tv Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on U.S. European Transportation... CSPAN March 5, 2019 9:28am-11:33am EST
commands. testifying today are general curtis scaparrotti, the commander of the united states european command and general steven lyons. i welcome both of you here. thank you for your service. the senate armed services committee's top priority is to ensure the effective implementation of the national defense strategy. that's our blueprint and that's -- we pretty much agree to that. it means we need urgent change at significant scale to address the challenges to keep in competition with russia and china. just got back from munich, kosovo and djibouti, algeria, these areas, and that's where russia and china s we need to be aware of the strength and what the competition is. putin has demonstrated both the capability and the intent to use force to achieve his objective,
most notably in georgia, ukraine, in syria. putin won't hesitate to use other tools in his arsenal as well, whether it's cyber attacks, election meddling or assassinations with chemical weapons. perceived weakness will only provoke further aggression from [ inaudible ]. that's why efforts such as full support for the european deterrents initiative that's made up of primarily the old soviet union countries provides a defensive lethal assistance to ukraine and why they're so important. likewise, we need a defense budget that is of sufficient size and invests in key capabilities, we need in europe areas like long range fires, cruise missile defense and sub ra mean warfare and the supporting infrastructure. i was in munich two years ago and it was clear that we can't be successful in strategic
competition with russia without a strong unified nato alliance. america is safer and stronger because of our nato alliance. general scaparrotti, i look forward to our thoughts on these issues, general lyons, you have had a long history serving as a deputy commander for two years before assuming your current role. i look forward to hearing your assessment of the services and resources that you have there because i know that there's some discussion even of some privatization in that area. so we will be anxious to hear your statements. before i turn to senator reed, i'd like to remind all of our members that we will have a classified closed briefing, informal briefing, at 2:30 in the visitors center with both of our witnesses. senator reed? >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. let me join us in welcoming our witnesses this morning. general scaparrotti is returning to testify before the committee on the third time on the u.s.
military posture and programs in europe, he is dual hat as commander of u.s. command [ inaudible ] welcome. general lyons i want to welcome you to your first posture hearing. let me thank you for your military service and please extend our appreciation to the dedicated men and women serving under your commands. thank them very much for us. over the last several years security challenges in the u.s. european command have grown increasingly complex. russia she has reemerged as an aggressive opponent by rufrgs viewers as a counter to its strategic interests in reclaiming great power status. the national defense strategy issued last year highlights the need to counter russia with a credible military deterrent that demonstrates that any military aggression against the sovereignty and integrity of nato members or threat of such aggression will not succeed. general scaparrotti, i am
interested in your assessment of the progress in europe. in addition to its military modernization and aggressive military posturing russia is conducting a campaign of hybrid warfare below the level of military conflict using all tools of national power to advance its strategic interest. our democracy was attacked in 2016 and we have been under attack ever since, including during last year's midterm elections. i would be interested in hearing from general scaparrotti whether ucon is getting the cyber resources and personnel it needs and whether we are inn ring in the right nonmilitary tools of the national power to counter this hybrid warfare. additional challenge is the strain of cohesion within nato. the united states strength is linked to our system of alliance and partnerships. yet a recent report from the harvard center by ambassador doug loot describes a crisis within nato which they attribute
in large part to the absence of strong u.s. leadership. the senate and congress has gone on record to reaffirm our strong commitment to nato and the transatlantic relationship as a core element of u.s. national security. there should be no doubt among our allies or hour adversaries regarding our resolve to meet our nato commitment to collective defense. the men and women of trans come perform duties that sustain the department of defense effort in protecting our security. the competitive edge and ability to deploy and sustain america's armed forces they provide dod with unique capabilities we have come to expect and perhaps too frequently take for granted. trans come forces are busy supporting all of the combatant commanders every day and without them the united states would be at a significant disadvantage almost everywhere in the world. the ready reserve force or rrf is a group of cargo ships shelled in redness by the maritime administration but it is aging and will need to be modernized over the next decade.
two years ago the committee authorized the department to start a program to recapitalize the ready reserve force while the navy designed a family of auxiliary vessels for a number of uses including recapitalizing the ready reserve force. last year congress authorized the department to buy five more foreign built vessels as well as the department put forward a funded plan to build new ships for the are. rf in u.s. ship wards. general, i'm interested in the status and next steps for rrf recapitalization in 2020. the defense department needs to ensure that the civil reserve air fleet or craft program which provides as much as 40% of wartime airlift needs remains viable after operations in iraq and afghanistan and will be able to provide needed surge capacity in the future. general lyons, i'm interested in your view on the state this have fleet and if anything needs to be done to ensure these capabilities and their readiness. our global transportation
capability owned and managed by trans come is one of our advantages for many years now, however, with he cannot assume that potential adversaries will allow us free rein in this area in the future. last year general mcdoo told the committee that trans come has been conducting analyses to assess requirements for an environment where our mobility forces will be challenged and his assessment was that additional investment in lift would be needed. however, when we received the report of that analysis and the mobility requirement study earlier this year the study's conclusions did ifrd from the general's assessment. perhaps you can give us an update on why there was a change. finally trans com faces a unique set of cyber threats with private sectors entities in the transportation and shipping industries. i would like to get an update on progress on the cybersecurity efforts you have made since last year. let me inc. that the witnesses for their service and for their testimony. >> thank you, senator reed. you guys know the drill, first
you're going to have five minutes try not to exceed five minutes, but your entire statement will be made a part of the record, we start with you, general scaparrotti. >> chairman inhofe, ranking member reed, distinguished members of the committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as the commander of united states european command. i'm honored to be here today or this morning with general steve lyons as well. first and foremost, i want to thank you for congress' support of the service members, civilians and families in europe. these warriors demonstrate selfless service and dedication to your atlantic defense, a mission that is ee hedges sengs to our national security and to maintaining global peace and prosperity. we as a nation are blessed by their voluntary and exceptional service. thank you, again, for your steadfast support of these patriots and their mission. the threats facing u.s. interests in the ucom area of responsibility which includes israel are real and growing.
they are complex, trans regional, all domain and multi-functional. this remains one of the most dynamic periods in recent history in my view. russia has continued its reemergence as a strategic competitor and remains the primary threat to a stable eur atlantic security alliance. while the united states remains superiority over russia evolving capabilities threaten to erode our military advantage, challenge our ability to operate uncon it he issed in all domains and diminish our ability to deter russian aggression. in light of russia's modernizing and increasingly aggressive force posture we are assigned rotational forces. ucom recommends further investments that enhance european logistical infrastructure and capacity to support rapid deployment and multi-domain u.s. forces in europe. in addition to the threat from russia, the risk of terrorism in europe remains high, despite a
decline in fatalities from terrorist attacks in 2018. violent extremists present a clear and present threat. thankfully the united states is not alone in facing these other challenges across the theater. as our national defense strategy states the nato alliance deters russia adventurism, contributes to the defeat of terrorism and addresses instability. our allies and partners play a vital role in our collective security and have made significant progress in increasing cash contributions and capabilities that provide our common defense. for almost 70 years fate toe has been the cornerstone of security. as nato adapts to remain relevant and fit for purpose, we will find as we always have that every challenge is best addressed as an alliance. let into close by thanking congress and this committee for your continued support, especially the sustained funding
of the european deterrence initiative, edi. our future success is only possible with congress' support. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general scaparrotti. general lyons? >> chairman inhofe, ranking member reed, distinguished members, it is an honor to testify before you today and represent the men and women of united states transportation command. i'm pleased to join general scaparrotti, he is one of several, but we important supported kmabds to the united states transportation command and his more than 40 years of exceptional leadership remains a stellar example for all of us. i could not be more proud of the more than 120,000 soldiers, sailors, air men, marine and coast guards men and civil servants that are assigned to the united states transportation command.
they project and sustain the joint force every day. the department's global deployment networks, transportation capacity in air, on land and over the sea and our global command and control capabilities combine to provide the united states with a strategic comparative advantage unmatched around the world. around the globe a trans com aircraft is touching down every three minutes. trans com ships are under way, area refueling missions are orbiting overhead and planes converted to intensive care units are moving our nation's ill and injured. i should remind everybody, though, that the key to our success is global access and i would like to highlight that our allies and like-minded partners that provide access to key regions support substantial
basing and reinforce dod's global reach are critical to our mission. we know we must never take our success for granted. for decades we could generally deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted and operate how we wanted. with the rise of great power competition we can no longer assume that we can operate with impunity. before closing i'd like to acknowledge the letters that i received from more than a dozen members of congress concerning the defense personal property program which relocates the household goods for our service members, civil younes abouyaaqoub and their families. simply put, i agree. we lack the capacity during peak season and we lack pressures to hold industry accountable. our most important resources are people and we owe them better.
so in consultation with the service secretaries and the service chiefs and on behalf of the department trans com is leading an initiative to restructure our relationship with industry in an effort to improve quality, capacity and accountability. in closing, i'm proud to support dod's enduring mission of providing a combat credible military force to deter war and protect the security of our nation. our nation relies on united states transportation command to respond with an immediate force on short notice and seamlessly transition to projected decisive force when needed. i'm fully committed to retaining this strategic competitive advantage. thank you for your support to the department and your support to the united states transportation command. >> and thank you, general. >> i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general lyons. senator reed brought up in his opening statement the question as to whether or not general
scaparrotti that we have the right posture and the capabilities in ucom to handle the credible deterrents against russian aggression in europe. what's your opinion about that? >> chairman, thank you. we've clearly made progress in european command thanks to the support of congress. we've added forces and capabilities. we've improved the readiness, but i would tell you in response to your question that i'm not comfortable yet with the deterrent posture that we have in europe in support of the national defense strategy. >> where are the shortfalls as you see them? >> sir, i have shortfalls in our land component and the depth of forces there, i'd like to get into more detail in that in the closed hearing, and in our maritime component as well. both of those in particular when you look at the -- both the building capability and the
modernization of the russian forces that we face there. and then finally of concern is my intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance capacity. given that increasing and growing threat of russia. i need -- i need more isr. and, again, in a closed hearing i can go into detail. >> okay. you will have that opportunity at 2:30 today. general scaparrotti, we keep hearing from sources that maybe we have some redundancy in our nuclear program. we've been guilty, i think, for a long period of time in not addressing our nuclear modernization. we now are faced with a situation we have both russia and china with what we would call a triad system and i think that people with your background need to respond as to why a triad system is not redundant and is necessary. >> well, sir, first of all, our
strategic nuclear forces is critical to our deterrents and our security. in a triad as a part of that force is important as well. the triad gives each one of those legs of the component give us specific qualities that are somewhat different and we need those differing qualities just for a safeguard within the components itself, but also to make it complex for our adversaries to determine or believe that they have the opportunity to strike and gain dominance. i think with a triad i'm certain that they can't. i would note that they also have a triad as well. >> it needs to be repeated because the suggestions keep coming on. in ukraine russia is now in their sixth year at war there. we've talked about and we have actually had language in our defense authorization bills to send lethal help to ukraine and
to my knowledge there's only been one case where we actually were using lethal assistance. that was in the javelin. can you tell us why we have not been able to successfully do that since authorization is there? >> senator, i think you know, as it -- as recommendations for ukraine, particularly in the lethal side work its way it has to go through the policy deliberations that provide authority to deploy those kinds of weapon systems. as you stated, we got the authority with javelin, the ukrainians in my view have trained very well for the use of that, they've been responsible in the security and the deployment of it and we watch that closely. so they've handled that well. there are other systems, sniper systems, ammunition and perhaps looking at the kurd straights, perhaps consideration for naval systems as well here in the
future as we move forward. >> we have an authorization bill coming up. is that something you think that we might need some more language on? >> well, as you will see, i will have recommendations for that. >> good. >> and i would like consideration of those recommendations. >> okay. appreciate that. general lyons, i know there is a problem in trying to get all the service, materials transported out where they have needed and recently there has been some suggestion that maybe some of that should be -- should be contracted out. we have gone through some problems with the housing program recently on contracting out. do you have any comments to make about that as being one of the solutions to the problem that we face getting this material out? >> chairman, if you're referring to the joint deployment enterprise. >> i am. >> we are linked to industry at multiple levels. if we're referring specifically
about the household good program, i think that's what you're referring to, sir. >> that's what i'm referring to and that's where the suggestion has come out -- >> yes, sir, and what i would h out. >> what i would say is that's 100 commercial industry. it's not an effort to privatize what so far. but an effort to restructure our relationship with industry in a way delivering higher quality capacity and holds carriers and government accountable. >> senator reed. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. again, gentlemen thank you for your service and testimony. last march generate scaparrotti. you testified before the committee. is it still your view as last march. >> yes we improved. and congress as you know committed funding to some of the entities in the interagency that help us with this but it's still my view. >> wei presume based on your
response that we need a synchronized campaign prosecuted in a unified manner across the interagency which is multiple institutions to counter russian hybrid warfare and deter anything greater than that. is that accurate. >> we need a whole of government propose to this. >> where are the gaps right now? where are we not making the investments in your view. >> well, i think actually we need to probably get greater focus and energy into actual a strategy, multifacetted strategy, to counter russia. as you know general grisimov made another speech underscoring their view of indirect activity, use of whole of government activities as part of their spectrum of warfare. we have to approach in in a way we can counter that. and i think specifically within information operations
challenging their disinformation and cyber are areas that we need to continue to press. >> and that would presumably require state department activity, again, i'm old enough to recall the voice of america which is something that was very pronounced in the 50s and the '60s. those types of information campaigns are not being conducted. >> not in the way you and i recall. and i think we have the talent to pursue, particularly when it goes to underscoring our values, which i think is important. >> and all of in is designed, obviously to deter and disrupt putin's plans or aspirations. and without it he has more of an open field. is that correct? >> well, they have a good deal of agility, and they seem to have no constraints on -- on what they're willing to say publicly. >> thank you. general lyons, thank you for
mentioning in your comments the defense personal property the program, dp 3 processes at chairman indicated we are receiving comments and i'm following up with some specific questions for the record because i think this is an important issue. there is a proposal to move to single mover manager, again, this has some echos of some of the discussions we are having currently about housing issues in the military. so we want to be ahead of the game. so we'll send the questions to you for your response. >> sure thing. >> even before you took charge of transcom would be the we were concerned about with war planning for many years we assumed we are werp operating in a benign atmosphere. moving aircraft appear ships unprotected, et cetera. last year your predecessor hinted that the kc 46 tank they're we're buying might be too expensive to purchase
because the number we would need in a challenge situation to replace and to overmatch the adversary would be significantly more than projected. as a result, we asked transcom to produce a mobility requirement study. and the report came back and said there is no problem with our ability to support contingencies. we have the right mix. it essentially was disconnected with the comments that i heard, at least my perception of what general mcdue was talking about. what's changed? i mean, we all make the -- we all recognize, this is going to be a much more hostile environment to move equipment in. and we don't seem to be responding in an appropriate way. your comments, sir. >> thank you, sir for the question. i think you're referring to the mobility capabilities requirement study that the nda directed in '18. and that study was twaened the
department and transcom to lock at size and sufficiency of the mobility force against the program, essentially out to 2023. we did that appear. and we did that based on a demand signal from the existing plans that exist on the box today. but i would acknowledge to you today and i think general mcdue is alluding to the defense planning strategies being moreflectest defense strategy as we emerge and develop globally integrate the plans happening in the joint staff, we do see the potential for an increase the mobility requirement, particularly in the area of area refuel which is the life blood of the joint force. >> so that we are -- what you sent up to us is -- has been overtaken by events, more or less? >> sure, i would say we still have work to do on the plans, of which it's based. so the demand signal is it emerging right in front of us. and we'll adapt a study to the
plans a as they evolve, yes, sir. >> thung. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator wicker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general scaparrotti and general lyons, thank you very much for your work and i think it's clear that we have great leadership in your area of responsibility. general scaparrotti, about three weeks ago in congress sent five delegations, house and senate, to the munich security conference. that show of force was followed on then by a delegation going to the nato parliamentary assembly and another delegation on a week leader retroplay to the osce parliamentary assembly. does that volume of participation by house and senate members send a positive statement? is it helpful to you in dealing with your friends in europe- dsh with our friends in europe.
>> yes, sir qb first, it's very helpful and helpful to us as a nation. you know at munich that was the largest congressional delegation that they've ever had there. noted by everyone. that in and of itself is a strong message of commitment to our allies in europe. and then i would tell you the congressional delegations that traveled during the year to different spots within european command have a very positive influence, again another sign of commitment and actual discussion about the issues of the day. i routinely get feedback from the chiefs of defense, ministers of defense and others when our congressional delegations visit. i know it has an impact. >> well, i guess we could have a debate about whether there is a crisis in nato. i hope there isn't. but i do hope that the strong statement of wanting to be involved was heard. and i appreciate your comments in that regard. general scaparrotti, you are recommending augmenting our forces in europe.
specifically with regard to the sea power, what are your suggestions? for example, there are four destroyers in rota spain right now. do we need six? and what else needs to be done? what specifically can you tell us in an open hearing that would help with regard to our sea power aspect of helping you? >> well, as you know, specifically for the maritime component, what we are looking at is ooh of an evolving and modernizing russian fleets. in a closed hearing, i plan torg through just the changes i've seen in the three years i've been in european command. if we want to remain dominant in the maritime domain, particularly under sea, which we are today, we have to continue to modernize. and i think we need to build our capacity. specifically for destroyers, yes i've asked for two more
destroyers within u-con i'd like to go into more detail in the closed hearing rather than here. but we do need greater capacity particularly given modernization and growth of russian fleets in europe. >> in addition to two sbr destroyers, can you tell what else you're asking for in terms erms it of ships. >> it has to do with capabilities that deal with numbers of russian ships that we see within our theater today. and also for anti-submarine warfare. i'd like to go into the detailed piece in a closed hearing. >> are we needing more ships or fewer ships? >> well, you know -- that's a service question as to how they. >> in your area. >> in my area, more. on a i would like to see -- or at least the rotation of naval component carrier strike groups, amphibious strike groups at a
better pace in the three years i've seen in command. >> at the hal i fax security conference and munich security conference, a number of us met individually with the defense minister from turkey. at the military level, are we doing better with turkey than it would appear on the front pages of the newspapers? what's the news out of turkey recently? and is there any good news >> i would say first of all that we have a good -- very strong mill to mill relationship with our counterparents in turkey. i know well they are chief and minister of defense who was the chief prior to this prior to becoming the minister. we have do have differences as you know as you can see in the paper. but we have frank and candid conversations and we've been very successful at working through mutual interest to this point. our mil to mil relationship as
it reflects in the deployment of our forces in my view has improved over the past year. and so that's what i would hope that our work together will continue to do here as we look at the tough issues we have to face within the european command. >> so in terms of military to military things are a little better than a year ago. >> they are. they've improved. and i think we have a good, candid relationship. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you senator wicker. senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first general lyons, i noted your concern about the movement of personal items and i want to volunteer as a consultant, 50 years aigt a ai worked in ally value line moving military families if you need technical assistance it's easier to pick up a carten of lamp shades than books. i learned that the hashed way. anyway i couldn't resist. you brought back a lot of memories talking about moving furniture for military families.
general scaparrotti, i know you touched on this. but game out for me what happens if little green men appear in lithuania or latvia, how do we -- have we war gamed what happened in the ukraine and crimea? how do we respond? it seems to me this is a challenge for the deterrent posture. >> yes, we have taken -- we have taken a close look at both what's happened in the past and what we think could potentially happen here in the future. the first thing i would say is is that -- as a result of that we have worked with our ally in baltition action poll pd, bulgaria, romania on the eastern border on what we learned and the capabilities we think we need as an alliance both them and us in order to deter this. and our first perspective is what do we do today to ensure russia fully understands the commitment of article 5 for an alliance? >> but the question is how --
what's the definition of attack? it seems to me that's the gray area we are in to know when and how to respond when it's not clear that it's -- tanks aren't rolling across the border. >> well, that's -- you hit it -- i mean the thing that i worry about. >> you could continue on that was you hit it on the head process. i like on the record. >> the thing that's difficult is not necessarily the attack you can see coming. it's actually the subversive undermining of both the nation's authority, the -- one of the nations that ner undermining which is what they do, and other elements of power that aren't necessarily military. the military would be one of the last that they want to use. >> right. >> so that's the most difficult. but we also work with our interagency to the point that the senator reed made, that's the importance of all our elements of power here. when you can combine 29 nations with their elements of power and response to russia's it's --
it's a slam dunk there is no doubt we can handle this and they'll be deterred but we have to work together. >> a question about funding and budgets. we haven't even a budget yet, but there is talk of a significant increase in military budget. but primarily in oco as opposed to line items. give me your thoughts about oco rather than allocations and authorizations that you can put to work in your aor. >> well, primarily, those budgets that come in within the base budgets itself laid out in a fidep give me great are stability and knowledge of what's coming in the future. what we need is predictability. oco tends to fluctuate each year. i personally underscore the
greater pribltability we have and stability in the budget as we look forward. obviously the more efficient we can be with funding and the more sure what we need in terms of force capability, readiness, et cetera, can be planned and we can deliver it. >> thank you. i appreciate that. general linsey, you mentioned in your testimony ---en a it's clear that a large part of your responsibility is met through civilian enterprises, shipping, airplanes. are you -- and i know you talked about this. but plus outline for us your level and satisfaction and confidence in the cybersecurity of the private sector partners. >> sure. we acknowledge this is a significant challenge we work closely with spree partnering we sbrused lanl into our contracts we require self-assessments. bedo a level of analysis on that. and we work more closely to ensure that they're resiliency is improving. however, i would admit to you that if an advanced persistent
threat actor were on their systems today it would be problematic. no question about that. and fortunately we have multiple. >> do you red team their systems? self-analysis doesn't make me sleep better. do you have a red team capacity where you can mock attack them to show them vulnerabilities. >> we do not. >> i would urge to you consider that as an option in other areas of the government that's been effective it has a way of waking people up when a skull and cross bones appears on the ceo curate. >> thank you, general i appreciate that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> okay. senator fitcher >> thank you, mr. chairman. general lyons as you no he nebraska is the home of the 155th air refueling wing that plays a role especially during deployment with your command. i'm proud of those airmen. i met with them a couple of weeks ago back in nebraska. but my question to you is, what is -- when we're looking at the challenges and the risk that is
we're facing in order to meet the future demands, you kind of touched on that earlier -- what is the biggest issue you see contributing to the limiting capacity in the fleet? >> ma'am, specifically in the area of refueling? >> yes. >> i think you alieued to. area refueling is the life blood of the joint force's ability to project power immediately. there is nothing in the joint force we can do without that capability. and so i i was pleased to see the air force accept the kc 46 and begin the modernization process. that's an important first step. other initiatives the service in this case air force is improved readiness against the kc 135 fleet and .potential deferment of that divestiture of well weapon systems to we don't have a dip in capability over time. >> i'm happy to ha that. as you know the kc 46, it's
online but taking quite a while to make it an important part of the fleet. and as we look at the 135, there is maintenance issues. and we are seeing delays in that. are you confident that there is a good balance between active, reserve and guard when it comes to refueling? >> ma'am, i am i'll defer to the service on the force mix specifically. but i think you know very well we have guardmen on alert two-hour strip aalert today. it's a total force effort in everything we are doing. over 60% of are our capability does exist in the guard and reserve. >> what would you offer us as suggestions so that we can mitigate some of the obstacles we are facing with that limited refueling fleet that we have, with our capacity? do you have any suggestions for us. >> in the near-term it's about generating higher levels of
readiness. in the kc 135 fleet, for example, we're unable to meet that 85% goal. the air force is working very, very hard to improve that readiness. in the near-term that generates more tails available for mission. >> thank you. general scaparrotti, i'd like to ask you about some logistic challenges i think you face in u-comm. there's been quotes in the past in fact from you when you said the expansion of the alliance to include former eastern bloc countries has exacerbated the lack of common transportation networks between the newer nato members in the east and more established allies in the west. for example, germany just allows trucks loaded with tanks to be on their highways at night on weekdays. the rails on the baltic railroads, the gauge is set wider apart than we have in the
western standard. so trains haves to -- it's my understanding trains have to be unloaded appear reloaded near poland's border with lithuania. as we look at movement of troops and to be able to respond quickly to some of the possible challenges that we're looking at in that area, how serious is this issue today? and what steps have you taken in order to address that? >> well, thank you. it is true what you stated in terms of the -- the status today in europe. it's a serious issue, because we need to to be able to move 360 within europe with our forces and the ahey as well. if there is good news, the good new sthas we as you know -- congress supported particularly through edi some of the key fraz improvements we need
particularly in the east to support our the movements, support of our troops. support of the troops we put in place process but also it helps the allies. and the allies as well are financing along with many of those projects things that they should do with regard to airfields, fuel lines, rail, et cetera. >> are we -- are we tri -- i apologize for interrupting. about are we trying to facility some changes so that our nato allies can make those changes? and are we working together as well? >> they are. so within nato and eu both, nato had a study within you know the infrastructure and logistics support that needed to happen. u-com was involved involved in that. we provided help with them and also provided to the eu who did a mobilization study. that's resulted in about $7 billion the eu is going to invest in logistics and infrastructure over the next five or six years. much of what we recommended was
in fact accepted. so we have -- we now have a study. we know what our issues are. we've got insight within both eu and nato on that. and we have to follow up and make sure that that investment goes to the right places and actually makes a difference in military mobility. >> and to be able to have a rapid response? >> nacre. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator fischer. senator peter thes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and our witnesses if your testimony and service over many years. generality scaparrotti, you are well aware if there is ever a major conflict in europe the first shots are likely to be cyber. they are not going to be kinetic. i know since the russian pakt in estonia in 2007. the baltics have been leaning into this in a major which. estonia created the cyber defense league, established nato's cooperative cyber defense center of excellence, as you
know latvia is home to the nato strategic communications center of excellence. i'd like an update and share some thoughts on what you see in the baltic countries, lessoned learned things we may want to replicate in other places around the world. >> you noted the changes that have taken place. i would add as well, that after nature p.o. determined that cyber was in fact a dmand which needed to happen to give authorities. we now have a cyber center that operates within nato, connected with each of our nations. most of of them are building a cyber capability. you noted the cyber center of excellence that i think is a good one. it's important because it's through that process as one of those nodes that we're able to advance lessons learned, do training, ensure that we can help with -- with defense within nato but also to specific nations. so like anything in cyber,
though it's a dynamic world. we've got -- you know we are facing russia who is very agile in this and good at it. and so we really can't rest. we've got a lot to do yet in cyber. particularly capacity. we have to build the skills that we need to man these centers. >> you know, one idea that has come to me and i'd love to have your comments on it. as we try to provide more resource flews that -- and really leverage some of the state partnerships we have with the national guard. for example in michigan we have a cyber unit in michigan but those are around the country as well. and i know our partnering in baltics would love to have more presence of u.s. forces in country there as well. talk to me a little bit about whether or not it makes sense to have rotations of particularly cyber national guard units -- i mean there would be good for morale, great for retention, great for recruiting, allow them to be at the tip of the spear
while exchanging great ideas. and see something that makes sense to you. >> absolutely makes sense and something we're already doing. >> right. >> particularly where you have state partnership programs because they have a level of trust that's built some over 25 years. and they have that expertise. and it helps me in u-com because otherwise i pull from sieb cybercenter and expertise pan tend to a nation. here we can rotate through from a state with the same expertise and capacity to bltd that capacity. we are beginning to do more of that in europe today. >> i understand there might be some need for additional funding through the national guard to do that? or are there adequate resources for you to conduct that program? or will you need more. >> you would have to ask the national guard for the specific answer to that. but my spernl response is when you pick up an op tempo and bring them in, generally for the guard there is a funding issue. and of us has to pick it up. >> so we can explore that further. because i think. >> that's right. >> that's necessary to do that. general lyons, i'm a former supply corps officer in the u.s.
navy reserve. i think there is a lot of truth in general omar bradley's maxim that tam tours talk tactics and professionals study logistics. and so it's good to have you here. and i wanted you to comment a bit about a recent defense science brody task force. logistics publication that came out that talked about the decay in logistic readiness was perhaps the result of insufficient where gaming that incorporated logistics that are in a lot of war games they are just wished away. we no he professionals can't wish away logistics or you are in a world of hurt quickly. could you compensate on that report and give us an update how you are integrating combatant commanders with exercises so logistics is basingle rart are part of war gaming and real part not just wished away. >> thanks for the question. "i" familiar with the report. there are efforts actually ongoing now given the -- the defense strategy and the security environment that will operate in the future to better
connect logistics outcomes, for example in transcom's case in mobility outputs and ability to generate the force, with campaign analysis. which is currently disconnected. so we are working with the department to move in that direction in the future. >> general scaparrotti, briefly i know we are running out of time? but how is that being incorporated in your war gaming. >> we work very closely here in terms of our war gaming and do transportation feasibility in each of those. so our planners in fact work with his either coming back or they come we with he do our war planning. and that's just a standard part of what we do. >> and you don't think it's just being wished away, the will goes challenges in a war game? >> no, i don't. in fact, if anything we have leaned into this in trying to be very factual about what our problems will be, particularly with respect to those in europe as we mentioned earliyer. >> great, thank you, gentlemen.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you gentlemen. general scaparrotti welcome to the last hearing and general lyons to the first hearing i'm sure there were no know jokes made at general lyons at the beginning of the hearing general lyons with the smile on your face, i'd like to address some issues i have heard from logistics companies, including some in arkansas about dealing not just with the command but with the federal government as a whole but obviously your command is one of the largest if not the largest in the entire government when if comes to moving things and equipment. they expressed frustrations with the kind of inskrut ability or perplexed at the bureaucratic challenges of dealing with the government. a lot of the companies are one run by veterans or have a large veteran workforce given the training that the military gives its personnel in logistics. they would like to work more with the government and with transcom in particular. they find it sometimes to be a challenge.
what kind of working groups if any does transcom have with private industry to try to make what you do more transparent to them, so they can better serve our personnel through your command? >> senator, it's a great question. we are inextricksably linked in our republics with industry and ability to generate the force. we have a replace with our industry partners at putnam echelons from action officer to executive working grupts that my three-star deputy leads. i also meet at least two times a year with the senior executives from our industry partners. and i acknowledge your point that from time to time based on our federal squiks regulations it can be a bit of an obstacle to work with the government. and so we try to minimize that as much as possible and in fact that's really senator what's driving some of our restructure initiatives in the household goods side of the house to open up the market to more capacity. >> good. i would just like to encourage
that kind of lengths to continue process as the logistics industry changes rapidly with the use of information technology, the more connections you can have to private sector leaders and to the people who out doing this on the front lines will be beneficial to the personnel that you serve on the front lines, whether moving household goods or got getting material down range as well. i'd like to have my office continue to work with with your command to try to facility some of those conversations. >> thaltd be great, thank you. >> general scaparrotti, i notewood great interest that vladimir putin yesterday directed russia to were you from the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty which i find somewhat ironic since they have been violating commitments the last ten years. do you have any thoughts on that new. >> it would only be to understory wlau suggested and that was the fact any left the inf treating years ago by -- by you know very deliberately producing a weapon in violation and they've been deploying that weapon.
>> and the united states government has publicly recognized these violations under both the obama administration, trump administration we recently announced our intent to withdraw from the inf treaty. was interest any public opposition from a nato partner or what is if uniform support to withdraw. >> note nato both in december and february produced very strong statements in support of each step that we took in terms of our withdrawal from the inf treaty. i would say that our nato allies understand that the inf is a important point had xenoen to european security from their point of view. any will emphasize i'm sure you heard with each step that they would hope that we would continue to work to bring russia back into communes before we are fully out the six-month period or we would look forward from that then to perhaps a new treatiy that would encompass the new weapons systems, et cetera. they very much understand the importance of this but they did
support us strongly the, 29 nations, strongly in our decision. >> thank you. obviously one reason why it's in our national security interest to withdraw from the inf treaty besides russia's non-compliance with the treaty is that china has been free to build intermediate range mitchells at unlimited rates for decades now. as you know from your time at u.s. forces korea that has a significant impact on our interest in the pacific region. but china is not limit tld wants to be a global player. i noted with interest last year that the government of denmark agreed to build airports at greenland which it controls. not considered a traditional u-com area but it is within your area of operations. what are the complications of chinese presence if they were to get a foothold we they were denied in that airport construction projects last year in the high north? >> well, it could have an absolute impact. epiconcerned personally about
the strategic investments that we see by china throughout europe in air, see ports or vicinities of that. and critical -- critical technologies in companies that hold that. particularly in the high north where you note greenland and iceland both are important -- important bodies in that line of communication. so i think we need to watch carefully china's investment in these ports. as you know, many of their commercial companies are actually state-owned. >> thank you. general scaparrotti i want to thank you for your service to our nation for over 40 years. and i know you've been wearing that fourth sta star on the shoulder longer than anyone else in the armed forces right now. you've well earned the retirement that you have ahead of you. but i think i speak for most members of the committee when we say that we would like to see you back in the employ of uncle sam sometime in the future.
>> well thank you both for being here. and for your service to the country. general lyons, i want to follow up on some of the concerns that have been raised by senator reed and fischer about the phasing outs of our kc 135s and when the kc 46s arrives. it's my understand in new hampshire where with we have the 157th air refueling wing that there will be a period of months between the time the 135 is phased out and the 46 is delivered, given that it's already behind schedule. can you comment on what we should assume will happen during the months when there is no refueling capacity and whether the intent will be to try and keep the 135s around longer until the delivery of the 46s? >> ma'am, from my perspective, that's the key issue is to maintain operational capability throughout the conversion. and the air force is working
that very issue. in fact they're working currently to delay the divestiture of a select number of kc 35s so we don't have that exorbitant dip in capability over time. and so the service is working that, ma'am. >> and should we assume that that is going to happen? i mean, i appreciate that the service is working it. but does that mean that we are going to see that extension happen? >> senator, it's been my request. it's been well received which both the air component and the chief. obviously it's going to cost some money. and when the money is put into the problem that's when we'll know. but the intent is to retain 28 weapon systems beyond their currently scheduled retirement. >> thank you. and in terms of boeing's delivery of the 46s, i know that we have accepted the -- or made a commitment to address some of the concerns that have been
expressed about the tankers. do we -- do we know whether that's going to speed up the further delivery? or should we stum that we're going to see further delays? >> ma'am, the decision to dhifr, i think was a good one. . right now we're on a pause, as you may know based on some boeing issues with foreign object. so i don't have a sense until that's cleared up for what the impact on the program. but i'll talk to the air force about that. >> thank you. i appreciate that. and i'm sure that all of us boeing does everything they can to make sure the deliveries are done to address the concerns that have been raised. >> yes, ma'am. >> general scaparrotti, you mention in your testimony the concern about turkey acquiring the s-400 at the same time they're supposed to take delivery of the f-35s.
and i know that there has been an effort underway to try and encourage turkey to look at other alternatives, and that there was an offer made early in january for the sale of the patriot system. they have until the end of march, it's my understanding, to decide whether they are going to take delivery of that or not. but the question i have is if turkey moves forward with the agreement with russia on the s-400, do we assume that they should receive delivery of the f-35s? and what does that do to their accessing that technology? >> senator, i would say, first of all, if they accept the s-400 and to establish it within turkey, there is, first of all, an issue of -- that it's not interoperable with nato systems, nor is it interoperable inside of our basinged mayor missile defense systems that's one
problem. the second has to do with the f-35. it presents a problem to all our aircraft that the specifically the f-35, i believe. my best military advice would be that we don't then follow through with the f-35, flying it or working with an ally that's working with russian systems, particularly air defense systems, with one of our what i would say is probably one of our most advanced technological capabilities. >> i'm pleased to hear you say that. the question i guess i have is i understand that some of the parts for the f-35 are being made in turkey. and what happens to that assembly? and who picks up that slack if turkey can't receive the f-35? >> well, that's -- that's one of the issues that's being considered and will be considered, i'm sure. as you know. for them i would underscore the fact that this is -- this is a
huge decision for turkey. and we have -- it we have continuously. i've talked to them personally as all of our leadership has. it connects in many different ways to that, to the employment and the integration that they have within the system it seven, the f-35. but also to fms appear other system that is we sell to turkey as well. and so i -- i would hope that they would reconsider this one decision on s-400, one system but potentially forfeit many of the other systems and and one of the most important systems that we can provide them. >> well, thank you. i share that true. i think turkey is an important ally but one that we hope to be able to depend on. thank you rb with be mr. chairman. >> thank you senator shaheen. let me inform you that it's -- some of the k-c-46s have been
delivered. in fact i flew the right seat of a k-r-46 from seattle, washington to altus. senator sullivan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and gentlemen, thank you for being here and your service. general scaparrotti, i want to talk about a few things. first there is a narrative that i think played out a lot in the media that the administration or what you are doing in your capacity is somehow being weak on russia and putin. remote -- i just want to talk about a few actions that under your leadership we have been taking, because isn't it true that the one thing that putin understands more than anything is power, right? >> would you agree with that. >> i would agree. >> power military forces, energy production, not words but actual power. >> um-hum. >> does it help that we have now forces -- our forces deployed in countries like poland and the baltics and the european
reassurance initiative which in committee has supported in a bipartisan fashion? >> yes, sir, very important. >> how about -- doesn't get a lot of press, but my colleague senator ernst was recently in ukraine. and as you know the previous administration was reluctant and never helped the ukrainians with defensive weapon systems that they could use to protect themselves. under secretary mattis's leadership when he got involved, we did provide the ukrainian the javelin anti-tank missile system. how is that working out? >> well, senator, first of all, as i said earlier in testimony, they've received the system. i've been impressed with their training and their preparation to utilize it. >> you think that makes russian t-72 tank drivers in eastern ukraine a little more nervous. >> i think it does. i think the fact that they have javelin that they could employ and know how to employ it is a deterrent. >> are we seeing any force
posture indications that they are taking that into consideration moving those kind of forces? i'm talking about the russian forces. >> not directly. because we -- we have not employed them right on the line. the ukrainians haven't. but i'm sure they're aware of them and take that into consideration in the employment of their forces where they put them. they know it would be -- it's a lethal weapon system. >> okay. thank you. i don't know if you mentioned -- i'm sorry i had to step out prior to your testimony. but can you talk a little about about the vladivostok 2018 exercises, involving 300,000 russian troops, 80s ships, notably 3,200 chinese troops, including up to as many as 900 chinese tanks. are those reports accurate? and nlts should we be concerned about that? >> well, first of all, the numbers that they publicized are
higher than what was factually present. i can talk on more detail in this on the classified hearing this afternoon. it wasn't that large. but it was large. and, yes, we should take notice. primarily because it was designed for them at a very strategic operational level to be able to command and control large forces in a force on force type of exercise scenario. it connected them with many of their multiple -- multiple of their regional commands, specifically in order to practice that. and it covered both conventional, long range precision munitions training as well as nuclear training offset toward the end and include china as you noted which is the first time i can recall them providing forces in a partner training scenario, which is quite unusual. so the size of it, the
complexity of it, the communications that they demonstrated, the fact that it was a hybrid conventional and nuclear exercise, i think is all important. >> let me ask- dsh thank you for that. general lyons you and i had a discussion. and the chairman i see was talking about the kc 46 and the deployment of that. i know it's not the numberly your call but certainly you're an advocate and have a lot of knowledge. i'm asking a couple of quick questions just appreciate quick answers to. but when you look at the places where you would want to deploy that, either conos or oconos decisions the national defense strategy prioritizes great power kegs within mcand russia. decisive action against north korea. would it make sense to place kc 46s in a part of american territory state or otherwise that's closely proximate to those place sns. >> senator, i -- just to be clear. alaska is clearly a strategic
location. >> you are getting to my punch line. i haven't even gone through the list. let me go through the list. >> go ahead. >> we're close -- we're close to all of those places. we're the only state where you are actually right at the seams of u-compacom saturate com, the state of alaska is in the seams of every one of those. the old plans that support consync continuingcies all focus onalaska. it has the fourth largest fuel storage area of the air force in any place in the world. it's going to have 10 fifth generation fighters in the next two years. 100. no other place on the planet earth will have 100 combat fifth gen fighters. f2 the infrastructure to support aerial refueling operations and j-park will be the fifth
training place for j-aircraft. the of course i'm i'm advocating for the state i represent. but i wouldn't do it unless i thought it made 10 oh% strategic sense. just give me your thoughts on that very quickly. >> sir, i know the air force is still developing the base plan. it's not complete. particularly in the future years. and i do have confidence that they'll look completely at the operational range and capability to be able to swing and give us the flexibility to transcom to employ and that person weapon system. i'm shurp alaska is part of the decision. i just don't know the details, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope on the right seat ride you didn't try to get them to to a hammer head, any aerobattic maneuvers? stay within the -- within the restrictions. gentlemen, thank you so much for your participation today.
general scaparrotti i want to return to the discussion about logistics challenges especially in the eastern european area. i -- illinois national guard has been the sponsor in the state partnership for peace program for with the nation of poland for 28 years now, i believe. 27 plus years. so through my service i'm somewhat familiar with the challenges that we face there. could you update us on how the establishment of the nato joint support and enabling command is going? and let's remind ourselves which it was created and what will it better enable to you do in theater to respond to russian aggression? and when would the command be fully operational? >> the establishment of j-sec as you called it moving as you say on time line. moving ahead of pace in my view. the germans who are the framework nation for in headquarters in ohm germany have in my view they have leaned into this.
they've already got the commander designated. they have a portion of the staff there. they've been present in my headquarters in shape to do the further planning that needs to take place to ensure it's right sized, to make sure the planning, the ungds be rules abresponsibilities are correct. that's the piece we are doing right now. but it's moving along very well. in fall is ioc, another year before it would be fully operational. we have some time here before it would be fully operational. but i would say to you that i think they'll be ahead of that in terms of real output. they're already making a difference in terms of our logistics planning with -- with other logistics commands within the headquarters. and throughout the components. so i think they'll actually be leaning into that before they're actually fully established so to speak. why did we set that up? primarily because in a european
environment where we have to be able to support and move 360 -- not just to the eastern border but north to the high north, south, and west, with a threat that's actually 360, and then we needed to protect the central lines of communication, critical ports, sea ports and infrastructure in doing that. because as has been testified to here and by general lyons, this is -- we're now that a contested virmt environment. we needed a headquarter that is look logistically as well as protection of the key assets. and that's really why we stood up that command. and it's well placed being in kind of the central -- the heartland of europe so to speak and sense of germany. it's an important step for nato to take and i think it demonstrate's nato's focus on making sure it's relevant to the environment we are in today. >> thank you, germ. general lyons, how would tran
com plug into the j-sec? how would you it plug it in during the times of kplskt and have we tested. >> senator, first let me say say thank you for understanding of logistics and importance of logistics in war fighting thank you for that. i've been though europe several times. i met with the leadership of j-s.e.c. it's a great initiate navy general scaparrottien a his team are moving out on. i don't know that we plug in directly. we plug in directly to his u-com headquarters through a european deployment distributions and operations center. then across at echelon to include his headquarters. we would take the signals that he would be sending on his priorities for mobility annan then meet them according mri he would have the role to swgt that that from a coalition perspective. >> i'd like to -- with that island like to lurn general scaparrotti to an understanding of c lift, he an constitution.
nato reenlts reactive the the guarding the sea lanes to the approach of europe in event of where. can you zrib to me the amount of sea lift that would be required to move significant u.s. forces to the europe in conflict. are you clvl with the amount of sea lift at your deposal right now in event of conflict. >> when we he go to the lows closed session i would get more detail. but because of the types of forces i move -- and steve would agree we rely on sea lift largely for the bulk and heavy -- heavy movement. you know, i'm aware of the challenges to our particularly our reserve force for naval forces. and our -- you know where our commercial support. that's all important if we had a full conflict in europe. and so i would just underscore the importance of funding that, making sure- and making sure that we have the readiness and the right place. because we will rely on it heavily for any crisis in
europe. >> thank you. we'll probably try to follow up in the session later today. thank you gentlemen. >> thank you, senator duckworth. since you brought up the k-c-46, remind all of us here that that's replacing the eventually the kc 135. the first k c-135 drifrd to alt us air force base was in 1959 it's operating 60 years. gives you the idea of the significance of the k c-46 to the distant future of that capability. senator hawley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general scaparrotti general line thank you for being here. thank you for your exemplary service and thank you to the men and women under your command. general scaparrotti if i could start with you i want to talk a little bit about the nds strategy commission. the nds commission various rand studies and others have clearly
indicated that we are not optimally postured to deal with a russian assault into baltics in particular. and the nds clearly states that the joint force has got to be prepared to blunt in assault and prevent a russian mission. >> the positive work in the previous years european defense and other initiatives can you give us a progress report? i understand you may want to save some for the closed session. but can you give us a progress report on our force postures developments to prevent that fait accompli where are we on this in your judgment. >> we made clear stated as i stated up-front in this regard. largely thankful to the support of congress, particularly edi and funding the changes we need to make. we made progress. i would tell new every domain that's important to that, including cyber in that, for instance, but we're not postured
yet where we need to be. as you cited the studies have come out recently underscoring that. in the closed session i would like to talk to you more specifically about where we're at and what we're short. but for instance we now have rotational bring gade, a armor bring fid cab in the east. italian task force part of nato. we have rotation alair forces. rotational bomber forces. we have had twice now -- well three times actually carrier strike groups and once already in the high north for the first time in 20 years. we started at the beginning of my time here three years ago we were moving one bring gade at a time and challenged. a month aigt i moved four bring gades two armors two cab simultaneously in europe. that's progress. and thanks to transcom appear others that help us do the work, provide the assets, increase the infrastructure to make that happen.
so clearly progress but we are not there yet. >> and again, with the regulation innovation i realize you want to save the specific for the closed session. i think it's important to get some on the record as we dow flew the authorization season here and then the apprehensions season where we'll need to make the case for authorizing and spending what is necessary in order to get you what you need. can you give us an overview at least about what more you think we need generally speaking to get you to the posture that the nds recommends? >> well, first of all we'll sta start with the cyber domain. there is a -- there is a plan and increase in my cyber capability. and i have been increasesed by cybercom as a priority that's happened. but i still have personnel and skills in -- in the numbers of around 50 personnel yet that we'd be happy to have them in place. that's one of those. if you go to the land component, i need great are land component
capability, not only in armored elements but with my enablers. a and i'll go into more detail in that in the other. i mentioned maritime cigaretter capacity there as well as specific capabilities to stay ahead of, frankry, the modernization that we see in russia's maritime forces. the air force is presently in a rotational basis providing fifth gen affect, bottomer aircraft, et cetera, which need to dpli for deterrent factor and ensure our readiness and capability. i'm looking forward to those being stationed permanently in some numbers within europe as well. >> all right. thank you. let me ask you about our european allies. can you give us a report -- you mentioned some of this in the written testimony. can you give us a report on the work with our european allies, and especially germany, to ensure that they are meeting their nato commitments and have a plan to do so going forward? >> well, as you know we've been working with all our allies. i mentioned up front the cash
contribution. so since 2016 that our allays have put another $41 billion into defense. by 2020 it will be $100 billion based on the plans that they had to provide here in december. their contributions have stepped up. we asked for greater force structure to assist in afghanistan. our allies responded. so i think when you look at that, you know they are clearly responding. but we have a ways to go yet. germany in particular has responded as well. they plan to bring their dsh their defense investment up to 1.5%. that's not 2% yet. that's where it needs to be. but they're -- they're clearly refocused on their contribution as well as their readiness. as you know, they've got some readiness issues. that's been in the paper. i believe that's true from what i've seen. but they are providing the very
high joint task force, for instance for nato. and they made sure they pursued a force ready and credible. i've seen it. we prited with that force in try dent juncture for instance. any understand the issue. and they're working hard to get the readiness up to where it's needing to be. but they spent a good deal of time we did as well but european nations where they rested and didn't invest in the defense and now they have to invest heavily to get back up on tepp. >> thank you general thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hawley senator warren. >> thank you mr. kmarm. i wanted to discuss a national security threat that can't be addressed by traditional military power at all. and that is climate change. the unclassified worldwide threat assessment by the director of national intelligence said -- i'm quoting here -- global environmental and
ecowillingle degradation and climate change are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress and social discontent through 2019 and beyond. end quote. that assessment also said, quote, damage to communications, energy and transportation infrastructure could affect low lying military bases, inflict economic costs and cause human displacement and loss of life. i've asked this question to other combatant commanders to i want to make sure i get this on the record. general scaparrotti and general lyons do you agree with the intelligence community's assessment of the climb chanatee threat. >> i do. and i believe that as you noted much of this will be drivers for potential cliskt or at least very difficult situations that nations have to deal with. the second i would point to you the high north, that's the increasing opening of the northern sea route.
and the challenges that presents from a security perspective. >> yes. thank you. thank you, general lyons do you also agree. >> ma'am, i agree. these are sources of conflict and we certainly have to be prepared to i agree. these are sources of conflict and we have to be prepared to respond to that. >> coyou would i ask each of you very briefly just to describe how climate change impacts your operations in your commands and what you're doing to adapt to these changes? >> well the most apparent is the arctic. we're going, we're seeing longer periods of time that the northern sea route is open. and so as a part of that, there's an inkrecreased interesn commercial and source capabilities there. china is pressing to get into the high north and have some presence there. and so that creates competition.
russia because that sea route follows most closely to their borders has increased ten other airports there. they know have radar systems up. they have begun to move on periodic times different weapons systems for control of the area. so those are all things i have to bring into my planning. >> and what has been your response to that? just briefly. >>. >> we have update our plans. we have changed our operational patterns so we, in fact, deter and send a signal of the importance to the arctic to us. those are some of the ways on day-to-day we have made changes in our normal routine in order to demonstrate significance and capability in the arctic.
>> general lions? >> anything that degrades our ability to sustain power is a concern. we know we have to operate in any conditions whatsoever. >> so what are you doing by way of response? >> in our planning and so forth, we consider all environments. >> fair enough. i wasn't looking for a scientific answer, but how you have to readjust where you are ask what you're doing. i just want to say adapting to climate change impacts our military readiness ask i'm glad you take this threat seriously. i i appreciate that. in my remaining time, i want to ask very briefly, if it i can, about the inf treaty. we all know this is a landmark
treaty. arms control treaty with russia negotiated by president reagan. the treaty prohibits both of our countries from testing ask deploying ground launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 kilomete kilometers. we know russia is in violation of the treaty since 2014, but rather than use the mechanisms in the treaty to try to get russia back into compliance, the administration is abandoning the treaty entirely. so what is our plan to prevent russia from building more inf treaty prohibited missiles this the absence of the treaty. do we have a plan here? >>. >> ma'am, i would have to defer on that. that's out of my area of exper tees. >> senator, i think that we're
still in a six-month period looking at our options. we have told our allies and nato we will do that planning and collaboration with them. we have begun that. so i don't know we have a plan today. i know that we're working on what we think that plan might be. i personally think it has to be multidimensional. it has to be across all our domains and has to be whole of government to respond to that. i would find finally say from my point of view that when you have a competitor, a mod dern newsing one that will be challenging such as russia we should look toward treaty capabilities in order to provide some stability. to provide cig calls in communications ask limits that we understand and that we can work from. i'm glad to hear that you are trying to work with our allies. i think the polish have said
that they don't -- they are concerned about missiles on their land. instead of withdrawing from the treaty whether or not we should be redoubling our efforts to bring russia back to compliance with the treaty. we know that putin can't be trusted, but we have a responsibility to prevent a dangerous and expensive arms race in europe. and without the treaty, i'm worried that's what we're going. i apologize. >> senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here. i was down at fort brag with secretary and we were talking with folks there who are in unacceptable housing conditions. we also talked a little bit and i have had a number of discussions in the past with families about some of their household belongings being moved.
some of the bottlenecks and unsatisfactory service. so i like the idea of taking a personal property program into what i would consider to be one throat to choke sort of model. but i'd really like to maybe if you could briefly describe where you think this is going to adopt. i really want to make sure we get this right in terms of accountability, predictability and customer satisfaction and so that any relationship we create with this confederation of move movers, you're going to have a numb of individual providers. we have to get the compensation and accountability models right so that we don't end up here honestly trying to do a good thing and ending up where we are with the housing situation. can you give me some assurances or briefly describe how that's going to work. >> senator, i can. this is definitely not a privatization effort by any stretch of the imagination. what i have aeoffered to the
service secretaries and chiefs is completely deing a gaited diffused value chain of centralized responsibility even inside the government. i look at them and say hold me accountab accountable. develop a tool to hold industry accountable. we have a track record of being able to do that. in other parts of the personal property program, i do know, senator, there's some concern in industry we get a lot of feedback. some are supportive where we're headed. they see opportunities to enter the market. others are concerned about potential change. what i tell them and what i have seen in our past acquisitions that have been similar is that below the level, we still need to same or greater number of movers. we just need a level of quality in this system. >> is and some peaking capability. i would be interested in the right people and meeting with my
staff to look at that operationally. it would almost be this baseline guarantee of capacity with some peaking capability that almost uber like in terms of having the household know that they are going to get their things moved a at the appropriate time. hopefully to a a house that is in much better condition than i saw at fort brag. not your problem. i appreciate the time you spent in the office yesterday. i appreciate your decades of service. and i associate myself with senator cotton's comments. if you take your uniform off, we hope it doesn't mean we won't see you back here serving in some other capacity. i'm going to save a lot of my questions for the classified briefing. but i do want to highlight my concern with the turkey situation. particularly with the s-400s.
i know we're working on the threat with the pkk. so on the one hand we're trying to continue to build on that relationship. turkey is a vitally important nato partner and the most complicated part of the world. so i understand some of their behaviors, but i do not understand under any circumstances why on earth they would be considering purchasing a missile defense system that would not be inoperable that require capabilities on the ground in turkey to threaten the presence of our joint strike fighter, they would be considering a decision that would make us have to rethink whether or not they can actually be in the supply chain for the joint strike fighter. so let alone deploying assets that are scheduled to be there in 2020, but even raising doubts about whether or not we can legitimately manufacture and
distribute parts in the supply chain for the production of joibt strike fighters. and the message that i want to send to the turkish leadership is this is an area. congress got educated on the joint strike fighter when we were dealing with a matter involving a pastor from my state. i think we're very well briefed on it now and some of the risks there. i would just encourage the turkish government and the leadership to recognize that they should not have this one decision put all the other great things we're doing in the the balance and have congress potentially in position to have to act. >> senator, thank you. as you know, we have a team there today. and i'm sure very candid conversation about the potential consequences are a part of that conversation. >> thank you.
senator blumenthal? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first ask you a a question a bt privatization. as you are familiar, as you know, army veteran ask military spouse megan hearthlis wrote an article to privatize the military move program. she stated that the military move advisory panel convened has not been consulted regarding privatization and has not solicited feedback from military families or from the moving industry. do military families support privatization?
>> senator, there's no initiative whatsoever to privatize the household good industry. this is a 100% task inside that value chain is conducted today. what we are proposing is a restructure of how the government approaches this with industry. and i think it to be honest with you, i received more letters on this particular issue since the six months i have been commander than any other issue that they deal with. and in fact, i agree with the criticism to the program. we need to take action to remedy the program as it is today. >> will you commit to prioritizing the needs of those military families. that's the north star. that's the only reason that we're doing this, sir. >> will you commit to consulting with the transcom advisory
panel? >> yes, sir. we consult regularly with industry. some are concerned. i do know, senator, that the moving associations frerks are drafting language to insert that would delay any kind of progress in this area. perhaps for two more years. i really think that would be a gut punch for military families. >> general, talking about the ukraine. is there evidence of the russians meddling in the elections that are planned. they are supporting the parties they believe they can have the most influence. and those individuals. they are certainly disinformation as a part of that. they are playing in that way.
i think for instance russia's seizure of their it ships and 24 sailors and the fact that they have in the been released is is likely also another way they have some leverage and influence on the outcome of that election. >> has there bye-bye an increase in disinformation or other russian interference? >> just generally, it's been targeted at undermining the present government and the president. >> what's your command or other american resources doing to counter it? >> both not only my command, i deal with the military aspects of this, but there's others diplomatly in the state that we're working with in this regard. but they have personnel that support military means.
they have appropriate information and cyber defenses in the closed hearing i can be more specific about precisely what we're toing. >> just to reassure the american people and that's the purpose of an open hearing really to inform the american people, can you describe some prescription of what's being done in the cyber domain by your campaign to bolster the defense? >> just to make sure this is a free and fair election. within the cyber domain, mine is to help with their defense of their systems. so it's not selected by any means. it's primary defense and helped them to understand how they
ensure they do have a free and fair election. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will tell you it's been such a pleasure for me to go through this series of hearings with the different commands and responsibility and hear repeatedly from you all some of the needs. and stepping up our game dealing with russia and china and especially with cyber. and general, i am from tennessee. i have some national guardsman under your command. folks in ukraine and poland and we appreciate their service. we appreciate you and the leadership that you have shown throughout your career to our men b and women in uniform and
to those that are currently under your command. let me stay with this looking at our enemies. russia, china, the cyber component. we'll come back to that this afternoon in the briefing. but what i'd like to note is you look at europe ask as we talk about the roll out of 5g and you're look at the initiative. do you have what you need. where do we need to be planning forward on that and how are you approaching the integration and the utilization for really what some of our troops at fort campbell when i talked to some of our special opts guys, fifth division, this is very important to them. 5g and the utilization of that.
knowing that's beginning to help fuel artificial intelligence. knowing they are going to use that with some of the capabilities. if you'll just touch on that bri briefly and we'll explore it a little more this afternoon. >> i'll just start with the 5g part of this. this is a different capability than what we have today. it's not just a modernization or upgrade. it's a whole new world. >> it's a different world. we have to know we have a secure 5g capability pap that's one of the reasons you go to the allies that we have said they need to be very careful about chinese investment. and their telecommunications capabilities. because we also want to know that we're secure with our allies that we connect with. and there may be an outcome we can't connect with allies unless
they change the come to sogs of the systems. we're try ing ing to get ahead that. >> is this an open discussion that you're having? >> yes. it's an open discussion. i would say to you that just as an idea how this has come along, two years ago this wouldn't have been a topic. a year ago it was starting to come in and now it's front ask center. as a security issue. >> general, they had some problems with some breaches. and i think it was a couple years ago chinese tahackers got into the network 20 times. we have talked about it with different points. we brought up spain and as you look at the integration and all
that comes under you give me an update on the security of your systems and how are you dealing with contractors that are a part of your system. >> i tell folks this is a war fighting domain. there's no one thing that's going to solve this. and so we have multiple things going on. everything from just operator d discipline through hygiene through defense, through infrastructure and a high level of collaboration with cyber command to create conditions to cost to allow us to operate. for our industry partner, we're upping our game there through our contractual language with collaboration and information sharing.
that does become a vulnerability in the enterprise. >> we'll talk a little more about that in this afternoon's hearing. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses for your service and your testimony. a house bill to overturn president trump's emergency declaration is pending before this committee. and will likely be vote d objec within the next ten days or so. there's two issues that senators are grappling with about the bill. one, the question of whether there is an emergency.
it's with funding and $2.5 billion of drug intradiction moneys within the budget. i want to ask you about these proposals because we are trying to get information about exactly how the moving of the $6 billion could affect military operations. have either of you in your commands been asked to provide lists of projects that should be either delayed or reduced or eliminated. >> general? >> no, sir, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate. >> you don't have the big back lists that the others to. now with respect to the proposal, i gather what you mean by that. you're often putting together
lists. that would be one of the things you'd do is looking at needs within that command. so you have been doing that, but you haven't been asked with respect to this proposal what projects could be reduced, delayed or eliminated. >> with respect to the budget as a whole, well prior to this question, we went through the normal process of our discussion within dod as to across the department with respect to it. >> do you know if and when a decision is made about where the $3.5 billion of projects which will be affected? did you know whether you'll be in that decision loop or made by others? >> i expect i'll be in the decision.
within the department, we have a close relationship with them. we generally would have no one discussed it with me and they were confident. >> and they would be the service secretaries? >> it would be the service secretary. probably the secretary as well. there's not $2.5 billion in that account. only $85 million is available for use right now. there's a discussion on what the pentagon would do would be to take moneys out of other accounts to fill up the drug interdiction accounts prior to using it for the emergency proposal. but the president suggested, have either of you been involved
in discussions about funds within that might be used to pull into the account? >> no, senator, i haven't. >> no, sir. >> general, let me ask you about this. 70th anniversary in nato is in april. really important one. nato has a headquarters both in brussels and in virginia in the hampton roads area. i have a proposal, a bill that's a bipartisan bill that would stipulate that nato, a treaty that the senate ratified the u.s. should not unilaterally withdraw without a senate vote or act of congress. the bill is a bipartisan one and meant to send a strong signal o. would that message be positively received by allies? >> senator, i believe it would. and the votes by congress that they have taken in the past to reenforce our commitment to
allies have been helpful as well. >> no further questions. thank you. >> thank you for being here today and willing to answer questions. like so many of my colleagues, i want to make sure you have the tools and resources necessary to enable you in your missions and make you successful. as senator sullivan mentioned just a little bit earlier, i did recently return from a trip to ukraine. and during that trip, i was able to see firsthand the russian aggression that is being exhibited in that region against what is a very important strategic partner to us. it's for many of our allies around the world as well.
senator sullivan mentioned that we have provided javelins to the ukrainian army. so i met with members of the defense establishment there as well as members of the parliament and those that i had the opportunity to meet with and also the joint forces headquarters near the eastern front, they really appreciated that assistance. what more can we do for the ukrainians in that regard for lethal assistance? is it just simply more javelins or additional assistance we can provide? >> there's i us think personally, you'll see soon here a list i think it's already been provided to congress. but we provide that prior to it
being authorized the actual purchase from the funding that you have given. but from my point of view, the things we need to continue is their support for counterbattery. that they have the assets and systems they need to do that well. they have asked for help and communication at an operational level. they have a distinct need for that. while we focus on the line of contact, their chief of defense is also focused on other areas of the country that are are a threat that russia could present a threat as well. he's trying to determine, he's trying to establish a good communications system for his entire force as well as just the front. they have asked for systems to help with snipeser proficiency, the right kind of weapons and dwre nad launchers.
given the fleet that russia took. they just lost a couple ships as well. there's some areas there we can help them get this back up and supply is it with they believe they need to defend themselves and deter russia's actions. yoozing those sailors as leverage with the elections coming up. so i do appreciate that you think we need to do more in the maritime front. not only assisting them in the navy, but is is it possible that we as an american force need to have more of our naval forces in the black sea region?
>> both the united states and nato have stepped up presence in the sea. it's the second time that we have had a destroyer in the past two months. so we belief there's a need for that. we have stepped up ask our allies have as well. nato has a fleet. >> is it sending a clear message to president putin? >> i think it is. they frankly don't like us in the black sea. and it's international waters. we should sail and fly there. sdwl that's a great thing, and i love it. so thank you, sir. the presidential elections are coming up and i'll just close with this. i think it was very important that i take this trip ask spend time with the folks within their defense sector and also spent time with some of their brand
new special operations forces that it just graduated from their ukrainian course, which is run by our american special operations forces. i appreciate what we're doing in that region, sir. i appreciate your leadership in had that region. gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today. >>. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here ask for your service. i appreciate you coming by the office the other day. i also appreciated your candid answers concerning cloi mat change. i think we get caught up in the political discussions and not focus on the real world consequences that are affecting us today. ear earlier today you spoke with senator cotton about china's investments in your aor. if you can i'd like to have you discuss what actions they may be
taking to counter activities in europe today? >> most of all it's discussions with our counterparts and leaders about the concerns of china's what i would say is strategic investments. most of this is diplomatic at this point. but we do try to ensure that we can point out to them not only economic benefits with china demonstrates and chanmake sure are aware of but also the security aspects of their control of airports, sea ports, critical key terrain and investment in infrastructure particularly with technology that's critical. we try to emphasize the securities a sects. >> has the administration's tactics with regards to the tariffs and european tariffs, have you seen any effect on that
with any of our allies, the economic impact? >> well, there's certainly a point of discussion among the allies and one of the concern because our country and europe has a very significant trade ask economic linkage there. but in terms of the direct impact for me the relationships are strong. that is dealt with in a diplomatic side. >> thank you, sir. general a senatconversation you on cyber security. if you can this this hearing as opposed to the closed hearing, could you please maybe describe the impact on operations of a nation state cyber attack on transcom's network asks how this could impact your ability?
>> anything that would degrade our concern cyber as a war fighting domain does create an area of vul neshlt across what's largely an unclassified surface of employment. so we're working very hard to prioritize and ensure we have the appropriate level of resiliency and to move to an infrastructure that's more secure and we're moving rapidly in that area. >> i will just stay with you. you mentioned earlier there was a plan to improve the household goods shipment process using a single contractor to manage transportation service providers. how will that change and prove the process? what will it cost and will it increase in accountability? >> senator, it will definitely increase accountability, and also capacity. those are the two major
complaints with our industry partners. we unfortunately create for ourselves. there's no question it will improve accountability. today there are 950 various transportation service providers that compete for work on a transactional basis. very difficult across the services and maintain account of all that. the business folks know the business and that's the right relationship to have with the move manager. >> great. thank you both for being here. >> it looks like we have run out of members here so we'll call this a close. several people during the course of this hearing, general, have speculated this may be your last
time that you attend this hearing. and i know it's also your birthday today. is this a birthday present to you? >> it's congress's birthday present, i assume. >> we thank you so much for all the service, both of you. but particularly you because you have appeared so many times and has been pointed out by senator reid you have held the fourth star longer than anyone in existence here so you have served your country in a way many others have not. thank you for your service. >> gia >> join in thanking you both. thank you. >> we're adjourned. thank you.
today the house rules committee will meet to discuss hr-1. the rules committee will decide what amendments will be allowed to be debated. live coverage on c sparks 3. and the house is expected to take up the bill tomorrow. the 600-plus page bill changes campai campaign finance rules. watch live coverage of that debate on c-span. and move money to build more
barriers along the border. the resolution to terminate that order passed the house last week. it's expected to have just enough republican senators for it to pass and then be sent to the president. c-span 2 will have live coverage of that debate. and kirsten nielsen heads to capitol hill tomorrow testifying before the security committee on border security and a number of other issues. we'll have live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. you can also watch online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. the c-span bus recently traveled to texas asking folks what does it mean to be american. >> i believe that being american b means that you can be anyone and anything. you have the freedom to express yourself and you have the freedom to embrace your culture and to show off your culture.
because america truly is a melting pot. >> when i mean we're part of a community, it's just so nice to share values. we have freedoms we share. amazing things. we're lucky. you see foreign exchange students come here because we're so fortunate. >> for myself, i would say being an american is on the one hand being a free person, but as far as being an american citizen, i would say that it's taking an active part in trying to better your country and not think of it as a perfect nation. always go on a mission and try to make it even better. >> voices from the road, c-span.
russia's ambassador to the u.s. now on the relationship between his country and the united states. while here in washington, d.c. yesterday, he talked about arms treaties, the korean peninsula, syria and 2016 election interference. this is about an hour. >> welcome to the stimson center. it's nice to see so many of you here. i'd like to thank the peterson foundation for facilitating this and many of these dialogues here at stimson. this year at the stimson center, we mark our 30th anniversary. working on issues of