didn't have this. can you explain that to us? >> first to reinforce what the secretary said, we used three adjectives to describe the nuclear enterprise, safe, reliable, so your question was even if russia and china were not modernizing, which they are, we would still have to
modernize to make sure we have a safe reliable nuclear deterrent and made reticular area of concern again notwithstanding what the chinese and russians are doing right now as the aging nuclear command control communications system comes withsystem, so we absolutely would have to get after that. your question is somewhat related with the time. in both cases people went into that for a triad to have an effective deterrent and it was concluded we
needed to do that. it complicates the adversaries ability to have a technological breakthrough that would undermine the credibility of the nuclear triad so that is a big piece of it. that gives the most secure and safe reliable second-strike. it's an option that can be recalled if an element that complements the adversaries targeting into the breakthrough would undermine the deterrent. >> do we want turkey in the 35 program? we absolutely do need them to buy the patriot. in the current capacity thank you for your service and the work you are doing. i am going to start with you if i could. the national defense strategy focuses on great power competition and places an emphasis on countering violent extreme organizations. it's been primarily focused on countering violent extremist organizations and the combatant commanders continue to insatiable appetite for the cooperation
it just to underscore and determine what it means to fulfill the core mission sets and detained the sustainable counterterrorism campaign and also to ensure readiness for the future conflict. >> thank you, congressman. the focus of the department hasn't been suffered to title x capability, but in capacity. we have sufficient capacity and described there is constant tension to address a variety of global missions given the violent extremist organizations have continued to propagate or prompt the world. the role as the integrator is to determine what is the risk balance that we need to make and what is the appropriate capacity, so our budget is focusedfocused and wefocused and -- focused on, do we have the right capacity, not necessarily the right structure which is what i think you were eluding to a -- two. oo. meant to comment on how he prepares his global campaign plans and the sizing of the effort. >> we share your perspective about the use of the special operation stability and the need for the special operations capability to be relevant across the range of operations and so with that in mind, two years ago, it really is a
force management issue to be at a sustainable rate one addresses the human factor associated with employment of the other is that it allows them to have sufficient time associated with operations in the context of the compensation. >> to determine the missions and requirements that could be filled by the forces such as the army and security force.
that is part of the global force management application so we looked at the requirements identified by the combatant commander and we try to come up with the right sources and solutions for the combatant commanders but completely informing specific allocation decisions of the need for us to get to a sustainable level of operational employment, and again over the last two years, we've pulled back the throttle so to speak to make sure the forces are being employed in a more sustainable rate. >> i continue to be in support and we need to make sure we get that balance right. but we turn to another topic. the position provisions i offered that was supported by the bipartisan majorities in the committee in the full house and obstructed each service to process the top ten military installations likely to be abducted by -- the report but was delivered in january ignored the instruction provided by law and failed to provide the installations and not just looking at it both worldwide and it's required to evaluate the risk in response to the concerns i raised, but apart from quebec yesterday with what i considered to be a methodology list of installations as the initial report.
i have repeatedly made myself available to clarify the intent behind the language of the statute known for the department that has taken me up on the offer. do you agree that climate change poses a threat to the readiness, to the ability to achieve military objectives? it's got to be a quick answer because we are about out of time, but go ahead. >> we need to transfer to the design and how we built we build out our facilities. we try to keep within five minutes questions and answers us
a try not to cut you off in midsentence if we can avoid it but we want to get to as many people as possible. >> thank all of you for being here and for your service to the country. i appreciate you taking the lead and the efforts you put into the development of a space force and the department of defense. the administration's space force proposal the one you sent over was very comprehensive. the given the choice between the space force, space development agency what do you think is most importantly pushed through to a? >> by what bush for standing up -- today? i would put forth standing up the u.s. space command because it is the easiest and most impactful followed by the agency. >> excellent. we have heard creating the space centric forces that it flies in the face of the effort to make things more joined within the department of the last 30 years
i would argue that leadership is equally existent for the past 30 years, so how do you reconcile in those creating the screw against the basic principles of tightness or how do you believe that such a move can contribute to a joint effective war fighting? >> i think it is enormously powerful to create during this. the chair member of the south particularly around procurement and delivering capability. we have ten different architectures going on in that department in a variety of capabilities command and control is one of them. this is an opportunity to have commonality across the whole department, something we have never been able to achieve the space for. it's uniting the construct and then we also have a chance with a singular focus to have greater integration into the combatant commands. >> can you elaborate why you chose to do to do to put this in
the department of the air force as opposed to the structure? it's where the scale is for space. most fundamentally as we shape and construct you want to be aware that people are a bit of a background and this is more of a structural change. the model is very different, but but with equipment and capabilities that they develop our less complex then we put on orbit. air force has the skill set to manage and lead a space force. >> general, there has been a lot of debate over the value of the air land and sea legs of the nuclear triad. what is your best military
balance for these priorities? >> congressman, just for clarification, the balance across the triad were across the department's portfolio, we've done as you know two nuclear posture review is in the past eight years intact since i've been the chairman" of this to nominate the triad so in the program right now all to do that in a way that allows us to represent at the peak 7% of the department's budget which means 93% of the budget would be spent on other things and other than the most important element of the department's mission which is nuclear deterrence. >> can you tell that committee
in your best military advice would you advise the adoption of a no first use policy? i would not recommend that. -- >> i would not recommend that. i think anything that simplifies the calculus would be a mistake. i'm comfortable with the policy we have right now that creates the nativity and the way that it was articulated in the nuclear review is exactly right for the security environment we find ourselves right now. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. you mentioned perhaps in response to chairman smith's comments the assessments you developed to determine the state of the competitive advantage of the joint force. i was curious though how we can articulate what they competitive advantage is by way of the joint assessment process if we haven't determined what the competition
is if we are competing against but we don't seem to be necessarily choosing between old tools we can use versus the ones that won't be as successful in this competition. can you talk more about the science versus the art of competitive advantage and choices that you make in the resourcing? >> in terms of what we are trying to do, we went into this to say russia and china benchmarked in the capabilities and against russia and china we want to be able to do two fundamental things, we want to move the forces into the theater to meet the commitment and advance the national interest whether it is in eurasia or the
pacific and be able to operate across all domains and cyberspace. they are choosing to accomplish the mission so missions of this is very much based and benchmarked against campaign outcomes and those competitors across all domains in the context of meeting the commitments by the national security, so i would be happy to come up with and spend our time, but i think we have a very clear target we are shooting on and i think we have a very clear assessment of where we are today relative to where we need to be and although where we find the path with which we will maintain in the future we have a clearer look at where we need to go to the next five to seven years and will be refined by the exercises and so forth that we have a pretty clear vision now where we need to go to be able to do the kind of things we anticipate we need to do.
>> i would like to take you up on that offer to come up and breathe a little more on that. we get testimony from the advancements and supercomputing. the budget i understand his 9 million more than last year but most of that increase isn't in the base budget, is that true as well? >> i don't believe that it is. it is in the base so i'm wondering if these things are priorities how you make the choice between putting them in the actual base budget versus the events.
>> i wouldn't assign any priority to something in the base versus we did it in a way -- i work because i've been here since early 2000, and it's exactly the problem it started off as a global war on terrorism and we can define some things that were specific. now we are using the budget for something that isn't supposed to be used for. now we are stuck with a budget that not only based on the base but it's available not because we are supposed to be doing it.
>> what's needed to make it easier is to separate in the way the budget submitted those things we would think of as traditional direct those are in the budgets listed separately. >> that's what it's for. thank you mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your continued possession of the department of defense. it's a stunningly difficult task and i know the men and women that are trying to do that day in and day out it really is important and good progress being made this past year thank you for continuing to budget
resources necessary in a period where the budgeting is difficult difficult. thank you for your attention to the notices of the recommendations assigning specific people to the tasks and then holding them accountable for getting that done i time that will pay dividends moving forward. no comment other than thank you for giving up the good work and we will finally get that done. it dropped 480,000 was down from 487 is that a reflection of the needs of the army or the reflection of the inability to recruit to the higher number and if that is the case, can you talk about the driver for ready army cannot meet from fiscal 19? >> i will speak to the total number of the recruiting
challenge. it's a shortfall on recruiting. the army has now gone forth and what was described recently we did resets the top line to adjust for lowering the total and strength because we failed to recruit a it's because of where they are recruiting and how they are recruiting so they can start to recover growth in the end strength. it's several thousand in this budget. i don't know if you have any commentscomment on the specific recruiting and retention. >> or their drivers in the population toand thepopulation to try to recruit from? the fundamental shortfall is a competitive economy.
we are all in this worldwide competition for talent, so fundamentally it's a very competitive market. it's a good site of a strong economy. they're physically, mentally psychologically capable to put a finer point on it just slightly over a quarter of the population from which we typically recruit are actually eligible for the military service and that combined with the current environment we find ourselves now pretty competitive economic environment. it's always tough recruiting and it's particularly tough right now the challenges were kind of a bellwether for the future without some adjustments, and i
know all of them are looking carefully at recruiting and maintaining high-quality people. of the 7700 increasing and in strength in this year's budget, 2,000 of those are army? >> general, i know that is not your job to look at why but i think our society does need to address that issue, but if they would just stick with the $487 authorized, the impact on the army's ability to do what they need to do i assume somebody is looking at a? >> the budget cap is law and just what you are required to go to. is that distracting to have that artificial unrealistic number in the wall that has no basis in any kind of buildup and what it ought to be hanging over your head is that the real driver to adjust the numbers to fit with the military needs for the 750 billion?
>> it hampers the way we budget. if you look at how we budgeted last year and how we built the budget of this year, the underlining process is exactly the same. the strategy is exactly the same and how we put it together is the same. how we present it to you is different. >> thanks. >> mr. cooper. >> thank you. thanks to each of the distinguished witnesses here today. acting secretary of defense, i would like to focus on you and the space capabilities that we are anticipating having whether
you call that a force for the quarter. first of all, i'm assuming that the president's budget proposal is not written in stone they are a coequal branch of government and of course we have the right to change that. so if it fails we have the right to remove those. >> things we might view as poison pills. mr. secretary, i know that you are very familiar with the committee's work on the space corps and the fact that this committee had a 60-1 vote in favor of the core.
i heard your answer and in response to my friend and mr. rogers of the most important part of your proposal is the space command. is that correct? >> i answered the question of the three pieces that is the most important and i assume that we are going to do all of it. i would like to do all of it, but we have to make sure we get it through congress. on the space capabilities that is much closer to what this committee passed two years ago than it is too would have been mentioned in other press conferences. for example, when the secretary gave a budgetsecretarygave a budget estimate of $13 billion the space capabilities the proposal is $2 billion which is much closer to mr. rogers and my proposal which is essentially to spend as little money as possible to reorganize the air force. so that is my judgment, not yours.
wanted it to be under the air force and under that is what assimilated the proposal from the pentagon. some make the marine corps and algae and that's why they called it the core force another key element is we already passed into law in these ways keeping it under the air force and not spending as much money having the space command we are pretty much in sync on these priorities priorities. >> we are very much so. i hope you can work constructively to smooth out any rough edges in the proposal and keep things on track not only to pass the house, but also to pass the senate, because i certainly feel a lot of urgency in
enhancing the capabilities and even in your five-year transition approach, that is five years that we may or may not have these adversaries. >> i think we can go faster and i appreciate your leadership. the representative was a catalyst to move more quickly. i think your earlier point, the basic elements are in place and i think the chairman would say we have too much here are crazy and too much cost in the areas where we should be taking the cost out, feeling the wind the capabilities that we have really allow for growth we are in line with the community said on the road, that can take place. we also are provisioned if we
thank you mr. chairman. thank you for joining us today. i appreciate your service. acting secretary, i want to talk with you specifically about aircraft carriers as you know the president's plan has us retiring without going through the complex refueling of the navy is a beanie of 12 12 carriers and the naval warfare doctrine says to generate two on the station continuously and three to the surge the question is has there been a change in the warfare doctrine that says it is now going to nine where we won't get back up until 2027 is there a change in the doctrine and can we generate in the surge capacity with only nine of the second question last thursday you told a senator that there retirement of the uss truman was offset by this and we understand the early retirement saves $3.425 billion years of the capable presence with data by
retiring it early and we invested a lot of money in the carrier and he also spent $500 million in purchasing reactor cores to refuel the carrier. they don't work in other submarines only carriers and designed specifically for the carrier at hand so the question is does it make sense to retire early and is it worth the 25 years of loss and presence of evil have i retiring the carrier early? >> my answer to your question >> my answer to your question the strategic choice for me to make, i believe and this is a difficult choices about a year making this assertion under no certain terms aircraft carriers are vital now and into the future. the truman decision was made in concert with the two career we looked at how to increase the -- increase lethality. there isn't a drawdown of capacity until may the 2020, so it's not like this is an irreversible decision, but we took the savings to invest in the future force. all of this was very mindful of industrial base. the other consideration is how to invest in the supply-chain and there is actually growth and employment. we can change these decisions but as the navy updates its 355 ship strategy and looks at its force structure, i think we may
get back to your original point around dr. and. we will see what they come back with. >> the question still is does it -- doesn't nine allow us to generate to continuously on station and three in the surge. >> chairman, i will ask you to answer that. >> congressman, it would be difficult to do that. >> let me follow up on that. every combatant commander i talked to indicates they are not sufficiently supported by the navy based on their plans and i understand the plans always request a lot and we are able to get a finite amount. i know that in the structure when it comes to being able to project power, that is the framework and the strength of our ability to project force and presence around the world. i wanted to know in your professional judgment, what were the net operational impact for the navy before deactivating the carrier air wing by fy 2024?
>> an important assumption that would come back to that reversibility of the decision issue. an important assumption is the money that was saved by not refueling the truman would be used to develop new ways of conducting the maritime strike carrier,e look at the we look at it from a maritime strike capability. and a more diverse way of providing that is among the initiatives inside the department. from a forest management ofspective, if the path capability development for a new way of delivering maritime strike in conjunction with a carriers we have in place today and will have in place in the future, if that assumption does not obtain, then we will have to go back to the secretary and have a conversation about reversibility of the decision because new programs combined with the programs of record today will not meet our capability by the mid-20's.
>> i am all for those unmanned system. but it was a big leap in its trials to say we are going to completely replace a carrier that has that presence without having a -- >> your time has expired. mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses. you have been a rocksolid leader straddling two administrations. thank you for your amazing service. mr. chairman, based on your conversations regarding the programming decision yesterday i would ask that the letter stamped march 25 from the acting secretary transfer link $1 billion out of the army's account be entered for the record. thank you. that thatst note transmittal pretty much almost exactly coincided with the
submission to congress of unfunded priorities from the pentagon in terms of the again, 2020 budget. can you tell us what is the total amount of the priority that came over from the pentagon? >> i don't have the total yet from all of the services. >> i can help you with that, it was actually $10.4 billion came from the army so you almost get whiplash trying to follow the back and forth coming out of the department. exactly the same time the programming decision was made without consultation from congress as far as i'm concerned it is a rubicon movement in terms of the two branches that operated for decades we are also hearing that they need an additional $2.3 billion for the 2020 budget for the unfunded priorities.
it really undermines the confidence in terms of the messages that are coming over to us from the department of defense which are really in a brave new world of basically treating the defense committees as nonexistent in terms every programming decisions. so, again just to follow-up on mr. whitman's questions for a admiral richardson and the navy are actually working on an updated for structure assessment for the shipbuilding plan. isn't that correct? >> it is correct. >> do you know what will be in that regarding the carrier fleet? >> i don't know what will be in there. >> as much as we are trying to find out the answer to those questions, we don't know either. it seems to me really premature for the department to come forward with a decommissioning or mothballing of the truman one we still don't even know what
the revised structure assessment looks like. as my friend from virginia pointed out, we already have $500 million in sunk cost for the reactors which according to the navy are going to be put on a shelf. which is a shelf we cannot reach up for for the program. it is a different reactor. so the savings you are projecting in the 2020 budget of $17 million for this year is that correct? >> yes. yes. it is $70 million. -- $70 million. million. >> we are dealing with a position which is premature or instead of out of sequence with the updated force structure assessment. that does not add up to a good business case -- we have 500 million already out the door and we are going to save $17 million with this request in the 2020 budget. again that doesn't really add up to a very good business case in
terms of the very tough positions. they are going to have to make is the chairman points out, the figure of the topline number that came over is decoupled from a deal on the spending caps. i think it is a pretty safe bet that topline for defense is going to come down when the two chambers do what should have been done over the last three months which was to negotiate a sequestration agreement with the administration. as far as i am concerned completely abdicated. musteveryone realizes what happen if we are going to move forward with the budget. we have difficult budget choices to make ahead and being left with the business case that again doesn't help us, but we are getting to that point it will be a tough sell over the committee. i don't know how the clock is doing. >> you have about 30 seconds. >> there is one clock working over here. quick, your budget endorses plan procurement of three submarines in this year's budget. is that correct? >> yes. >> thank you.
we will endeavor -- there we go. the clocks are working again. mr. hartford. >> thank you very much. thank you for your service. and for your leadership for our national defense. onppreciate the focus strategic competitors in the national defense strategies. specifically china. i want to start asking some questions about that. as we know they've utilized economics, military and political influence to extend their reach and shift the balance of power across the globe. beijing's whole of government efforts are particularly apparent in places like the indo-pacific, but they can be seen in places like south america, europe, even the arctic. so countering the influence and actions requires a whole of government strategy of our own and so my first question, who is leading the u.s. government response effort, and where does the defense department fit into this plan? >> i would say fundamentally, i
feel like the department of defense is leading significantly in the whole of government, that -- but i have strong partnership with the secretary of secretary -- secretary of commerce secretary of treasury and , secretary of state. so, we continuously discussed this subject and we have activities coordinated between our apartments. we have not looked the department of justice as we have critical infrastructure. >> so you are saying that you were the main person in the lead ? >> i have received nomination to that role but by virtue of having more resources and capabilities and a lot of those other departments, we have been an instigator come if you will, of collaboration and working across as a whole of government. >> do you get together regularly with your counterparts and sit
down and discuss this? state department, why don't you do this, treasury department why , don't you do this? >> weekly. >> very good. what theu give more on defense response is to china in this part of the plan? >> we will let the chairman started and then i will pick up on especially the economic, cyber. chairman? will just talk about military posture for example. as you know, we have got about two thirds of the united states air force, two thirds of the navy, significant part of the army and marine corps, the 35 we also feel most modern capabilities in the pacific, the f-35, lcs, and so forth. but the real important piece, i think the most important military dimension of the strategy out there is to develop a stronger network of allies and partners and i think that our presence in the region, the deterrence that we bring, the ability and physical
manifestation of the ability to meet the requirements are all in -- all an important part of achieving a proper balance of china and the pacific. >> very good. as i have had the opportunity to travel and visit recently with ambassadors from australia and new zealand, i would continue to say how important it is that we be strategic and purposeful than -- in those relationships because china is being purposeful and aggressive and assertive into developing those relationships. very key. i want to shift to the force in your written testimony, you discussed $57 billion allocated to increase the procurement and the modernization of the fighter force, and you have noted that we need a balanced mix of the -- of fourth and fifth generation aircraft to effectively meet the entire spectrum of the national defense strategy missions and they need to procure 72 fighters each year.
so, what is the appropriate balance between the third, fourth, fifth generation aircraft and why do we need both -- why do we need to address both in the national defense strategy? >> thank you for that question. my role is to make sure that we are developing responses in a force structure to the right campaign. that is why our focus on russia and china is so important. each year, we go through a new evaluation of what the tactical air mix should be. fourth jen, fifth generation. of that makes, there are three parties that provide an input. probably the most significant input comes from the joint staff as they conduct a mission analysis for particularly china and russia. i've asked the chairman to walk us through how they go about making that recommendation. >> congressman, what we did today to talk about this, we have 20% fifth generation, 80% fourth-generation, that is what
is in the inventory today. if you look out at 2040, it will be 80% fifth-generation, 20% fourth-generation and so, along the way we have to achieve the right balance based on capability. that should be able to penetrate the information capability representative. >> i'm sorry the gentle lady's time has expired. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman and thank you to our witnesses for coming today particularly for your years of service, but i will follow up where my ranking member just left off between the fourth and fifth generations. we have sat in these chairs the last four years and almost exclusively heard fifth-generation, fifth-generation, fifth-generation. the assessment of the recent mandated study concluded battle the s 15 x will not be able to survive a more
contested battle space, i.e. particularly china and russia. we are trying to understand the request we are hearing versus what we have heard up to this date of the fifth-generation. what has changed in the last nine to 12 months to reverse what we heard for the last four years? >> with regards to the platform that the department needs, being the f-35, nothing has changed. we continue to do an analysis in the most recent competitive area of studies. we took a look at what would be the optimal risk of fourth and fifth generation aircraft. someh-generation providing capacity. we are balancing that capability capacity peace. it is mark obligated than a mix
of aircraft. one of the issues is the f-15 c is aging out. there was a cost variable in place and a partner with other nations with the decision, but it's all in the context of the migration from that 20% fifth-generation today, 80% fifth-generation tomorrow, and a path of development along the way that allows us to have a right mix of aircraft to accomplish the mission within the topline that we've been given. what we have seen in our competitive era studies is the combination of the fifth generation capability with the capacity of the fourth-generation was the right mix. that was agnostic of platforms and that study was done for the air force made this specific decision which added those additional variables when they decided on the f-15 ex. >> the generation of this model which is deteriorating faster
has happened in the last 9-12 months that changed the decision from the last four years? >> that's right. when we knew that the c was going to age out earlier than we wanted it to a child, we had to come up with a replacement. when we looked at those , cost over time, as well as impacts on the industrial basis as pertains to us and our partners that is how , the decision was made. i would highlight there were four or five interdependent variables that led to that specific material solution. capacity.ng up our understanding is a f-35 would have the capacity it has this year to increase its volume this year and future years to make up for what you talked about. >> the capacity is twofold. one is the ability to carry ordinance and that is the one you alluded to. the other issue of capacity is a number of platforms that we have
and were able to field at any given time. it is really the latter with regards to the f-15 that will be sustained, the capacity for aircraft will be sustained by the decision. >> how much of the operating costs of the f-35 factors into this? theyse plane for plane, are roughly the equivalent, at least in this year's model. >> if you can buy all f-35 scummy you might do that. this was looking out over time at the resources that could be available. there is not much different in the procurement cost. there is about a 50% difference on the operations and sustainment cost between the f-15 and the f-35. f-15 has a significant shelf life available as well. it was the commendation of the platforms that we made a decision on. >> are we expecting the operational cost for the 35 to -- for the f-35 to decrease? >> that has been a singular focus of the secretary and the team over the last couple of years, working with lockheed
martin. they absolutely have to decrease in order for us to have a balanced force in the future. there has been some progress but we believe more needs to be made in reducing the operation and sustainment cost. there is no question about it. >> we will have more discussions on these and the impact of turkey and the missiles that they are looking to purchase will factor into this. thank you for your testimony. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, getting back to our keeping the main thing the main thing. in just under six months, hurricane michael hit the coast. obviously, you have a tremendous amount of damage from the storm, as does my congressional district. congress has yet to be able to pass a disaster bill for that region. and in just over six months, secretary shanahan, you will be responsible for executing a
department of defense and the -- at the sequester caps if there isn't some type of an agreement made. by my calculation, but that somewhere around 60 legislative days left. my question is, if you had to execute a budget at the sequester caps, what with the impact of that be? >> it would be difficult to modernize. because we will not walk away from our operations. the impact is to marginalization. in the most simple, generalized terms. you had to trade for one thing, we will not drop our commitment to operations. we would forgo our future. that is the big risk. >> from an operational standpoint, what is the anference in us adopting appropriation measure for you,
say, september 1 in set of october 1? -- instead of october 1? >> to make sure that i understand that question you are saying if we didn't go into the fiscal year with a budget if we -- with a budget. >> yes, sir. if we can give the budget 30 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year so you know what you have to execute with what 1? >> to make sure that i understand that question you are saying if we didn't go into the fiscal year with a budget if we would happen with the efficiency at this point? >> i'm glad you asked that question. going back to my days, i have been in and out of this now for more than a decade dealing with this issue. and i would tell you for us collectively, one of the most inefficient things we do is have late budgets. it does not allow for the proper planning and being good stewards resources.rnment's in order for us to deliver capability and campaign outcome, within the topline we have been given, it requires us to prioritize and allocate resources very deliberately and budget instability and
unpredictability don't allow us to do that optimally. and it wastes taxpayer dollars. >> i'm concerned about what it does to morale as well. for the families and men and women in combat. it gives the impression that we do not care. so i would hope over the next couple of weeks, that we are able to come to some type of an agreement between the house, the senate and presidency. so that we are able to build a national defense authorization act to whatever the agreement is and get the appropriation measures done sooner rather than later. i had one specific question for secretary shanahan. army and strength. there -- the request is $7,500 lower than the fiscal year. but the funding request is increased almost $1.3 billion. can you explain the difference?
>> i believe the fundamental difference is that 3.1% pay raise. >> did the department request that the pay raise at that level? >> yes, we did. >> ok. gentleman. thank you for your service. i hope over the next couple of weeks we are able to get to some type of an agreement so we are able to get an appropriation measure passed for you prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. i yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a number of officials have appeared before the committee and said that the decision of the reprimand handed the debacle that rests with you. we understood that he was furious that the initial recommendations placed blame on junior officers, allowing more senior officers to escape responsibility. when will you make a decision
about these reprimands and awards? >> congressman, when i came into this role -- >> just answer the question, when will you make that decision? it's simple. >> soon. >> what is soon? what is soon? >> i was going to explain. >> go ahead. >> when i came into this role, the recommendation was brought that secretary mattis had convened a review. that recommendation was brought to me. i did not find that sufficient. my own review so i could ensure from top to bottom the appropriate accountability. i do not know when that will be complete, but i have to assume that much of the work that's been done to date can be used. so by saying soon, i'm not trying to -- >> to be clear, you will be
issuing a report. where you will be issuing it out. and part of that is to ensure it isn't placing blame on the junior officers. what it seems to me as we will place blame on general officers and we are letting kernels and general officers getting off the hook. i hope that will be part of this? >> that is the reason -- the fundamental reason i've done person betweenry the boots on the ground, the the most senior position and direct accounting. >> ok. just to put a more fine point to this, last year they required a report with all recognitions -- recommendations implemented. it has not been done. it has been overdue. when will i receive that, when will the committee received that? >> i will take up for the record. >> more for the record because it does concern me that i don't ask these questions and we don't get any answers. we consistently have this problem where i'm asking about what happened. what to the lessons we should
learn from that. this committee hasn't used to subpoena power in quite some time. but if this continues to be the case that we have to go back and forth and ask for information, i will be pushing for that. these families, the american public deserves to know exactly what happened and the junior officers that are being reprimanded right now should know there will be equal reprimands, especially for general officers, should they have done anything wrong. moving on, last night the committee received a copy up to -- a copy of your letter of up to $1 billion in projects. in the letter you say the statutory requirements of 284 noting dhs has identified each project area. question, did you just take dhs at its word that they need such -- that they met such criteria or did you do research to meet that criteria? >> we did research, but in
addition after the national emergency was declared, chairman dunford and i went down to el paso and walked the areas where the 284 money will be applied and spoke with cbp personnel. like the sector chief, i think that is sector nine. >> great. what kind of documentation did they provide to support this conclusion? >> david, you want to answer that? >> the problem. did you or the dod do any analysis or verification of this information? >> chairman? >> congressman, we went physically to make sure there -- make sure we are not talking past each other, we went physically to the areas where the infrastructure is proposed. >> i'm glad you physically saw it, but there also needs to be other conclusive studies to do behind physically seeing it. i go to the border all the time.
but there should be other information. >> there is. >> you have used that to make this determination. we have the information from department of homeland security on the challenges they faced in the race -- and the specific areas where those challenges occur. the infrastructure is tailored to the specific geographic area and the threat that exists within that area. we had that information before we went down to physically see what we had read about before we went down to the border. >> i appreciate that we have that information. i would like for you to share that information and all of the analysis and detail with this committee so we can see where the basis of this argument came from. with that, i yield back my time. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it may join with the other people who said that we are grateful to you for your service to your country, and want to thank you particularly for your service as chairman. you have been a great partner with those of us on the committee.
i appreciate what you have done with conjunction on us. i would like to go back to your colloquy. your you mention the detailed analysis behind your assessment of the 3% to 5% real growth requirement and that this budget represents 2.9% growth. to 5%, is that the minimum amount they need to accomplish the missions we house give them -- we ask of them? >> it is. one we say 3% to 5%, that is to maintain the current competitive advantage and again the margin has eroded over time, slightly increase the competitive advantage over time. more resources would result in a more decisive competitive advantage, but we actually identified that as the minimum necessary to make sure we can do what must be done by 2025. >> the reason i wanted that clarification is when we get into the budget discussions a lot of times we start talking about the wants and needs and we want to make sure that when we tell our colleagues this is a
need, not a want, you are telling us this is a minimum. >> i am. i think it is important for members of the committee to know that when we say competitive advantage, it is what we mean. i'm talking about the ability to project power by russia or china in europe or the pacific as the case may be. and i'm also talking about the ability to do what must be done on land, air, space and cyberspace. when we look at the aggregate capability of both russia and china and the look of the capabilities we need to develop on land, air, space and over time, we based the figure not en masse, we based the figure on the capabilities we needed and the projection of what would be necessary for us to field those capabilities. >> thank you for that clarification. mr. secretary, i want to thank you for the support you've given to the aspects of missile defense. it's vitally important not only to the ballistic missile defense but also the hypersonic. are more of us
concerned about. i am confused by the fact congress added more money last year for the space central to meet their hypersonic hypersonic -- hypersonic defense requirements. apparently part of the space central layer will be housed in a new space development agency that was established three weeks ago. but it does not have a dedicated funding line for this project. it seems to run counter to congressional intent that displays a lack of priorities that most of us feel that we need to be able to defend against russia, china hypersonic spirit maybe i have misunderstood this. if you would please explain the reason behind the budget request. >> i will have to go back and look at what the funding line is. dr. griffin and i have made funding of the space layer for tracking of hypersonic's a priority. david, i don't know if you know -- leveling, there are things related to missile
defenses that you pointed out that will be part of the space development agency. the one you are talking about is one of them. it may not be broken out in a way that makes it it as clear as -- make it as clear. >> would you let the committee know? >> yes, sir. >> mr. secretary, the mission of the agency to collaborate with the joint war fighter to define the next generation space architecture. i support all of those priorities. but they seem like acquisition authorities. why is housing sba under research and engineering the right place? >> it is a temporary home. as the space force proposal involves, part of that was to get leadership of dr. griffin engaged. dr. griffin has a significant
track record in space. supporter of dr. griffin. he is superb for that position. >> right. a couple things. not only does he have significant experience in space, but his work initially with sdio and how the missile defense agency was stood up so they have the right acquisition authorities and the ability to do development, this isn't about doing acquisition. this is really about development. so think of him as overseeing the creation of the right structure. this is about the balance of putting appropriate authorities in place. if we get the wrong mix, it will slow us down. so we are relying on his experience and judgment to put the right pieces in place, that is how i look at it. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is getting to be a familiar
tune but i want to thank you for your service. especially chairman dunford. i am honored to have you here as a fellow marine, and we are lucky as a country that you continue to serve. thatre the bipartisan hope you will find some way to continue that service past your due time. secretary, i would like to start with you. china and russia have made major advances in their conventional capability since the cold war. significant investments in emerging technologies like hypersonic's, ai, and one of the things i like about the budget that you are investing in these things as well. where do we have the strongest advantage against our competitors right now? >> i think probably, the most basic level i would say undersea. >> what are we doing to ensure that we maintain that advantage? >> we continue to invest a lot
of the things that are unique and special we won't be able to talk about here, but we are investing in very significant capabilities. i'd go with the critical capabilities we need to make in terms of leveraging. the chairman talks about the competitive advantage, space, cyber, and missiles. that is where we can enable a significant game, not just in terms of the capability, but deterrence. >> i take your point. which is that it is really these traditional places like undersea capabilities where we have our advantage today and that is why we need to make these new investments. as we think about making these new investments in the cyber and ai and hypersonic's, what new arms control regime that incorporate technologies
could be in our strategic interest moving forward? >> this is where we need to do the most significant work in my view. we will address the imf and new start, but things like neustar don't cop up -- contemplate artificial intelligence or these new weapons like hypersonic's that have been created. critical think it is we incorporate these weapons systems into new arms control agreements? >> we need to think what machine on machine means. as we take humans out of the loop. these are arms control agreements that we need to have with people that we do not have arms control agreements with. >> right. there is also a lot of debate on this committee about the modernization. safe in money could be nuclear modernization if we were able to negotiate a bilateral reduction in icbm's with russia? >> i don't know where to start in terms of calculation.
>> would it be significant? >> if all nuclear weapons went away -- >> not all, but if we were able to negotiate a reduction. >> it depends on which. the basic answer is if you do not have to develop something, you save money. arms control agreements value if you can avoid having to develop something you don't need. >> i would like to also take this discussion to alliances, not just arms control but alliances we have around the globe. i strongly believe and i suspect you agree in a strategy built on strong alliances and growing partnerships. despite massive investments in advanced weaponry ships in the proposal, what investments are we making to counter the chinese influence globally and how is that reflected in thereflected -- in the administration's budget?
>> when you look at the european defense initiative, you look at ourexercise program, foreign military sales, assistance in so forth, it is all designed to reinforce the network of allies and partners. and that is, as you have identified, the critical strategic advantage we have over china if we talked china specifically. our network of allies and partners. >> what are we doing as china has their one belt one road proposal that they are purpura -- they are pursuing aggressively? what are we doing to counter that growing influence in asia, africa, and other places where they are making marshall plans sized investments in potential allies? mr. chairman, can you take that? >> i can talk to the military dimension of it because i think what you are highlighting is a broader gap in an overall political and economic approach that is still being worked. it is a strategic approach. but we have a lot of work to do
to keep pace with the one g-golf -- with the one belt one road in the political economic and terms of security practice in the security space it is the work we are doing and i would argue i certainly spend probably 60% of my time without an exaggeration doing that and i think the secretary is pretty close to have his time as well in dealing with our allies and partners in building those relationships and that operability. certainly i have got i think 22 liaison officers and my staff from other countries in our exercise designed and so forth it is now to incorporate the coalition capabilities into the exercises. so from a military perspective, we are very mindful of the need to broaden and deepen these allies and partners and everything we do is informed by that. >> i'm out of time. if you could take it. >> i'm sorry. the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
general, thank you for your tremendous leadership to the nation. you will be sorely missed on this committee. it's been a privilege to work with you. my question is for secretary shanahan. i want to follow up with a decade of china making some significant investments in ai, quantum, and other emerging technologies, why is our topline number so important to ensure that in the long-term we are able to fight and win against adversaries like china? >> it's the most important thing we can do to create military capabilities. that is also what enables us economically. they really are all tied together. and i think going back to the what youan's question, would find in the department of defense is is not just about
conducting military exercises. how do we work with partners in the regions where we are providing security to unlock economic capabilities and develop economic relationships? the relationships we form to the department could unlock some of these other diplomatic or economic benefits, so it is to -- we are not looking at these great power competitions as the military is an enabler to unlocking diplomatic and new relations. but that topline in these critical areas, particularly cyber come are fundamental. >> thank you. my next question is on a different subject. for the past five years, there has been broad bipartisan and bicameral support for the needs of the missile defense site. yet the department hasn't made any such designations available to the committee. the environment will impact -- the environmental impact study has been completed and the threat to the homeland from the rogue nations continues to evolve in it is more imperative than ever.
congressional intent in the last in the aa was at the site designation after the eis would be released. so i expect the department will respect the congressional intent and share the designation with the committee. can i count on that? >> you can. >> my question -- my last question, give me one second, i wanted to give the -- get you on record, do you agree any addition must enhance current capabilities to protect the entire continental u.s. by expanding the power on the east coast? the key question is, any third site must protect the entire continental u.s. do you agree with that? >> let me take that one for the record. >> i believe that is incredibly important as we are considering any potential locations that it should protect the entire continental u.s.
>> i understand that. my hesitancy is when you look at the coverage and what threat we are protecting against its more of a refinement of the answer that you are requesting. i would make a plug for the agency had yesterday in probably one of their more complex tests that would probably be an important baseline, but i will get back to you with that answer. >> i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. from a tripreturned to jordan, iraq, kurdistan, and kuwait. we observed and looked at and talked with the jordanians about a $350 million investment at the defense threat agency that they made to create a virtual 21st century border
wall along the 300 plus miles of the border to keep out drug smugglers, armament smugglers, as well as isis. by all accounts, the utilization of the electronic surveillance equipment, command and control, rapid reduction, rapid reaction capabilities proved to be extraordinarily effective. for the less than 300 miles of the border wall, my questions to you really are about the wall it -- the wall. it is our understanding that last night, the department of defense sent a notification of its intent to reprogram funds and use from ten usc, 284 to construct portions of the border wall and we also understand the department of defense may start awarding contracts using funding
pursuant to ten as early as may. can you therefore explain in more detail the status to build a border wall pursuant to 28 the -- to 2808. have you made any determination that the supposed national emergency requires the use of armed forces? mr. secretary, if so, why? 2808 is i havef received a request from the department of homeland security. part of the process for me to make a determination as i have tasked the chairman to do an analysis of that request he will come back to me and provide a military recommendation. chairman. >> have you made any determinations that a border wall is necessary to support the use of troops at the border?
>> congressman, to make sure i'm answering the question directly so we are responding to the , president's direction to reinforce the department of homeland security because they have the capability and capacity shortfalls. to that extent, we have responded to requests for assistance for u.s. military personnel. u.s.ve determined that personnel can backfield the capability gaps in capacity size caps on homeland security has. my question is different. have you made any determination that the border wall is necessary to support those troops? >> oh, no. that is exactly what the secretary asked me to do now. to look at the legislation which i did yesterday and determine whether the projects that have been identified by the department of homeland security would be enhancing the department of defense's mission. >> next have you or anyone else had any discussions or made any
about needing to send or keep troops at the border in order to justify using section 2808 to build a border wall? >> they certainly haven't, congressman. >> next, what border wall projects will be built with section 2808 funds? i.e., where along the border will do wall be built with these funds, or the sections of the border wall military installations and if so why? have a listan, we of projects identified by the department of homeland security but the secretary has not yet identified which of those aggregate projects dhs has identified which would be an used by 2808. >> i will go back to where i started this conversation. >> we observed 350 or 40 miles of virtual border wall that is
successful between jordan and syria. and is without doubt, one of the most dangerous places in the world. successfully operating at a cost of 340 million dollars. something for all of us to think about. finally, i would just observe the united states constitution is extraordinarily clear about who has the power of appropriation. it is not the president the -- and the president is usurping the power and you are part of that and with that i yelled back. -- i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your testimony this afternoon. chairman dunford, to the maximum extent that you are able in this setting, can you explain the espionage threat posed by huawei on the transfer of u.s. data?
>> i can. if you think of the implications -- you are talking about the future of 5g? if you think about the implications of 5g, the internet of things as well as the department of names that we will use to share information, one of the critical aspects of 5g has to be assurance that it is a secure network. if not, we will have capabilities that we feel in the future will leverage 5g. and probably as importantly, an alliance of the ability to share securely information and intelligence. it will be much more difficult for us to have those assurances to facilitate exchange of information. given the trends with china's influence. >> it would be fair to say that there are military operational prophecies that you look at to operating with partners and allies that may be using huawei
systems? >> yes. this is a broad fundamental national security issue with a wholesome debate where we are headed for i do believe the vulnerabilities are huge. >> what steps has dod undertaken already or what could you do to mitigate? thisybe i will pick up on and if i could add to the germans comments. at 5g and the environment of the systems that are developed and where they come from, you are talking about the country that has a clear 5ge environment of the systems that are history of cyber espionage. we are talking about a country with predatory economics. we're talking about looking at people having to have social credit. part of doing business over there is you have to share data. with that as a backdrop not having the understanding to
trust a network is our concern with 5g from the department of defense. in the absence to verify the hardware or provider is trustworthy, we need to have secure networks to keep equipment off of that. the real risk is to operate in environments where we don't know how secure that network is. this is where we get into discussions with nato partners and other countries as they pursue economic advantages to purchase low-cost equipment they are forgoing security. and that is our biggest concern. >> in light of those concerns, would you recommend america technology companies sell for components to firms like huawei and zte? >> i am always for america selling the right to equipment and i think the real work we have to do here is we were as a
country the leaders of 4g. we should be the leaders with 5g. it is not only an hour security interest but in our economic interest to have that capability. >> chairman dunford you talk about the concerns we would have if we work with close allies that have technology from huawei and zte. ourink the ozzie's, one of closest allies, have been at the lead in disallowing china from competing in australia for 5g technology. my understanding is new zealand may follow suit. fiveto me about where the alliances my theory is we should are on this question. start there then build out -- outwards. >> sure. congressman come in fact, sunday night at my home i will have the counterparts. we will -- we have been having this conversation for the last 18 months to understand where we
are as a group with ability to meet these challenges and others with competitive advantage. >> i appreciate that. i know you are tracking on this issue which i view to be perhaps the most important that we face. thank you for your attention and thank you for being here today. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman dunford, thank you for your service. your exit as will be greatly -- we will greatly miss you. and i do hope, as was said earlier, we find some way to keep you engaged. bei think that will important for our national security. acting secretary shanahan, military construction is defined in the law as any construction, development, conversion or extension of any kind carried out with respect to a military installation. necessary to produce a complete and usable facility. i imagine it is pretty rigorous
of a selected process and must prove to be important to the well-being of servicemembers. as the law states, the purpose of the funds is to produce usable facilities for the military. i'm wrong, but beginning a project selected to receive funding is pretty difficult. in most situations, it takes years before installation commanders actually get the project funded and included in their budget. hampers thending departments and congress ability to sustain what do you all have been stressing his readiness. and as the commandant of the marine corps has alluded to, congress it did its job by authorizing and appropriating funds for projects that the department and members of congress found as vital. to the safety and readiness of servicemembers and what we are
being told that this funding will not be used the way it should be used. secretary shanahan, you are asking this body to authorize $3.6 billion to backfill projects we already authorized and appropriated. in addition you are requesting another $3.6 billion to build a wall. how did the department of defense get into the business of funding a physical wall to what -- for what you all consider is a nonmilitary emergency? that was a rhetorical question. moving on to venezuela. is the use of military assets to deliver humanitarian aid in services being used as a signal to russia and other foreign entities of this administration's intent to solve the crisis in venezuela militarily? one. and two, does the dod have
intentions to send additional support other than humanitarian aid supported by usaid? and three, has the dod been given any requirements for assistance to fulfill from other agencies? >> the use of military force humanitarian assistance is vital and i think one of the reasons we were drawn in by the state department was because we could do this so quickly. to your question regarding other plans and activities as they relate to supporting venezuela, the chairman and i have been in discussion for the last several weeks. how do we put a more regional face on our humanitarian efforts? i will be going down to southern command to meet with the admiral to have further discussions about what are the things we can do to provide support to the people of venezuela?
chairman, do you have any comments? aboutr first question designed to signal, we got the request and it was generated by usaid. and went to the state department. they asked us to meet the capacity shortfall. it was our ability to deliver a large volume over a short period of time in support of usaid that drove the initial humanitarian assist request. >> let me finish with the time i have left. is it this administration's intent to use the military resolution on this issue to achieve a military resolution ? >> it is not my understanding. >> thank you. i yield back my time. we have five people who want to ask questions who have not yet spoken. i will press on with the possibility others will come back and we will deal with that
as it comes. i think we can conceivably get done in the next 45 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your service and thank you for being here today. i want to talk about space. russia and china have weaponize d space. they have done so and are in the process of doing so and they explicitly with the national security strategy to dominate the united states. they are prepared for war and in my opinion we are not. with a flip of a switch they can track, dazzle, destroy our assets in space. in 2018, china conducted more space launches than any other country in the world. why does this matter? as leaders we need to help americans understand that our modern way of life is dependent on space. navigation, banking supply
chain, how we communicate, $400 billion of our economy is dependent on space but yet with the pentagon, our various components in war fighting in that domain are all over the place. gao estimates we have over 60 stakeholders involved in this organization in terms of acquisition, oversight. i personally believe we are where we were in the with the 1940's air force when it had to be split off from the air corps because of all kinds of reasons . i have introduced legislation that cleans up pass legislation in terms of making it a full unified command versus the subordinate command. i would encourage my colleagues to support me on that. bottom line, gentlemen, are we prepared -- are you confident we could win a conflict in space today if we had to do so? >> i'm fully confident we can win a conflict today. the current budget
trajectory, if we had to go to a continuing resolution, are you confident we could win in space in the next 5-10 years given chinese investments? >> we just don't need to take that risk. we have a $19 trillion economy that runs on space. that's why the cr would be so painful. we have put a plan in place. to 5%ree height -- the 3% real growth allows us to grow faster. but it is vital we get to the top line. >> mr. secretary, have you made a decision on where the new u.s. space located? located?il command will be there is a report. strongly consider florida moving forward with that decision.
a separate topic on cover terrorism, building, soft power. anduld just submit to you i'm concerned in hearing testimony across the board from across the services. i understand where we are going with the national defense strategy. i think that's the right thing reinvesting inof our technological superiority. however, we cannot do what we did post vietnam and flush the counterinsurgency lessons down the tubes. is defeatedve isis as a military organization? >> isis maintains a global capability, so while they have been cleared in the ground in syria and iraq, it means a threat. >> do you believe al qaeda is defeated? >> no, i don't. >> do you believe in your military advice that the taliban
forgets their political will but but the military capability to deny al qaeda use in afghanistan and particularly military cabability that a 300,000 man afghan army and a coalition of the most powerful western armies in the world have struggled to do in 18 years, and i certainly participated in and i know you have. do you believe the taliban have that capability if we bought into the fact that they desire to do so? >> congressman, i'm not pushing back on your question but it's hard for me to imagine having a conversation about the taliban fighting al qaeda given how close they are as organizations right now. >> 100% agree. first, do they have the will to get over al qaeda? to deny them a launching pad in the u.s. we have to look at the enforcement mechanism and their capability. with the time i have remaining, i'm glad you touched on the fact if we had to go to a national
aergency today from recruiting standpoint, 75% of young people could not serve in the military. that's why i'm pushing us to go back to a national service. that is not a draft but a national service as a means to prepare our young people to serve in all types of capacities and look forward to working with you in that regard. thank you. >> thank you. mr. crow. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and all of you for your testimony today. i will reiterate my colleague's comments on your lifetime of service. with all due respect, colorado is one mile closer to space than florida is and a great place for assets. doingthree combat tours counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, it became clear to me that involvement of humanitarian and diplomatic efforts and resources work instrumental to our ability to get the job done and to
secure our forces and allies as well. so in that context, in your judgment and experience, if the proposed cuts were to occur, would that have a negative impact on our stability and support operations on national security? >> congressman, first with regarding the first part of your question, i could not agree with you more and my experience is similar to yours. i'm not familiar enough to know how secretary pompeo's budget is constructed and what the direct impact is of the cuts in the state department to be able to judge whether they will have a direct impact on our operations. >> if we have fewer diplomats and fewer resources to provide supplement our forces and provide capacity building to our allies and local partners does , that jeopardize our ability to perform our missions overseas? >> that particular shortfall would, no question. dunford,o you, general i'm particularly concerned about the long-term security of the
kurdish allies, particularly the syrian democratic forces in syria. are you satisfied as of today there are sufficient long-term plans in place to ensure the protection of the kurds and our allies? >> thanks, congressman. in syria specifically, we are seeking campaign continuity, and that includes the partnership with the sdf to complete the task against isis. we are also working to assure turkey that its security interests are addressed along the border. plan now, our near-term includes continued training, advise, assist for our kurdish partners on the ground as well as a framework that will prevent any challenges or threats. >> sounds like we are working on it, but we are not there yet. >>, rissman, i would tell you if i come here six month from now we are still working on it.
this is a journey, not a destination. we continue to make refinements to the plan. personally, it is a very complicated situation but i and we make progress everyday, but i suspect we will work this month's to come. keep in mind at the end of the day this is about a political solution which is still in the works. our moralk ar credibility is also tied up to protect those forces and that population. acting secretary shanahan, i'm deeply concerned about mission creep, the use of a ums over the last few years. obviously congress has authority , to declare war and oversight with the department of defense and military operations. it is my understanding that if execution orders delegated by the secretary, commanders, or components have not previously been made accessible to committee staff, that we cannot do our oversight role unless the
staff has that information. will you commit to provide that those timely to committee staff? >> congressman, i have been working over the past six weeks to come up with a process so we can share that information. i'm going to be prepared next month to share that and work with the committee. >> so next month is the goal? >> a goal. >> why have they not submitted the congressionally mandated report on advised, assist, and accompany missions. >> i'll take that for the record. >> that is section 1212 of the fiscal year nda, to be clear. >> next we will go with mr. bergman, and when he is done, we will take a 10 to 15 minutes to give the witnesses a chance to stretch and relax for a moment, and then we will reconvene at
12:45 and go from there. chairman and mr. general dunford. i know you heard it from everyone, but thank you for being the embodiment of servitud served leadership thoughtful, pragmatic, mission focused. we set an example that can all follow on a daily basis. thanks. mr. shanahan, the subject in advance as i work through the question is p foss contamination. in my district in michigan, we have areas of confirmed and potential contamination, some including bracket basis, which closed decades ago, but also at state owned national guard facilities. as you already know, the army and air national guard don't have access to the department's
environmental restoration funds the same way the active component bases do. given the work of the national guard that what it does is directly related to overall readiness of armed forces, i believe that the dod does have a role to play in mitigating the contamination. do you agree, secretary shanahan, that we must find ways contamination,ss not just at active-duty basis, but also national guard facilities? need toi think we address the issue of p-foss contamination in all of our communities. health andignificant environmental risk. >> can you give me any examples how dod is currently working with other agencies to address the issue? >> i know the department is
working with the internal protection agency to harmonize some of the standards. our focus has been to substitute, so when you think how dohe fire retardant, we just eliminate the contaminations? we no longer test. we no longer train. we no longer do research with those chemicals. >> i understand. congress is a partner in this. is there anything you would suggest, and you can take this to the record if you like, what congress can do to further support dod and ensuring that you have the ability to work with all of those agencies to eliminate this problem? >> i will take that for the record, but it is one of these we truly need to get a harmonization of the environmental been ignition plans. we need to be able to address it, but i will take that for the record. >> thank you. general dunford, it's clear the national defense strategy has
influenced this budget. as it does with every budget, but what is less clear is how the joint force plans to operate differently. can you explain in an unclassified way some of the concepts that are being developed to operationalize the strategy, update the old plans, and combining with budget? >> sure. probably since you talk about old plans, probably one of the more fun to mental changes we made is to shift from an old plan basis method of planning to campaign plans that incorporate the whole problem. in the past, we may have developed a plan for a specific tendency in a specific geographic area, a fairly narrow view of the threat. when with you about russia, china, north korea, our planning heads as we develop, global plans. specifick about a contingency but what the entire
joint force will be doing globally at any given point in time. i would just very quickly give you an example. what we have done recently we have done a review for our preparedness for korea. we looked at korea and what we were doing across the region of the pacific, what we were doing to defend the homeland, and what each of the commanders would be doing outside of the theater either in support of the contingency or as the contingency goes on to be to get the risk of opportunism and other risk. >> thank you, and i guess i'm the only one standing between us and a break so i yield back. >> mexico and border security were among the topics on the sunday news shows programs. here are the comments from acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney and senate minority whip dick durbin, concerning the president's threat to close the border this week. >> when jeh johnson says it is a crisis, i hope people now believe us. did.folks in the media they did not believe us. democrats did not believe us a
month ago or too much ago when we said what was happening at the border was a crisis, a humanitarian crisis, a security crisis. i'm very glad to see jeh johnson is admitting that we were right and that 100,000 people coming across the border this month, that is not a made-up number by the way, despite the fact that many democrats think it is, that is a crisis. why are we talking about closing the border? try andspite and not to undo what is happening, but to sickly say, look, we need people to patrol the desert where we do not have any wall. we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so. we need border security and are going to do the best we can with what we have. the democrats will not give us additional money to do this or additional people. importantly, they will not change the law that is acting as this giant magnet for people from south and central america to come into this country. faced with those limitations, the president will do everything
he can. if closing the point of entry mean that, that is exactly what he intends to do. >> let me tell you the first thing we ought to do in this administration, the zero-tolerance policy, removing over 2800 toddlers, infants, children from their parents with no tracing of where they were being sent so they can be returned. the first thing we need to do is meet the humanitarian needs of the border instead of building fences two or three years in the future by taking money from the department of defense, focus on facilities to serve these families so there are not children who are hurt and dying as a result of this situation. take a look at the big picture. when the president says he will close the border, that is a totally unrealistic boast on his part. what we need to do is focus on what is happening in central america, where three countries are disassembling before our eyes and people are coming to the united states. the president cutting off aid to these countries will not solve the problem. >> a former lawmaker alleged
friday that former vice president joe biden made her feel uneasy when he kissed her on the back of the head at a campaign rally in 2014. she wrote about the allegations in an essay for "the cut," an wasof "new york magazine" on the cnn state of the union program. >> very unexpectedly and out of nowhere, i feel joe biden put his hand on my shoulder, get up very close to me from behind, lean in, smell my hair, and then plant a slow kiss on the top of my head. mightat in and of itself not sound like it is a very serious thing. that in an of itself may sound and it was innocent well-intentioned, but in the context of it as a person that had absolutely no relationship with him afterwards, as a candidate who was preparing to make my case for why i should be
elected the second in command of that state to have the vice president of the united states do that to me so unexpectedly and kind of out of nowhere, it was shocking because you do not expect that kind of intimate behavior. you don't expect that kind of intimacy from someone so powerful, and someone who you just have no relationship whatsoever to touch you and feel you and be so close to you in that way, so i frankly did not know how to react. i was shocked. i felt powerless. i felt like i could not move i just did not even know how to process it. >> former vice president joe biden put out a statement that read in part "my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, i have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support, and comfort, and not once, never, did i believe i acted inappropriately. if it is suggested i did so, i
will rescind respectfully." "newsmakers," gerald connolly of virginia talks about the robert mueller report, border security, president trump's declaration of emergency powers, the budget, and u.s. foreign policy. "newsmakers" today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. tonight on "q&a," supreme court reporter joan talked about her latest book "the chief: a biography of chief justice john roberts." >> john roberts controls. however john roberts votes now that anthony kennedy is gone, he will determine the law of the land. so the liberals want him to come over, inch over a little bit, but the conservatives are trying to hold him back, where he always was. meanwhile, you have this chief
justice declaring there is no such thing as an obama judge. there is no such thing as a truck judge, bush judge -- trump judge, bush judge. he wants to project a bench that is not political when they all have their agendas of sorts. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> tonight on "afterwards," former trump advisor george papadopoulos details his role in the 2016 presidential campaign in his book "deep state target: how i got caught in the crosshairs of a plot to bring down president trump." he is interviewed by "wall street journal" justice department reporter. >> i was actively trying to leverage what i thought were these man's connections to russia because i believe there was an interest in the campaign for trump to meet with vladimir putin. >> you believed it was a primary
foreign policy objective? >> yes. by the time i joined the trump campaign, donald trump had been espousing for months the need to work with russia at a geopolitical level, economic level, to combat isis. atwatch "afterwards" tonight 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> get to know the freshman members of the 116th congress monday on "washington journal." learn more about the most diverse group in history. >> i'm real, authentic. i will not be your politician. >> from lexington. >> the national guard. served in afghanistan. >> mcdonald's franchisee for 22 years. >> i have such a fascination with this idea of finding answers to questions that nobody else can find. >> i have been in a position for all my professional life. >> my dad is a lifelong
republican who never voted for a democrat but voted for me. >> watch c-span's "washington journal" monday morning. join the discussion. week,capitol hill next the house will consider reauthorization of the violence against women act, which expired in february. it aims to prevent abuse and provide resources for victims and include the provision on domestic violence and firearms. it is also possible that members will take up a senate passed resolution to end the u.s. military involvement in yemen's civil war. in the senate, work continues on a bill that would provide nearly $13 billion in aid for areas affected by natural disasters. also, a resolution that would shorten the amount of time the senate considers certain nominations. watch the house live on c-span and the senate live on c-span2. daniel neuhause