tv Joint Chiefs Chair Acting Defense Secretary Testify on Pentagons 2020... CSPAN March 26, 2019 10:00am-1:59pm EDT
masochist he is. but we appreciate the ability to be here that long. we are taking a break from 12:15 to 12:30 and then resume. we don't have to go to 3:00. but we want to give members as much time as possible understanding the importance of the hearing. with that call the hearing to order. i want to thank the acting secretary of defense. patrick shawn. chairman dunford, and the honorable more quist performing the duties of the secretary of defense. first note, i believe this will be the -- probably the last time that general dunford testifies before our committee. he has held many roles within the military. and i just want to say on a personal note it has been a great pleasure working with you. you have served your country incredibly well, a outstanding job and we've always had a very open dialogue. we all know there are tensions between the pentagon and congress. but you have done an outstanding job of truly letting us know you
care what we think. you want to make the process work. and i prsht your leadership. and mr. shawn shawn and mr. mr. norquist this is your first hearing in your roles. there is a bud seal ig joke for those following baseball. he was made the baseball chairman and then he was acting chairman for life because he kept in that spot but never made him permanent. we hope that doesn't happen in your case as well but we appreciate your service and look forward to your testimony. these are as always very clalging times, as we said in the committee for quite a few years now. it's hard to manual a time in american history when we have had such a complex threat environment. certainly there have been times in our history where we've been at greater peril. but here the dangerous come from a multitude of different sources. and it really takes an incredible amount of work and understanding to figure out how
do we meet all the threats in a comprehensive way? we can't do everything we would like. how do we make sure we do what we have to do. we have to meet that threat environment. and the basic task as i see it. ft. department of defense and our committee is number one clearly met our national security object he was, figure out what they are and make sure we are meeting them. and one of the biggest there is to deter the adversaries. and that can come in many forms. at the moment it's primarily russia, china, transnational terrorist groups, north korea and iran. what are we doing to deter them from action sns lastly and most important is to make sure the men and women serving in the military are trained and equipped and 100% prepared to carry out whatever mission mission we ask them to do. those missions will change as the threat environment changes .as our resources change. but the one thing we never want to do is create a situation where we ask them to go into a fight they are not prepared for.
we are incredibly well served by the men and women in our military. without question, the best, strongest most capable military in the history of the world. and it wouldn't happen but for the people serving. we need to make sure we give them the tools they need to do their job. as i go forward, the greatest challenge to all this is swla surprising in that it's the budget and the uncertainty that comes with it. ever since the budget control act in 2011 the entire discretionary budget has gone through a number of shutdowns. at this point i forget if it was three or four. countless other threatened shutdowns. countless continuing resolutions and a level of budget uncertainty that mass made it impossible to plan from one month to the next you don't know how much money you'll have and you dent know where you'll be able to spend it. and that created an enormous number of problems. we have made progress. we also because of the wars in iraq and afghanistan had a readiness short fall which i
know you worked hard on and getsing better. we look forward to the specifics how we improved on that. when we get the deal for 2018 ab2019 we finally put in about 18 months of -- well certainty is too strong a word but predict ability. 2018 wasn't perfect because you didn't get it until six months into the fiscal year and had to figure out how to spend the money in a very short time frame. but for 2019 on october 1, the department of defense knew what its budget would be for the full year. and i believe that was the first time in seven years that was the case. that's normz that's enormously helpful. as 209 we are at risk of falling back to old ways. we have two years left on the budget control act. i know there is bipartisan consensus in the house and the senate to get a deal for the last two years. unfortunately, the budget that was submitted by the president and the department of defense dramatically undercuts our ability to get that deal.
first of all, it sticks -- well it acclaims to stick to the budget control act numbers. but it does two things that are incredibly problematic. one it cuts all non-defense discretionary money by 5%. that's by 5% below the budget control act number for 2020. it's an even greater cut from what we put into the programs last year. and then it uses the overseas contingency operations fund as a slush fund and takes that money and says because it's off budget we can pump well over $90 billion into base bunning out of the oco and claim we have stuck to the bunlt control act numbers. that's breath takingly irresponsible. and no greater authority on that subject that the chief of staff mick mulvaney said that. when he was three years ago a member of congress and not trying to weasel around the bumt problem as chief of staff. he made it clear that oco should
not be a with way to speak around the budget caps. that's the heart and soul of the budget going forward. and there are a couple of problems with this. the biggest of which, the budget is not going to pass. there is bipartisan opposition to it. and i can assure you the democratic controlled house is not passing a budget that creates 174 billion-dollar oco and gutting every other aspect of funding. so how do we get back from there? how do we get to the pint where we were i believe in november and december rp we were just this close to a budget deal for 2020 and 2021 difg us a degree of certainty, giving us the predict ability and get us to the end of the budget control act. there is no good reason for this. artificially sticking to the budget caps has almost nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. i know that's the thought if we can stay we stuck to the budget collapse we can claim fiscal spectometry spblt. the the the budget has is 20% of the overall budget and it's a
tiny portion of the debt appear deficit picture and to jeopardize that to get no particular gain on fiscal responsibility is to my mind incredibly irresponsible. and the last problem with all of this is we constantly talk in the committee about a whole of government approach. we have had many people from the pentagon most notably and articulately as is often the case with secretary mattis who said if you're cutting the state department you better give me more ammunition. the state department gets cut by 25ners in this budget. development is cut by about the same. homeland security, every other piece of this whole of government approach gets gutted in this budget, except to make sure that we can have a 10 ores% or 8% or whatever it is in military spending. and i just -- i can't have people from the pentagon come up here and wax nostalgic about how much they houff the state department while which gut their the budget. a whole of government the approach requires that we get
into self-fulfilling prophecy if we don't fund the other tools -- and the military is not the oem way to deter adversaries. we can work with partners use diplomacy. there is a ton we can do so we don't have to rely the li on the blunt instrument of the u.s. military. but it won't work if we gut the budget. two final points i have to make that the funding a border wall out of the department of defense is also unbeliefly irresponsible a and i won't get into the debate here about the wisdom of the border wall we can do that another time. but what everyone feels about the border wall, to look at the pentagon as a piggy bank/slush fund where you can grab money for something when you need it, really undermines the credibility of the entire d.o.d. budget. because if you've got five to ten to $20 billion lying around at the pentagon for any particular purpose then what does that say about whether or not you really need the mona you come up here telling us you need. so in committee- dsh and it's
bipartisan expression on this is unaltably opposed to taking moun out of d.o.d. to fund the border wall. again i'll get to the reprogramming issue in my questions. but the last point that we want to emphasize, the audit. we need the pentagon to start spending the money more wisely than it has been spending. and i really want to thank my partner on this committee ranking member thornberry for his work even before chairman of the committee even understanding of acquisition and procurement is second to none and he has worked hard to put legislation in to improve the efficiency, make sure we are spending the money wisely. too much money has been wasted at the pentagon. we need the audit at a pin we need to know where you're spending your money we don't know there is no way to get to efficiency. we are pushing on that. then we need to get better about the system we fund, the f-35 is unbeliefably overwujt. with we have the aircraft carry owe carrier even now as
delivered it's having problems with elevators and launch systems. the tanker, you know they're finding debris inside of the danicaer from when it was made. there is just a lack much efficiency. and there are programs throughout the 90s, the future combat programs that spent billions of dollars towards no particular end. process the existingary fighting vehicle where we woent spent $8 billion before deciding we weren't building it. i believe the pentagon could get by with less money if we had a full audit and spent the money better. we want to neighboring sure we are moving in that direction. with that i thank you for being here. look forward to your testimony and i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary shanahan, welcome to the house armed is services committee. you have met with the committee in other places in other capacity buts in the first time you have testified in in way. so welcome. general dunford and mr. norquist, welcome back.
general dunford, i am not quite ready to let you go yet. so just be warned that -- that you may be back in some way or another, given what the chairman said, the complex nature of the threats and security voirmt in which we all operate. mr. secretary, you may find yourself the target of a lot of criticism for decisions that you had nothing to do with today. i hope that's not the case. i -- did for example, share the chairman's view that we should not take department of defense resources and use it for other purposes. i know that that was not a decision you made. but i hope that most of what we can talk about today are those things within the purview of the department of defense. because i agree with much of the
chairman's comments, that the budget uncertainty largely because of congress and the previous administration has caused enormous problems for the department of defense and the men and women who serve. and yet we have started to make some real progress. we have started -- had a good start in improving readiness of our forces. and all of us who have been on the committee previously have been concerned about the number of casualties and other things because of accidents which were unfortunately increasing at an alarming rate. it wasn't just because of the pace of operations. that certainly contributed but also because of a 20% cut in defense funding starting in 2010. we have started to make progress on improving our position versus peer competitors.
now we hadn't caught up where we need to be yet. but -- and in key areas they are still ahead of us. but we have made progress. and we started making progress in treating our people right. i think you're going to -- for example this committee is focuseding on housing issues. there is some spouse employment issues, still a lot of things we need to do. but when you look back at the last few years on pay, health care, retirement, et cetera, we have started to make progress. my bottom line is we need to keep paeg progress. we can't slide backwards. and i am very conscious of the fact that repeatedly secretary mattis and you, general dunford, have testified that a minimum of three to five% real growth in the defense budget is necessary to continue to make progress. both on readiness, in hold our own at least with peer competitors. i also note gnat national
strategy commission, which was composed of an equal number of republicans and democrats, looked at this for some time and they endorsed that the 3% to 5% real growth. that's exactly what the president's budget -- or just about what the president's budget comes in at. i share the concerns about other parts of the budget. and i completely agree we're not ever passing $$174 billion oco. but that goes back to decisions made somewhere else other than the department of defense. i appreciate all three of you and the work that you put in. we need to be your partners to continue to make progress on readiness, treating our people right, on the peer competitor issues that concern us all. we'll get into a lot of those today. thank you for being here. i yield back. >> mr. secretary.
>> chairman smith, ranking member thornberry, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for in opportunity to testify in support of the president's budget quiet for fiscal year 2020. i am joined by chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general josef donedford and the department controller and chief financial officer mr. david more quist. it has been an great privilege and honor to serve alongside the men and women of the department of defense. and a pleasure to work with secretary mattis to craft the 2018 national defense strategy. released in january, 2018, that strategy laid the foundation for restoring military readiness and the modernizing our joint force for an era of great power competition. i now oversee the continuing execution of that strategy. which is the undisputed driver
of today's budget request. it was extremely helpful for the department to receive authorization and apprehension bills on time and at the requested top line last year. with 87% of congress in bipartisan support last year marked the earlier signing of an authorization bill in four decades. the strategy you supported last year is the same strategy we are asking you to fund this year. the $750 billion top lineup for national defense enables d.o.d. to maintain irregular warfare as a core competency. yet pr prioritizes modernization to compete, deter and win in any possible high-end fight of the future. this budget is critical for the continued execution of our strategy. and it reflects difficult but necessary decisions that align
finite resource with our strategic priorities. so highlight some of those decisions, this is the largest research, development, testing appear evaluation budget in 70 years. the budget includes double digit increases to investments in both space appear cyber. modernization of our nuclear triad and nuclear defense capabilities, and the largest ship building request in 20 years when adjusted for inflation. it also increasing our total end strepgt by roughly 7,700 service members. and provide as 3.1% pay increase to our military. the largest in a decade. now to the specifics. the top line slates $718 billion for the department of defense. of that total the budget includes 545 for base funding. and 164 billion for oversees
contingency operations. of the overseas contingency operation funds, $66 billion will go to direct war and enduring requirements. and $98 billion will fund base requirements. to round out the numbers, 92. billion will fund emergency construction, including the 2 build to rebuild facilities damaged by hurricanes florence and michael. up to 3 the$.6 billion to support military construction projects that will be awarded in fiscal year to 2020 instead of fiscal year 2019 so we can resource border barrier project under emergency declaration this year. and 3.6 billion in case additional emergency funding is needed for the border. military construction on the border will not come at the expense of our people, our rrdness or modernization. to identify the potential pool of sources of military
construction funds, d.o.d. will apply the following criteria. no military construction projects that have already been awarded and no military construction projects with fiscal year 2019 award dates will be impacted. we are solely looking at projects with award dates after september 30th, 2019. no military housing, bar acs or dormer to projects will be impacted. decisions have not been made concerning which berd barrier projects will be funded threw section 2808 authority. if the department's fy 2020 budget is enacted on time as requested no military construction project used to source section 2808 projects will be delayed or cancelled. i appreciate the hirnt
intragovernment complexities of the southwest border situation. high pressure. i want to emphasized the funds requested for the border barrier amount to less than 1% of the national defense top line. as this committee fully understands, no them in the field has done more damage to our military's combat readiness in years past than sequestration and budget instability. and there is no question today that our adversaries are not relenting. the instability of a continuing resolution would cost us in three important ways. first we would be unable to implement new initiatives like standing up the space command. or accelerating our development of hypersonic capabilities and artificial intelligence. second, our funding will be in the wrong accounts. we are requesting significant investments in rdt and e for
cyber, space and disruptive technologies and to o and m for core readiness. third, the incremental funding under cr means we lose buying power. this translates to higher costs and uncertainty for industry and communities where we operate. we built this budget to implement our national defense strategy and i look forward to working with you to ensure predictable funding so our military can remain the most lethal, adaptable and resilient fighting force in the world. i appreciate the critical role congress plays to ensure our war fighters can succeed on the battlefield of both today and tomorrow. and i thank our service members, their families and all those in the department of defense for maintaining constant vigilens as they stand, always ready to pret our freedoms. thank you. >> thank you, chairman dunford.
>> chairman smith, ranking member thorn brern zij wished members of the committee np thank you for the opportunity to join secretary shanahan and the the chairman norquist today. while much of the discussions focusing on challenges we face i assure you your armed force case deter a nuclear attack defend the homeland, meet alliance commitments and effectively should should deterrence fail. i believe today we have a competitive advantages over any danks defined as ability to project fire and fight and win at place of our choosing. but as members of this committee 17 years of continuous combat and fiscal instability have affected our readiness appear erode the the competitive advantage we enjoyed a decade or more ago. as the secretary highlighted china and russia have capitalized our distraction in enhe strants by vechg in capabilities specifically designed to challenge our traditional sources of strength.
after careful study, they have kpefld development developed kbablts to contest our movement across all domains sea, air, space, cyber sideways and land and disrupt our ability to project power. with the help of congress, starting in 2017, we began to restore that competitive advantage. recent budget have allowed us to build readiness and invest in new capabilities while meeting current operational commitments. but we cannot reverse decades of erosion in just a few years. this year aets bunlt submission would allow us to continue restoring our pretive advantage by improving readiness and developing capabilities to enhance our lethality. it proposes investments in advanced capabilities across all domains sea, air, land, space and cyberspace. this year's budget also sustained investments in our nuclear enterprise to ensure pennsylvania safe, secure and effective strategic deterrent, the highest priority of the department of defense. we have taken steps to more effectively employ the force we have today and build a force we
need for tomorrow. we have implemented fundamental changes in our global force management process to prioritize and allocate resources in accordance with the national defense strategy whiled building readiness and the flexibility to respond to unforeseen contingencies. we have also refined our process for developing and designing the future force. a joint concept threat informed approach, supported by a widow btd of analytic work allow to us evaluate and prioritize war fighting requirements. this also enables to us pair emerging technology was innovative operational concepts. in closing i'd like to thank the committee for all we have done to support the men and women in uniform and families. together we have honored the solemn obligation to never is send our sons and daughters into a fair fight and with your support i hope we never will. >> keeping in mind and acknowledging ranking member thornberry as point that you don't make the policy
necessarily that you're sent up here to defend regrettably neither president trump more chief of staff mulvaney are going to testify so we have to ask you about it and get your defense/explanation np. and one of the bigds areas in the wall funding problematic for in committee and the relationship between the pentagon and congress is the reprogramming requests. and it is, you know, a bit of sort of arcane policy that even i didn't fully understand. but by and large the pentagon is not allowed to simply move money from one account to another. without coming back through the full legislative process. g but given the amount of money at the pink and how much things change we have given through the congressional process the ability to reprogram. i think it was $4 billion last year. but one of the sort of gentleman's agreements about that was if you reprogram money you will not do it without first getting the approval of all four
relevant committees. defense aapprehensions in the house and senate and armed services in house and senate. for the first time we have done that on the reprogramming request to help fund the wall basically you are shifting money from the mill pur into the -- the drug -- drug safety account whatever it is. drug enforcement county. so that you can then take it out of the account and put it into the wall. and you are not asking for our permission. now,ed you understand the result that have likely is that the apprehensions committee in particular would no longer give the pentagon reprogramming authority. and i think that's unfortunate. because they need it. and i guess my question is wlafs the discussion like about in deciding to break that rule? and what is your view of the implications for it going forward in terms of the replace between the pentagon and congress in general, and specifically how much is it going to hamper you to not have
reprogramming authority after this year? >> chairman, what was the second part of -- what was the discussion. >> how is it going to hamper the relationship if you ---is he was i'm sorry how is it going to hamper your ability to do your job if you don't have reprogramming authority going forward. >> right, yeah. well, the discussion i think -- you and i have also been party to this discussion, is that by you know i laterally reprogramming it was going to affect our ability long-term to be able to do discretionary reprogramming that we had traditionally done in coordination. it was a very difficult discussion. and we understand the significant downside of losing what amounts to a privilege. the conversation took place
prior to the declaration of a national emergency. it was part of the consulting that went on. the we said here are the risks, longer term to the department. and those risks were weighed. and then given the relevant order from the commander in chief, we are executing on that order. and as we discussed, the first reprogramming was $1.0 billion. and i wanted to do it before we had this committee hearing. because we have been talking about this for some time. >> right. >> and i've been deliberately working to be transparent in this process. fully knowing that there is downsides which will hamper us. >> and ultimately you asked for yes for a billion dollars yesterday. it's still the plan to ask for $23.4 billion out of the drug enforcement account. >> we haven't made the assessment of what -- consider these increments increments or
traufr pools. we think beyond the general authority would be too painful to being able to continue and maintain readiness and operations. but we don't know what the next increment of funding would look like. >> all right. and one final question on this piece. you get the money because, i believe it's the army or is it the army and marine corps that did not meet the in strength goals. >> yeah, let me ask david norquist. >> sure. >> so the source of the money as you point out at the beginning is the military personal account. the army was falling short of recruiting target by the 9,000, 9500. funds that would have gone to pay the soldiers had they been onboard is no longer need ford that purpose. that military personnel account is more like mandatory in the sense if there is no purpose there is not a lot of other uses. so it's programming for
reprogramming under those circumstances. >> understoodfare the fy 20 budget. >> um-hum. >> does your personnel request reflect that inability to recruit? do you sort of factor in okay we'd like to have this money but we're not? does it make sense to give you the same amount of money for mill per if it winds up in the drug enforcement account and goes to building a wall. >> yes, we went ahead and planned the '20 pujt off of the army revised expectations for next year accordingly. that's the money in the budge sir. >> final question. when it comes to the overall budget number -- and i do have a slight quibble with the idea that somehow this is all a. bus the obama administration cut defense -- i think to the the extent that we rely on that political talking points it undercuts the fact that this happened because of the battle over the budget. the budget control act wasn't passed because the obama administration decided they wanted to do it. it was passed because we were
two days away from not paying our debts. there was a refusal by the then republican controlled congress to raise the debt ceiling. and the only deal to be able to raise the debt ceiling was agree to sequestration in the budge control act. it was a bipartisan act of -- well self-flajleation if you will in terms of messing up the budget for ten years because we didn't have the political courage to live with the consequences of money we had already spent. and that led to no end of problems. but it was a bipartisan problem. it's a really bipartisan unwilling necessary to address the reality that you can't balance the budge while increasi increasing cutting taxes and increasing spending. we daded to punt that into the sequestration act. a greater honesty about the budget choices we face is the best way out. not any fault of the trump administration or the obama administration. but the question i have general
dunford take a stapp at this. the the at one point said he felt a $700 billion defense budget made sense. several days after they had settled on, well before that there was the $733 billion-dollar number, process. which people talked about as i think what was reflected in the -- you know plus inflation, the 5% number, the bipartisan group had come up with. so you know, it had been 733 process. the president said i think we can do 700 then back and forth a bunch of team talked to him and it became 750. and you know, one of the things on the credibility here is we always hear from you guys -- we absolutely have to have this money. i think the way one general testifying said anything below 733 creates an unacceptablement a of risk. i find that hord believe. it's now the statement anything below 750 becomes unacceptable amount of risk? where is the rigger in terms of what that number is to make sure that it is truly funding our national security needs if that
money can move 50 billion-dollars in space of a few tweets. >> chairman, i can address the specific part of the budget that talks to joint orr war fighting capabilities. and that represents as ranking member thornberry pointed out about a 2.9% real growth increase over last year. in terms of analysis, back -- gag back to 2015 we did a detailed analysis at the top secret level of all what we call competitive areas be was space, cyberspace, electronic warfare, maritime capability, land and so forth. we looked a at ourselves and what we had in the plan going out to 2025. then we worked with the intelligence community and did at similar study of mcand russia, the benchmark if you will for path of capability development and we looked at the trajectory of capability development that russia and chinay on. and we looked at what should our force look like in 2025 to make sure we had a gettive advantage.
again that competitive advantage defined as the ability to project power. >> just as a result of that process you came up with the 733 billion-dollar number. >> that number is completely informed by the analysis we did for the path of capability development, yes, kmarm. >> okay. it's just worth noting that the president's request was for 750 despite all the analysis that says 733. so that's the type of rigorous analysis i think we need to get to a number just not deciding we want to spend more money for the sake of spending more money. i appreciate that. i want to get so om other people so i yield to mr. thornberry. >> let me just mention that i completely grow with the chairman both parties are responsible for the irresponsible approach we took for -- to funding defense and i also agree with the chairman that changing decades of
reprogramming practice is going to have difficult consequences for the whole government but especially for the department of defense. mr. secretary, you heard me reference testimony that we and the senate have repeatedly received from secretary mattis and also from general dunford about the need for at least three to five percent real growth through 2023. and that that figure was endorsed by the bipartisan national strategy commission. i don't recall that you have ever weighed in on what sort of top line growth -- and there is lots of discussion underneath the top line. i'm just talking about a top number. what sort of top line level is necessary for us to continue to repair, readiness and also deal with the complex threats posed
by russia and china and others? >> thank you, sir. the -- you know quite often people will not kind of pick a number they'll look over time and say you know anningon the collection. >> by the time we put the national strategy there, three trends that factor into the rate of growth, this is a real growth rate, adjusted for inflation, first the world continues to get more dangerous. so that really manifests itself in troop strength. the second component is we are still recovering readiness. those are real accounts we have to restore and sustain. and probably the biggest driver for our growth is modernization. with great power competition and a focus on russia and china we
haven't modernized in three decades. and the investment required to do that in parallel with the three other activities drives 3% to 5% real growth. if we want to do it in a timely manner. this is about mouch risk and how much time we want to assume. i don't think we have enough time to address these issues. that's why you need the greater growth. >> and so the i guess the flipside is without 3% to 5% real growth we are taking increased risks. we can't accomplish the three things you talked about. >> yeah, i think it's -- sometimes risk gets too brewedly characterized. i look at the risk in two elements. you can take operational risk or risk on modernization. and so the difference between the $700 billion number and the 733 billion was deciding where you want to take risk. so do we want to invest in
modernization? or -- and have a smaller force? or do we want to have a landmarker force to deal with the threats of the world and forgo some of the great power competition? i believe we have to do both. >> okay. >> when i think of the risks those are the two we have to manage. >> general dunford, i'm not sure that you and the chairman were exactly communicating. when you talked about the analysis that y'all performed, did that result in a defense request, actually it's a national security request -- of $733 billion? if so where did the 3% to 5% real growth come from because $733 is the real growth. >> thank you, representative thornberry for allowing to clarify. what i was speaking about the
inside the budget the piece i provided recommendations on or the military capabilities inside the budget, those things that directory contribute to joint wrr o where fighting. in that area i'm confident of the analysis that we did. and i'm confident that the budget reflects a 2.9% real growth in joint war fighting capabilities. >> okay. so do you have any amendments or change to the testimony that you have given us before that 3% real growth is necessary to stay even 5% growth is necessary to catch up on china, russia and readiness problems. >> i don't any change to that at all. that's exactly what our analysis highlights. >> okay. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to all of you for joining us today. i'm and particular to general dunford it's a privilege and honor to work with you over the years. i had a visit to the border and
to you are troops really a few days ago. and in light of that i wanted to just address some of the issues that the chairman just mentioned, because i think there has been some confusion. as you talk about the need to focus more op national security needs, of course and readiness, that raises the question of why we're not trying to really answer the issue that's in front of us when it comes to the personnel at the border? because the situation that we're in right now is just not sustainable. i think we all acknowledge that. so having been on the border we're about 3,000 short in terms of personnel there. and that makes this situation difficult, as you can well imagine and part of what we're trying to deal with. can you speak a little more specifically to what -- what's happening -- well what just happened in terms of the
transfer of money, and when is that going to be done? is that done? is it still in process? >> david, do you want to give the status of the reprogramming? >> so the reprogramming went to the committee yesterday. and that's the notification of the intent to move the money from one account to another. it wouldn't be used until it was obligated onto a contract. those of course take some amount of time we want to make sure the committee has awareness we're not trying to rush things. we're trying to do it in deliberation. that will move at the point when it's necessary to order it on the contract. we wanted to make sure the committee had the notification we were moving it from one to the other. that will of course -- >> did you speak to the nature of the contracts as well? >> oh, those are construction contracts for border barriers. >> okay. and as you said you haven't started that process yet? >> in terms of -- >> the zblash --
>> do you want talk to the overall process or me. >> just to go back through the overall process with 284 with the authority of 28 had we received a request for assistance from the department of homeland security. we received it by the secretary. he then tasked out to the department to do our analysis, joint staff, general counsel, comptroller and others to come back with identifying which of the construction projects are appropriate. one of the requirements is interdicting drug corridors. that analysis has been done. he has identified a set of projects to use those fundings for and one of the steps before we can move the money is to send a notification to the committee. the date when the money literally changes colors inside the financial system depends. but it meads to be moved prior to any contract being awarded. >> okay. and you said that the money is coming from the unallocated end strength for the army? >> it's coming out of the military personnel account.
it was provided for end strength recruitment that didn't happen. and that's why it's available. >> and is that something that goes -- goes forward? are you not worried that that's going to make a difference down the line? >> well, the -- that money is only available to 30 september. it's not one of those accounts that would carry over for one year to the next. the a funding the army needs in fy 20 is a number that it's requested in the fy 20 budget and this committee would need to access separately. >> you spoke of making adjustments down the line since you see that you're not able to meet those -- those targets. >> oh, the army made adjustments as the chairman asked earlier in it's '20 budget reflecting the fact that it wasn't meeting the original '19 target we're not asking for more money in 20 that we won be able to use again. we accounted for those concerns >> but we also know that
basically congress denied president trump's request for the dollars to build the border wall. and here we are. and i know you said it was a difficult decision because it sits precedent. >> um-hum. >> did you want to -- do you want me to keep going? >> oh yeah. >> how are we going to dress the issues. >> we when we received the request from dhs we go through the eechlgs process. we understand that there is other issues going on with the congress buts in the direction we received from the administration regarding the rfay and this is how we responded to the request for assistance. >> i'm very concerned we are not meeting needs on the border in terms of patrol agents but there are reasons for that. we can deal with them in our budget and the which we respond to this. >> the mts lady's time expired. >> mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary we are asking the department of defense to do
three things that don't ask all at once. the first is rebuild the military as a result of readiness crisis. the second is to complete the modernization that's currently on the backs and third is look to the future to already say that our near peer adversaries are threatening our superiority and plan for modernization. now we have given you in fiscal year '19 o 18 and '19 the beginning of rebuilds the military. plans force 3% to 5% real growth. we have a number of things to do i want to associate my comments with the chairman on the air areas where we have bipolar support. bipartisan support for the fact that the military budget should not be cannibalized for the border security needs. however we have bipartisan disagreement how to accomplish that because i believe cigarettes congress needs to fund closing the berd and certainly the house voted last year to do so. my i agree with the chairman with respect to bipartisan support that oco should not be used and i appreciate his comments that hopefully we relief a bipartisan budget agreement agreement for two years to cease that because i
know it has affects on your operations and then thirdly his statement that bipartisan support for an audit. and making certain that the department of defense can effectively tell us how to funds are being used. but all those things, managing them where will the bipartisan support of constraints still transmits to we needed to you effectuate modernization, rebuilding and at the same time ending our -- our crisis on operations. so i am -- ranking member on the a subcommittee i'm asking about issues concerning nukes. we have had on the books nuclear modernization needed not because the adversaries are beginning to by pass news modernization but because of the aging inventory, our aging capabilities. >> um-hum. >> mr. secretary, even if russia and china were not modernizing could you please articulate why we have a need to modernize our
nuclear weapon stockpile and the current threat for it to recommend an active deterrent mr. secretary. >> sure. the first most fundamental issue is ob shesens. we look at the minuteman three program at the end of the decade it times out. the bomber program, capacity, capability to deliver nuclear weapons. first and foremost this is about a nuclear enterprise that run its course in time. there is another very critical element to this. and that's the nuclear -- the nc 3 capability. command, control and communication. which is even more complicated than just replacing the ballistic missiles. chairman. >> general dunford, i could add -- you were beginning to answer. could you please add to the issue of the triad and the issue of the vulnerability and deterrent. currently our somebodies have
some ability to -- to avoid deeks, tomorrow that could not be the case. and we would be in a tough situation if we didn't have the tria. general could you explain that to. >> congressman, thanks. just to reinforce what the absenting said we use three adjectives to sbrie. safe, reliable and effective. the question was even if russia and china weren't modernizing which we are thp we till have the modernize to make sure we have had a safe, reliablen a effective nuclear deterrent. and a particular area of concern, notwithstanding wlat chinese and russians are doing right now is the aging nuclear command, control and communications system. we absolutely would have had to get after that. your question of triad is swla related we have done two nuclear posture reviews sips i've been chairman. once during the president obama's administration. one during president trump's administration. in both cases, we looked -- people wentz into that with an open mind to see do we need to
continue to maintain a triad to have an effective deterrent. >> it was concluded we needed that. etch leg has a unique complicates the adversary's ability to have a technological breakthrough to undermine the capability and ability of our nuclear triad. so that's a big piece of it. if you look at the bomber, it's an option to be recalled. it's an element that complicates the adversary's targeting. each one of those has an operational role. but it also preventds a technological breakthrough to undermine the credibility. >> do we want turkey in the f-35 program?
>> we absolutely do. we need turkey to buy the patriot. >> thank you. >>. >> thung for the r for service. i'm going to start with you. the defense strategy focuses on great power competition. and places emphasis on countering violent extremist organizations. it's been primarily focused on counterviolent extremist missions and geographic combat and commanders continue to have insatiable appetite for curt and oh missions.
so i would be concerned about the demands placed and believe we need to rethink the reliance on this force for every mission to ensure that it doesn't break from over alliance. so as the department considered a major force of determining what it needs to look like to fulfill title 10. to ensure readiness for future conflict. >> thank you, congressman. the focus of the department has not been separate title x capability, but in capacity. do we have sufficient capacity. as you described, there's constant tension to address a
variety of global missions given the violent extremist organizations that continue to propagate around the world. the chairman's role as the global integrator is to determine what is the risk balance that we need to maintain and what is is the appropriate capacity. so our budget is really focused on do we have the right capacity not necessarily the right structure, which is what i was alluding to. and i just ask the chairman maybe to comment on how he prepares his global campaign plans and his sizing the counterterrorism effort. >> i think we share your perspective about the overuse of special operations capability and the need for special operations capability to be relate haven't across military operations. with that in mind, two years ago, it really is a force management issue it does two
things. one is addresses the human factors associated with overemployment, but the other is it allowed them sufficient time to train for some of the high end tasks associated with operations in the contest of competition. >> assistance brigade. >> that's a great question. that's part of the allocation process. so we look at all the requirements that are identified by the combat and commander and come up with the right sourcing solution for the task. but completely informing specific allocation decisions is the need for us to get to a sustainable level of operational deployment. and over the last two years, we have pulled back the throttle the to make sure that our forces are being employed at a more sustainable deployment rate.
>> i remain to be concerned about alliance and make sure we get the balance right. let me turn to another topic. it was supported by bipartisan majors in this committee. each serve to assess over the next 20 years. the report that was delivered in january ignored the structure provided by law. in looking at worldwide and rigger required to adequately evaluate risk. he responds to the concerns i raised the department came back yesterday with what i consider to be a rejoiner use iing the
medology and list as the initial report. secretary, i made myself available behind the language known has taken me up on the offer. do you agree that cloi mat change poses a threat to our readiness and our ability to achieve military objectives? >> i'm sorry, this is going to have to be a quick answer because we're about out of time. >> i believe we need to address resilience in our operations and our design in how we build out our facilities. >> thank you. the purpose of the swns we try to keep within five minutes questions and answers. so try not to cut you off in mid-sentence. mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. secretary shanahan, i appreciate you taking the lead in the efforts you put into the development of a space force in
the department of defense. the administration space force proposal is very comprehensive. how would you prioritize the reform efforts within the dod given a choice between a space force space command or space development agency, which is most important to be pushed through today? >> i would push forth standing up of the u.s. space command because it's the easiest and most impactful the followed then by the space development agency. >> excellent. we heard it argued that creating a space centric force that flies in the face of the effort to make things more joint within the department over the last 30 years. i would argue that the fragme fragmented leadership in space is equally existed for the past 30 years. so my question, how do you reconcile these two trains of
thought? does creating that go against joint or how do you believe that such a move can contribute to a joint effective lethal future conflicts. >> i think it's enormously powerful to be able to create jointness. the chairman brought this up particularly around prokurm and delivering capability. we have ten different act techtures going on in the department in a variety of capabilities command and control is one of them. this is an opportunity to have commonality across the whole of the department. something we have never been able to achieve. it's uniting construct. and then we have a chance with a singular focus to drive greater excess grags into the combat and
comman commands. >> can you elaborate that opposed to to the structure? >> the air force is where the skill is for space. so most fundamentally as we reshape and reconstruct, if you want to be where the people are that have the background. this is really more about a structural change. the model very different. the types of equipment and capabilities they develop are less complex than what we put on orbit. air force has the skill set to manage and lead the space force. >> great, thank you. general dunford, there's been a lot of debate over the value of the air, land and sea legs of our nuclear triad. what is your best military advice as to how to balance these priorities. >> congressman, just for
clarification, balance the priorities across the triad or the department's portfolio? >> across the triad. >> we have done, as you know, two nuclear posture reviews in the past eight years. in fact, two since i have been the chairman. both of those have caughted the need to modernize the triad. so we have in the program right now a plan to modernize all three legs of the triad. to do that in a way that allows us to represent at the peek 7% for the department's budget, which means 93% the department's budget will be spent on other things other than the most important element of our department's mission, which is nuclear deterrence. >> great. can you tell the committee in your best military advice would you advise the adoption of a no first use policy? >> i would not recommend that. anything that simplifies an enemy's decision making would be
a mistake. i'm very comfortable with the policy that we have right now withat creates ambiguity. nuclear posture review is exactly right for the security environment with find ourselves in right now. >> excellent, thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman dunford, you said that a series of assessments you developed is based on to determine the state of the competitive advantage is. curious how we can articulate what a competitive advantage is by way of the joint military assessment process. if we haven't determined what competition is by way of investments and resourcing. we have an idea of who we're competing against, but we don't seem to be necessarily choosing
between between all the tools we can use versus the ones that won't be as successful in this competition. can you talk a little bit more about the science versus the art of these choices you make? >> i absolutely can. first, in terms of the what we are try iing to do, we went int this to say russia and china, the bench mark against which we measure our capabilities ask against russia and china, we want to do two things. we want to move forces into the theater to meet the commitments and advance the national interests. and then we say we want to be able to operate freely across all domains. so i think we actually have a fair degree of analytic rigger in looking at the challenges currently posed by china and russia to our ability to project
power and then achieve superiority in any of those domains at the time and place choosing to accomplish our mission this is based against campaign outcomes against those two competitors across all domains in the context of meeting our alliance commitments and advancing our national security. i would be happy to come up and spend more time talking to you about it, but actually i think we have a very clear target that we're shooting on. we have a clear aseas zestment of where we are today. although we'll refine the path along which we will maintain our competitive advantage this the future, i think we have a clear sight picture of where we think we need to go. it will be refined by war gaming and exercise ask so forth, but i think we have a pretty are clear vision now after of the cardinal direction to do the kinds of things we anticipate needing to do. >> i'd like to take you up on
that offer. i want to poke at this a little bit as well. because we get testimony from the department on the advancements and super computing and ai so we have set up the moving forward. the budget is $9 billion more than last year. but most of that is no not in the base bugt. is that true as well? >> do you know that? >> i don't believe that it's predominantly the budget. >> i think it's a spread account. i wonder if these things are priorities to make the choice between putting them in the base budget versus the fake base.
>> i would because i have been here since the rl 2000s and this is exactly the problem with oco, we could define some things that were specific to to it and now we're what's happening now is what we thought would happen using the budget for something that is isn't supposed to be e used for. it's supposed to be in the base. i guess i would disagree with you although we sit in different spots in making these decisions. now we're stuck with a budget that is not really based on a base, it's based on shoving things on a budget that's available, not because it's supposed to be doing it. >> so we built it according to to mentioned earlier to the direction we were given. what we were doing to try to
make it easier for the staff we work with is to separate this the way the budget is submitted, those things that are traditional oco direct war cost and during cost and those are in the budgets listed separately. >> that's what it's for. >> thank you for your continued emphasis on audit iing the book and records at the department of defense. it's a difficult task and i know that the men and women who were trying to do that day-to-day it really is important. good progress being made. please express to all of them my thanks officially. i have spoken to some of you about it to continue to do that. but this is really important work for the men and women in uniform and the civilian who is try to get this work done. thank you for continuing to budget the resources necessary
in a period where budgeting is really difficult. so thank you for that. thank you for your attention to the findings and recommendations. i'm signing specific people to those tasks and holding them accountable for getting them done. so no real comment from you necessary other than thank you for keeping up the good work and we'll finally get that done. the history was dropped. it was down from 487. is that a reflection of the needs of the army or a reflection of the army's inability to recruit to that higher number? and if that's the case, can you talk to us about the drivers for why the army can't meet its in it strength? >> i'll speak to the total number, the recruiting challenge ask what the army is doing to address that.
we reset the top line to adjust for lowering the total end strnt because we failed to recruit what we projected. the end strength it's several thousand in this budget. chairman, i don't know if you have any comments on the specific recruiting and retention. we're all in this worldwide competition for talent so fundamentally it's a competitive market.
it's capable of service to put that finer point on it, just slightly over a quarter of the population from which we typically recruit are actually eligible for military service. that combined with the current environment we find ourselves now pretty competitive economic environment, it's always tough recruiting. it's particular ly tough right now. and i think the army's challenge cans are kind of a bell weather for the future without some adjustments. i know all the service is looking carefully at recruiting and retaining high quality people as being the core mission for us. >> of the 7700 increase in end strength and this year's budget, 2,000 of those are army? >> yeah, but it's down.
i know it's not jr. job to look at why we have so few men ask women who are physically and mentally capable of doing that, but our society does need to address that issue. appropriate attention given to being short from what they would normally be to stick with the 48 that was authorized in 19. the impact on the army's ability to do what they need to do. the conversation of the budget cap is is law. and that's what you're required to go to. is that distracting to have that artificial unrealistic number in law that has no basis in any kind of build up of what we ought it to be hang over your head s that the driver for trying to adjust the number to fit what the military needs for $750 billion.
>> it hampers the way we budget. if you look at how we budgeted last year, and how we built the budget up this year, the underlying process is exactly the same. the strategy is exactly the same. how we put it together is exactly the same. how we presented it to you is different. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. cooper? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to each of the witnesses here today. acting secretary of defense shanahan, i'd like to focus on you and on the space capabilities that we're anticipating having whether you call that a force or a core. first of all, i'm assuming that the president's budget proposal is not written in stone. we're a to equal branch of government and have the right to change that. >> we do. >> so we have the right to
remove the poison pills? >> i'm not awe ware of any poison pills. >> this committee had a 60 to 1 vote in favor of a core. so i heard your answer in response to my friend and mr. rogers that the most important part of your proposal is the space command. that's what we need to kind of lead the charge toward enhancing our space capabilities. is that correct? >> i answered the question of the three pieces, which is the most important. i assume we're going to do all of it. >> i would like to do all of it too, but we have to make sure we are guided through congress. i'm not asking you to judge t s this.
i'm going to give you my appraisal. it seems like the proposal we received on our space capabilities is actually much closer to what this committee two years ago than it is to what was mentioned this other press conferences. when the secretary of the air force gave a budget estimate of $13 billion to stand up a space capability, this proposal is $2 billion. which is much closer to the proposal which was to spend as little money as possible to reorganize the air force. so that's my judgment. not yours. we never called for a separate military department. we wanted it to be underneath the air force. and that is what's in the littest proposal from the pentagon. some people make the marine corp. analogy. another key element is is that we had already passed into law the fact that the new space
command would be a sub unified command and now y'all are asking it be upgraded to a full comm d command. that shouldn't be a problem, it would seem to me. but these various ways keeping it under the air force not spending much money and having a space command, we're in sync. >> we are. >> i hope we can work together to smooth out any rough edges in the proposal and to keep things on track not only to pass this house, but also to pass the senate because i certainly feel a lot of urgency in enhancing our capabilities and even if your transition approach, that's five years that we may or may not have. >> i think we can go faster. and i appreciate your leadership. and representative turner was a catalyst to move more quickly.
>> i think the basic elements are in place. in the areas we should be taking cost out, feeling aligned, the capabilities we have really allow for growth. and if we had more time to go into how we have put together the proposal, technically we're aligned with the intelligence community. so down the road, that integration can take place. if we wanted to set up a separate department some time long-term, but the colonels to get this started is really sound and we have a strong proposal. >> i see my time is about to expire. thank you, mr. chairman.
>> i appreciate your service. i want to talk to you about aircraft carriers. as you know the president's plan has us retiring 75 u.s. truman without the refueling. the navy says they need 12 carriers. naval warfare says 12 carriers to generate two object station continuously and three to surge. has there been some change that going to nine where we won't get back up above that until 2027 is there a change in that doctrine and can we generate carrier presence of 2.0 continuously in surge capacity with only nine. second question is last thursday you told the senator inhofe that the retirement of the u.s. truman was offset by the block.
you also spent $500 million in purchasing reactor cores to refuel that carrier. reactor cores don't work in other submarines. they only work in carriers and designed for the carrier at hand. so the question is, does it make sense to retire this carrier early and is the 3.4 billion in savings worth the loss of presence we'll have by retiring this carrier early. >> so my answer to your question is it's a strategic choice we need to make. we spent a year making this decision. under no certain terms, aircraft
carriers are vital now and into the future. there suspect a drawdown until mid-2020. it's not like this is an irreversible decision. but we took the savings to invest in the future force and this was mindful of the industrial base. so the other consideration was how do we invest in the supply chain. there's growth in employment. we can change these decisions, but i think as the navy updates its 355 ship strategy and looks at force structure, i think we may see what they come back with. >> the question does nine allow us to generate two on station and three in surge?
>> i'm going to ask you to answer that, chairman. >> it would be difficult to do that. >> every combatant commander indicates that they are not sufficiently supported by the navy based on their plans. i know that in carrier force structure when it comes to being able to project power, that's the framework and the strength of our ability to project forces around the world and to project presence around the world. i wanted to know that in your professional judgment, what would the net operational impact be of deactivating and the carrier air wing by 2024? >> an important assumption will come back to that reversibility issue. an important assumption is the money saved by not refueling the
truman would be used to develop new ways of conducting maritime strike. it's among the initiatives inside the department. so from a force management perspective and a joint war fighting perspective, if the path of development for a new way of delivering maritime strike in conjunction with the carriers we have in place today and will have in place in the future, if that assumption doesn't obtain, then we'll have to go back to the success tear and have a conversation about reversibility of the decision because new programs combined with the programs on record today won't meet our maritime strike capability by the mid- s mid-20s. >> i'm all for those unmanned systems, but it's a big leap where we're only in the official trials to say we're going to replace a carrier that has that presence without having a
bridge. >> mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and again, thank you to the witnesses and particularly general dunford, you have been a rock solid leader straddling two administrations and really just done an outstanding job. thank you for your amazing service. mr. chairman, based on your conversations regard iing the reprogramming decision yesterday, i would actually ask that the letter date stamped march 25th from the acting secretary transferring a billion dollars out of the army's account to the department of homeland security be entered for the record. i would just note that that transmittal pretty much almost coincided with the submission to congress of unfunded priorities from the pentagon in terms of the 2020 budget. mr. norquist, could you tell us the total amount of unfunded
priorities that came over from the pentagon? >> i don't have the total yet from all of the services. >> i can help you with that. it was $10.4 billion. and 2.3 billion came from the army. i would say you almost get whiplash trying to follow the back and forthcoming out of the department exactly at the same time a reprogramming decision was made without congress, which is a rub con moment. we're also hearing from the army they need an additional $2.3 billion for the 2020 budget for unfunded priorities it undermines the confidence in terms of just the messages coming from the department of defense, which again are really now in a brave new world
treating the defense committees as nonexistent. to follow up on the questions for a moment. general dunford, the navy is work on an updated force structure assessment for the shipbuilding plant. isn't that correct? >> it is correct. >> do you know what's going to be in that regarding carrier? >> i don't know what's going to be in it. it seems premature to come forward with a decommissioning or mothballing of the truman when we still don't even know what the revised force structure assess isment looks like. as my trend from virginia pointed out, we already have $500 million in sunk costs for the reactors, which according to the navy are going to be, quote,
put on a shelf. which is a shelf we can't reach up for for the new class program. so the savings, it's $17 million for this year. is that correct? >> yes. >> we have $500 million in sun k costs out the door and save $17 million with this request in the 2020 budget. the top line number that came over is decoupled from a deal on the spending caps they
abdicated. so we have difficult budget choices to make ahead. and being left with a business case that doesn't help us with getting to that point. it's going to be a tough sell. i don't know how the clock is doing here. >> you have about 30 seconds. >> there's one clock over here that's working. they all shut down. >> mr. shanahan real quick for the record, your budget endorses three submarines in this year's budget? >> thank you, i yield back. >> we will get the clocks working again. >> thank you very much. thank you it, gentlemen, for your service. and for your leadership.
i appreciate the focus on strategic competitors in the national defense strategy and specifically china. i want to ask some questions about that. because as we know they have utilized economic, military and political influence to extend their reach and shift the balance of power across the globe. and beijing's whole of government effort to parent in the areas like the pacific but can be seen in south america, europe and even the arkic. so countering their influence in actions requires a whole of government strategy of our own. so my first question is, who is leading the u.s. whole of government response effort and where does the defense department fit into this plan? >> i would say fundamentally i feel like the department of defense is leading significantly in the whole of government. but i have strong partnership with secretary of commerce,
secretary of treasury and secretary of state. so continually discuss this effort. i would have to say i'm not overlook the department of justice as we work on critical infrastructure. >> are you saying you are the main person in the lead? >> i wouldn't say by definition. i have received some nomination to that role. by virtue of having more resources and capability than a lot of those other departments we have been an instigator of collaboration and working across as a whole of government. >> do you get together regularly with your counterparts and sit down and discuss this? >> weekly. >> very good. can you give more detail about exactly what the defense department's response is to c
china in this part of the olympian? >> i want to pick up on the economic cyber. >> just talk about posture in i think as you know we have two-thirds of the air force, two-thirds of the navy significant part of the army and marine core that are in the pacific. we also fielded most modern capabilities in the pacific. but the real important piece i think the most important military dimension of the strategy out there is is developing stronger network of allies and partners. our presence in the region the deterrence that we bring and the the physical manifestation to meet our commitments are an important part of our achieving a proper balance with china in the pacific.
>> very good. as i have had opportunity to travel the pacific area and visit recently with ambassadors from australia and new zealand, i would just continue to say how important it is that we be strategic and purposeful in those relationships because china is being purposeful and very aggressive and assertive in developing those relationships. it's very key. i want to shift to the fighter force. and in your written testimony, you have discussed that $57 billion allocated to increase the procurement of our fighter force and you have noted that we need a balanced mix of fourth and fifth generation aircraft to meet the entire spectrum of national defense strategy missions. so what is the appropriate balance between fourth and fifth generation aircraft and why do we need to address both in the requirements of the national defense strategy?
>> my role is to make sure we're developing ponss in a force structure to the the right campaigns. that's why our focus on russia and china is so important. each year we go through a new evaluation of what the tactical air mix should be. of that mix, there are three parties that really provide an inp input particularly for china and russia i would ask the chairman to walk us through how they go about making that recommendation. >> we did today just to talk about mix. we have 20% fifth generation, 80% fourth generation. that's in the inventory today. if you look at a 2040, it will be 80% fifth generation, 20% fout generation. so along the way, we have to achieve the right balance based
on capability. that's the ability to penetrate in the information capability represented by the f-35. >> the time is is expired. >> thank you, chairman. >> i will follow up where my ranking member just left off between fourth and fifth generations. we have sat in these chairs for at least the last four years and almost exclusively heard fifth generation. a recent mandated study concluded the f-15 x will not be able to survive a more contested battle space. plrly china and russia. we're trying to understand the requests that we're hearing for the few f-15 fversus what we hae
heard up to this date that f-35 fifth generation. what has changed, general, in the last 9 to 12 months to reverse what we have heard from last four years? >> first, congressman, with regard to the primary platform that the department needs, being the f-35, nothing has changed. we continue to do analysis in war gaming in the most recent what we call competitive area studies. we tok at look at what would be the fix of fourlt and fifth generation aircraft. the unique label to penetrate. fourth generation providing some capacity. so we're balancing that capability capacity piece. it's more complicated than just a mix of aircraft with regard to the f-15. one of the issues is the f-15 c is ageing out. so there was a cost variable in place that was also a partner with other nations in place with the decision to get the f-15.
but it's all in the context of the migration from that 20% fifth generation today, 80% fifth generation tomorrow in a path of development along the way that allows us to have a right mix of aircraft to accomplish the mission. what we have seen is the combination of the fifth generation capability was the right mix. that was done before the decision, which added those additional variables when they decided on the f-15 ex. >> so the generation of the fourth generation c model, which is deteriorating faster in the last 9 to 12 months that changed the decision from the last four years? >> that's right. when we knew that the c was going to age out earlier than we
would have wanted it to age out, we had to come up with a l replacement. when we look theed as thoep variables as well as impacts on the industrial basis that pertains to us and our partners, that's how that decision was made. i would highlight there were probably four or five variables that led to that specific solution. >> so you bring up capacity in our understanding that the f-35 would have the capacity as it has in this year to increase volume this year and future years to make up for what you talked about. >> one is the ability to carry the ordinance. the other issue is is the numbers of platforms that we have ask were able to field at any given time. it's really the latter with regard to the f-15 that will be sustained. by the decision. >> how much of the operating
costs factors into this. because they are roughly the equivalent in this year's model. >> if you could buy all f-35s, you might do that. this was looking over time at the resources that would be available. and there's not much difference. but there's a 50% difference in the operations and sustainment costs between the f-15 and f-35. the 15 has a significant shelf life available as well. so it was the combination of the platforms that we made a decision on. >> we are working with lockheed martin to decrease in order for us to have a balanced force in the future. there has been some progress, but we believe more progress needs to be made in reducing the operations sustainment costs. there's no question about it.
>> thank you for your testimony. i yield become back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. getting back to keeping the main thing the main thing, in it just under six months hurricane mi michael hit the coast. chak congress hz yet to pass a disaster bill for that region. in just over six months, secretary shanahan you will be responsible for executing a departments of defense agreement. by my calculation, that's somewhere around 60 legislative
days between now and then. so my question is if it you had to execute a budget what would the impact of that be? >> it would be very difficult to moderni modernize, we forego our future. that's the big risk. >> general dunford, what is the difference in us adopting an appropriation measure for you say september 1st instead of october 1st. >> you're saying if we did not go into the fiscal year with a
budget? >> my if we give you your budget, what would happen with the efficiency of the operations. >> i have been in and out of this for more than a decade dealing with this issue. i would tell you for us, collectively, one of the most inefficient things we do is have late budgets. it doesn't allow for the proper planning and being good stewards of the government's resources. in order for us to really deliver capability and at the end of the day campaign outcome within the top line we have been given, it requires us to prioritize and allocate resources very deliberately and budget instability and unpredictability don't allow us to do that optimally. it wastes taxpayer dollars. >> i'm concerned what it does for the moral of the the
families and the men and women in combat. it gives the impression that we in congress do not care. i would hope over the next couple weeks that we are able to come to some type of a caps agreement between the house and gnat. i have one specific question for secretary shanahan. army end strength, the request is $7500 lower than fiscal year 2019 authorization. but the fund request is increased by almost $1.3 billion. can you explain the difference? >> i believe the fundamental difference is the pay raise. >> did the department request that at that level? >> yes, we did.
>> gentlemen, thank you for your service. i hope that over the next couple weeks we're able to get some type of agreement so we're able to get an appropriation measure passed for you prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. with that i yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary shanahan, a number of officials have said the decision on reprimands and rewards rests with you. when secretary mattis resigned, we understood he was furious at the initial recommendations to place blame on junior officers. along more senior officers to escape responsibility. when will you make a decision about these reprimands and rewards? >> congressman, when i came into this role. >> just answer the question. when will you make the decision? >> soon. >> what is is soon?
>> i was going to explain. when i came into that role, the recommendation was brugt to me that secretary mattis had convened a review. that recommendation was brought to me. i did not find that sufficient, so i convened my own review so i can ensure from top to bottom the appropriate accountability. i do not know when that will be complete, but i have to assume that much of the work that's been done to date can be used, so by saying soon i'm not trying to mislead you. >> you will be issuing a report. or issuing it out. ask part of that is we're going to assure it's not going to be placing blame on junior officers. because what it seems to me we're letting colonels get off the hook for this debacle.
i hope that's going to be part of this. >> that's the reason, the fundamental reason i have done this is for every person between boots on the ground to the most senior position, i want direct accounting. >> just to kind of put more fine points, last year a report with all recommendations implemented. it hasn't been done. it's overdue. when will this committee receive that? >> i'll take that for the record. >> just more for the record, it does concern me if i don't ask these questions, we don't get answers. we consistently have this problem where i'm asking about what happened there, what should be theless sons we learned from that. this committee has not used subpoena power in quite some time. but if this continues to be the case that we are having to go become and forth, i have to keep
asking for information, i will be pushing for that. these families, the american public deserve to know what happened. and the junior officers that are being reprimanded should know there's equal reprimands, especially for general officers should they have done anything wrong. moving on, last night the committee received a copy of your letter to secretary nielsen aimproving sport support of projects. in your letter you say dhs meets those requirements of ten, noting they have identified as a drug smuggling quarter. did you just take dhs at its words that they met criteria or did you do research to meet that criteria? >> we did research, but in addition after the national emergency was declared, chairman dunford and i went down to el paso and walked the areas where the 284 money will be applied and spoke with personnel like
the secretary chief. i think that's sector 9. >> what kind of information did they provide for you to support this conclusion? >> david, you want to answer that? >> did you or the dod do analysis or verify kigs of this information? >> congressman, we went physically just to make sure we're not talking past each other. we went physically to the areas where the infrastructure is proposed. >> i'm glad you went and physically saw it. but there also needs to be other studies to do besides physically seeing. i'm from a border state. there should be other information. >> there is. >> that was you used that to make this determination? >> we had the information from department of homeland security on the challenges they face and
the specific areas were this those challenges occur. and the infrastructure is ta tolife-supported to the specifi geographic area and the threat that exists within that gee fwrask area. we had that information before we went down to physically see what we had read about before we went down to the border. >> i appreciate that we have that information. and also i'd like for you to share that information and all the analysis and detail with this committee so we could see where the basis of this argument came from. with that, i yield back my time. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general dunford, let me just join with the other people who said we're grateful to you for your service to your country. and thank you for your service as chairman you have been a great partner with those of us on the committee. and i deeply appreciate what you have done in conjunction with us. i'd like to gho back to your colloquy to clarify one point. you mentioned the detailed analysis behind your assessment of the 3 to 5% real growth requirement and that this budget
represents 2.9% growth. is that the minimum amount needed to accomplish the missions we ask of them? >> it is. that's the maintain the current advantage and the margin has eroded over time. it would result in a competitive advantage, but we identified that as a minimal necessary to make sure we could do what must be done by 2025. >> the reason i wanted that clarification is when we get into budget discussions, a lot of times we talk about wants and needs. we're trying to make sure when we tell our colleagues this is a need, this is not a want. you're telling us this is the minimum. >> i am. i think it's important for the members of the committee to know when we say competitive advantage, what we mean. i'm talking about our ability to project power in the context of
the threat posed by either russia or china. in europe or the pacific as the case may be. i'm also talking about our ability that must be done on land, air, sea, space and cyber space. so when we looked at the capabilities of both russia and china and looked at the capabilities, we need to develop over tomb w we based on the capabilities we needed in the projection necessary in order for us to field those capabilities. >> thank you for that clarification. secretary, i wanted to thank you for all the support you have given to the space based aspects of missile defense. it's important to be more concerned about. congress added more money lst year for the space central layer to help meet their defense requirements yet the proposed budget seetzeros that out.
apparently part of the space central layer will be housed in the new space development agency that was established three weeks ago. but it doesn't have a dedicated funding line for this project. it displays most of us what we need to defend. maybe i have misunderstood this. if you would explain the reasoning behind the budget request. >> i'll have to go back and look at where the funding line is, but dr. griffin and i made funding of the space layer for tracking of hyper sonics a priority. so i don't know it you know where that is. >> there are things that will be part of the space development. it may not be broken out. let's take that for the record and make sure you complete answers.
>> if you would and once you make a determination, let the committee know. it would be very helpful. >> the mission of the agency is to collaborate with the joint war fighter to define the space architecture and leverage commercial allied space technology. i support all those priorities. but they seem like acquisition authorities. why is housing sda under research ask engineering the right place? >> it's a temporary home. >> so as the space force proposal evolves, part of that was to get leadership of dr. griffin engaged. had has a significant track record in space. >> so not only suggest cant
experience in space, but his work initially with sdio and how the missile defense agency is was stood up so they have the right acquisition authorities and the ability to do development, to do development, this is not about doing acquisition. this is really about development. so, think of him as overseeing the creation of the right structure. this is really about the balance of putting appropriate authorities in place. if we get the wrong mix, it's just going to slow us down. so, we're really relying on his experience and judgment to help us put the right pieces in place. that's how i look at it. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. molten. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's getting to be a familiar tune, but i want to thank all of you for your service and especially chairman dunford. i'm honored to have you there as a fellow marine. and we're very lucky as a country that you continue to
serve. and i too share a bipartisan hope on this committee that you would find some way to continue that service past your due time. mr. secretary, i would like to start with you. china and russia have made major advancements in their conventional capability since the cold war and ig is nif can't investments in emerging technologies like hypersonics, ai, and cyber. it's one of the things i really like about your budget, that you are investing in these things as well. where do we have the strongest advantage against our competitors right now? >> i think probably at the most basic level i would say under sea. >> and so what are we doing to ensure we maintain that advantage? >> we continue to invest. a lot of the things that are very unique and special we won't be able to talk about in here. but we are investing in very significant capabilities.
i think we're -- i would go with the critical capabilities that we need to make in terms of really leveraging. the chairman talks about our competitive advantage. space, cyber, and missiles are where we can enable a significant gain not just in terms of capability but deterrence. >> right. so, i take your point, mr. secretary, mr. acting secretary, which is that it's really these traditional places like undersea capabilities where we have our advantage today and that's why we need to make these new investments. as we think about making these new investments in things like cyber and ai and hypersonics, what new arms control regimes that incorporate these emerging technologies could be in our strategic interest moving forward? >> yeah. this is where we need to do, in my view, the most significant work. you know, we'll address the inf
and new start. but things like new start don't contemplate artificial intelligence or these new weapons like hypersonics that have been created. >> so, you think it's critical that we incorporate these types of weapons systems into new arms agreements. >> we need to really think what does machine on machine mean as we take humans out of the loop. and these are arms control agreements that we need to have with people that we don't have arms control agreements with. >> right, right. there's also a lot of debate on this committee about the nuclear modernization. how much money could we save in nuclear modernization if we were able to negotiate bilateral reduction in icbms with russia. >> i don't know where to start -- >> would it be significant? >> if all nuclear weapons went away in the world -- >> not all, but if we were able to negotiate a reduction. >> it always depends on which,
right? i mean -- i mean, the basic answer is if you don't have to develop something, you save money. i mean, our arms control agreements have value if you can avoid having to develop something you don't need. >> sure, sure. mr. chairman, i would like to also take this discussion to alliances, not just arms control, but alliances we have around the globe. i strongly believe and i suspect you agree in a strategy built on strong alliances and growing partnerships. despite massive investments in advanced weaponry, ships, and aircraft in the fy20 proposal, what investments are we making to counter chinese globally and how is that reflected in the administration's budget request. >> congressman i think answered the question. when you look at the european defense initiative as an example, you look at the exercise program, foreign military sales assistance and so forth, it's all designed to
reinforce the network of allies and partners. that is, as you've identified in my view, the critical strategic advantage we have over china if we talk just china specifically is our network of allies and partners. >> what are we doing as china has the one belt one road they're pursuing investments. what are we doing to counter that growing influence in asia, in africa, in other places where they are making marshall plan size investments in allies. >> i can talk to the military to mention of it congressman, because i think what you're highlighting is a broader gap in our overall political and economic approach that is still being worked. there's a strategic approach, but we have a lot of work to do to keep pace with the one belt one road in terms of a comprehensive political, economic, and security package. in the security space, it is the work that we're doing with the allies and partners. and i would argue that i
certainly spend probably 60% of my time without an exaggeration doing that. and i think the secretary is probably pretty close to half his time as well in dealing with our allies and partners and building those relationships, building that interoperability. and certainly, you know, i've got i think 22 liaison officers on my staff from other countries right the now in all of our exercise and design and so forth is all now to incorporate coalition capabilities into exercises. from military perspective we're mindful of the need to broaden and deepen these allies and partners. and everything we do is informed by that. >> i'm out of time, but mr. shanahan, if you could take the question as well. >> i'm sorry, the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you for your tremendous leadership and service to our nation. you will be sorely missed on this committee. it's been a privilege to work with you. my question is for secretary shanahan. i wanted to follow up on
mr. molten with nearly a decade of china making significant investments in ai, quantum, and other emerging technologies, why is our top line number so important to ensure that in the long term we are able to fight and win against near peer adversaries like china? >> thank you for that question. modernization is the most important thing we can do to maintain deterrence, create military capability. that's also what enables us economically. so, they really all tie together. and i think going back to the congressman's question, what i think you would find in the department of defense is we're doing great power competition. it's not just about conducting military exercises. how do we work with partners in the regions where we're providing security to unlock economic capability and develop economic relationships? the relationships we form through the department really can unlock some of those other
diplomatic or economic benefits. so, we're strictly -- we're not looking at these great power competitions as the military is the solution. the military is an enabler to unlocking diplomatic and new relationships. but that top line in these critical areas, particularly cyber, are fundamental. >> thank you. my next question is on a different subject. for the past five years, there has been broad bipartisan and bicameral support for the designation of a east coast missile defense site yet the department hasn't made a designation available to the committee. the environmental study has been completed and the threat to our homeland from rogue nations icbms continues to evolve. the requirements for increasing the engagement envelope and allows for con ops is more imperative than ever. congressional intent was that it would be released. so, i expect the department will
indeed respect that congressional intent and share that designation with the committee. can i count on that? >> you can. >> and my last question -- give me one second here. so, i also wanted to get you on record. do you agree that any adickditi of a conus interceptor site must enhance the entire u.s. and project power on the east coast? the key question is any third site must protect the entire continental u.s. do you agree with that? >> let me take that one for the record. >> okay. i believe that is incredibly important that as we are considering any potential location that it should protect the entire continental u.s. >> i understand. and my hesitancy is when you look at coverages and what threat we're protecting against that it's more refinement of the answer that you're requesting.
i would just make a plug for the success the missile defense agency had yesterday in probably one of their more complex tests of the ground base core defense system of which that would probably be an important baseline. but i'll get back to you with that answer. >> okay. thank you for that. i yield back. >> i thank you mr. chairman. we recently returned from a trip to jordan, iraq, kurtistan, and kuwait. in jordan we observed and looked at and talked with the jor dane yans about a $350 million investment that the defense threat reduction agency made to create a virtual 21st century border wall along the 300 plus miles of the jordanian/syrian border to keep out drug
smugglers, armament smugglers, as well as isis. by all accounts, the utilization of electronic surveillance equipment, commanding control, rapid reaction capabilities proved to be extraordinarily effective. now, we're in the process of transferring some $8 billion from the department of defense to build less than 300 miles of border wall. so, my questions to you really are about the wall. it's our understanding that last night the department of defense set a notification of its intent to reprogram funds and use from ten usc -- ucs, usc -- to construct portions of the border wall. the department of defense may start awarding contracts using funding pursuant to 10 usc 2808 as early as may. can you therefore explain in more detail the status of your
plans to build a border wall pursuant to 2808? specifically, have you made any determination that the supposed national emergency requires the use of armed forces, mr. secretary? if so, why? >> so, the status of 2808 is i received a request from the department of homeland security. part of the process for me to make a determination as i've tasked the chairman to do an analysis of that request. he will come back to me and provide a military recommendation. chairman. >> okay. have you made any determinations that a border wall is necessary to support the use of troops at the border? mr. dunn ford. >> just to make sure i'm answering the question directly. we're responding to the president's direction to
reinforce the department of homeland security. so, to that extent we have responded to request for assistance for u.s. personnel. we have determined that u.s. personnel can appropriately back fill the capability gaps in capacity, size gaps, that homeland security has. >> my question is somewhat different. it's have you made any determination that the border wall is necessary to support those troops? >> oh, that's exactly what the secretary has tasked me to do now, congressman, is to look at the legislation which i did yesterday and determine whether the projects that have been identified by department of homeland security would be enhancing the department of defense's mission. >> okay. next, have you or anyone else at the department had any discussions or made any comments about needing to send or keep troops at the border in order to justify using section 2808 to build a border wall?
>> i certainly haven't, congressman. >> very good. next, what border wall projects will be built with section 2808 funds, ie, where along the border will the wall be built with these funds? are these sections of the wall military installations? if so, why? >> congressman, we have to tell you we're in the process. we have a list of projects identified by department of homeland security. but the secretary has not yet identified which of those aggregate projects that dhs has identified would be funded by 2808. >> and i'll go back to where i started this conversation. we observed 350 or 40 miles of virtual border wall. that is successful between jordan and syria. and what is without doubt one of the most dangerous places in the world. successfully operating at a cost
of $340 million. something for all of us to think about. finally, i would just observe that the united states constitution is extraordinarily clear about who has the power of appropriation. it is not the president. and the president is ewe certainisurping and you're part of that. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. gallagher. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you both for your testimony this afternoon. chairman dunford, to the maximum extent you're able to in this setting, can you explain the espionage threat posed by huawei and zt on the transfer of data and voice communications over their networks. >> again, congressman, if you think about the implications, you're talking in the future with 5g in particular? >> yeah. >> so, if you think about the implications of 5g, the internet of things, as well as the
primary means we'll use to share information, intelligence, with our allies and partners, one of the critical aspects of 5g has to be assurance that it's a secure network. if not, we'll have vulnerabilities and capabilities that we'll feel in the future will leverage 5g. and probably as importantly a foundation element of alliances is ability to share securely information in intelligence. and it'll be much more difficult for us to have those kinds of assurances to facilitate exchange of information given the trends with china's influence. >> so, it would be fair then to say that there are military operational processes that you are worried about as you look forward to operating with partners and allies that may be using huawei systems. >> congressman, yes. and this is a broad fundamental national security issue, and it needs to be a full debate on exactly where we're headed. i do believe that the vulnerabilities are acute.
>> and what steps has the dod -- has dod undertaken already or could you possibly undertake to mitigate these threats? >> well, maybe i'll pick up on this. maybe if i could just add to the chairman's comments. so, if we look at 5g and then the environment that those systems are developed and where they come from, you're talking about a country has a clear history of cyber espionage. we're talking about country with predatory economics, talking about looking at people having to have a social credit that part of doing business over there is you have to share data. with that as the backdrop and then not having the understanding of how you can trust the network, that's our concern with 5g from a department of defense standpoint. so, in the absence of being able to verify that hardware or
provider is trustworthy, the things we're going to have to do is have secure networks that keep that equipment off of that. but the real risk is we have to operate in environments where we don't know how secure that network is. and this is where we get into discussions with our nato partners in other countries. as they pursue economic advantages of purchasing low-cost equipment, they're foregoi foregoing security. and that's, i think, our biggest concern. >> sure. and would you recommend that american technology companies sell critical components to huawei and zt? >> i'm always for america selling the right equipment. i think the real work we have to do here is we were, as a country, the leaders of 4g. we should be the leaders with 5g. it's not only in our security interest, but it's in our economic interest to be able to have that kind of capability. >> and then, chairman dunford, you talked about sort of the
concerns that we would have if we're working with allies, close allies, that have technology from huawei and zt. i think the aussies who are one of our closest allies -- we celebrated 100 years last year -- have been at the lead of disallowing china for competing in australia for 5g technology. my understanding is new zealand may follow suit. talk to me about where the alliance is on this resolution. my theory is we should start there and build outwards to our allies. >> sure. in fact sunday night at my home i'll have my 5i counterparts and we'll talk about -- i won't talk too much in detail here, but we've been having this conversation for the last 18 months to understand where we are as a group in terms of ability to manage this challenge and many other challenges associated with our competitive advantage. >> i appreciate that. i know you guys are tracking on this issue which i view to be, i
mean, perhaps the most important one we face right now. thank you for your attention to it and thank you for being here today. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. chair. chairman dunford, let me too add my thanks for your service. i think your exodus is going to be greatly -- we're going to greatly miss you. and i do hope as was said earlier that we find some way to keep you engaged, as i think that'll be important for our national security. acting secretary shanahan, military construction is defined in the law as any construction, development, conversion or extension of any kind carried out with respect to a military installation necessary to produce a complete and usable facility. i imagine it is pretty rigorous of a selective process and must prove to be important to the well being and readiness of service members. as the law states, the purpose of these funds are to produce
usable facilities for our military. correct me if i'm wrong. but getting a project selected to receive milcon funding is pretty difficult. and in most situations, it takes years before installation commanders actually get milcon projects funded and included in their budgets. diverting milcon funding hampers the department's and congress 'ability to sustain what you all have been stressing is readiness. and as the commandant of the marine corps has illuded to. congress did its job by authorizing and appropriating funds that the department and congress saw as vital to the safety and readiness of our service members. what we are being told is that this funding is not going to be used where the law clearly states it should be used. secretary shanahan, you are asking this body to authorize
$3.6 billion to back fill projects we already authorized and appropriated. in addition, you are requesting another $3.6 billion to build the wall. how did the department of defense get into the business of funding a physical wall for what you all consider is a nonmilitary emergency? that was a rhetorical question. moving on to venezuela. is the use of military assets to deliver humanitarian aide and services being used to send the signal to russia and other foreign entities of this administration's intent to solve the crisis in venezuela military, one. and two, does the dod have any plans or intentions of sending additional support other than humanitarian aide supported by u.s. aide? and three, has the dod been given any requirements for
assistance to fulfill from other agencies? >> so, the use of the military for humanitarian assistance is vital. and i think one of the reasons that we were drawn in by the state department was because we could do this so quickly. to your question regarding, you know, other plans and activities as they relate to supporting venezuela, the chairman and i have been in discussion for the last several weeks. you know, how do we put a more regional face on our humanitarian efforts? i'll be going down to southern command to meet with admiral fowler to have further discussions around what are the things that we can do to provide support to the people of venezuela. chairman, do you have any comments? >> the only thing i would say, congressman, is that your first question about was it designed to signal, we got the request and it was generated by usaid.
it went to the state department and they asked us to meet a capacity short fall. as the secretary said, it was our ability to deliver a large volume over a short period of time in support of usaid which drove the initial humanitarian assist request. >> let me finish with the time i have left. is it this administration's intent to use the military resolution on this issue to achieve a military resolution? >> it's not my understanding. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> okay. we have five people left to ask questions here who have not yet spoken. i'm going to press on. there's the possibility that others are going to come back and we'll deal with that as it comes. but we'll try to press on. i think we can conceivably get done in the next 45 minutes or so. i'll try to do that. mr. walls. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentleman, thank you for your service. thank you for being here today. i want to talk to you a moment
about space. russia and china have weaponized space. they're in -- they have done so. they're in the process of doing so, and they explicitly in their national security strategy seek to dominate the united states united states. they are prepared for war and in my opinion we are not. china can track, dazzle, destroir our assets in space. in 2018, china conducted more space launches than any other country in the world. why does this matter? i think as leaders we need to help americans understand that our entire modern way of life is dependent on space now. our navigation, supply chain, banking, how we communicate. space foundations has over $400 billion of our economy is dependent on space. yet in the pentagon, our various components for war fighting in
that domain are all over the space. gao estimated we have over 60 stakeholders involved in this. in terms of acquisition, air force, and oversight is 11 different parts. i believe we are with space where we were in the 1940s with the air force where it had to be split off for obvious reasons. i have introduced legislation that cleans up some past legislation in terms of making it a fully unified command versus the subordinate commands. i would encourage my colleagues to support me in that. bottom line, gentleman, and i'll go with you mr. secretary, are you confident we could win a conflict in space today if we had to do so? >> i'm fully confident we could win a conflict in space today? >> are you -- without the current budget trajectory, if we had to go to a continuing resolution, are you confident we could win in space in the next five to ten years given chinese investments?
>> we just don't need to take that risk. i mean, this is really about -- we have a $19 trillion economy that runs on space. we need -- that's why the cr could be so painful. we've put a plan in place. the 3-5% growth, real growth that we need, allows us to even go faster, but it's vital that we get that top line. >> mr. secretary, have you made a decision on where the new u.s. space command will be located? there's reporting in the press that it will be in colorado and there's been a nomination. >> yeah, no, there's -- >> i would submit to you spaces in florida dna and to strongly consider florida as you move forward with that decision. freight break, separate topic, on counterterrorism capacity building soft power. i would just submit to you that -- and i'm concerned in
hearing testimony across the board from across the services. i understand where we're going with the national defense strategy. i think that's the right thing to do in terms of reinvesting in our technological superiority. however, we cannot do what we did in the 1980s post-vietnam and plush those lessons, those counterinsurgency lessons down the tubes. general dunford, do you believe isis is defeated as a military organization? >> isis maintains global capability, congressman. so, while they've been cleared of the ground in ir i can't, sy. >> do you believe taliban has the military capability to deny al quaeda use of afghanistan? and particularly military capability that 300,000-man afghan army and coalition are the most powerful western armies
in the world have struggled to do in 18 years. i've certainly participated in and i know you have as well. do you believe the taliban have that capability if we bought into the fact that they desire to do so? >> congressman, i'm not pushing back on your question, but it's hard for me to imagine having a conversation about the taliban fighting al quaeda given how close they are as organizations right now. >> 100% agree. we have to get to they have the will to deny. then we have to look at what's their enforcement mechanism. what's their capability? gentleman, just with the time i have remaining, i'm glad that you touched on the fact that if we had to go to a national emergency today from a recruiting standpoint, 75% of young people couldn't serve in the military. that's why i'm pushing for us to go back to national service. that's not a draft. that's national service.
as a means to prepare our young people to serve in all types of capacity and look forward to working with you in that regard. thank you. >> thank you. mr. crowe. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and to all of you for your testimony today. i will reiterate my colleagues comments. general dunford on your lifetime of service, i thank you for your professionalism. with all due respect, colorado is a mile closer to space than florida is and a great place for space assets. let me begin with general dunford, in my three combat tours in iraq and afghanistan, doing operations became abundantly clear to me that involvement of humanitarian and diplomatic efforts were instrumental to our ability to get the jb done and to secure our forces and allies as well. so, in that context, is it your professional judgment and your experience that if the proposed cuts to the state department
would occur, would that have a negative impact on our stability and support operations and our national security. >> with regards to the first part of your question, i couldn't agree with you more. my experience is similar to yours. i'm not familiar enough to know how secretary pompeo, how his budget is constructed, and what the direct impact is of the cuts to the state department, to be able to judge whether that will have direct impact on operations. >> if we have fewer diplomats for fewer resources to supplement forces and provide capacity building to allies and local partners, does that jeopardize our ability to perform missions overseas? >> that particular short fall would. it's no question. >> also to you, general dunford, i'm particularly concerned about the long-term security of our kurdish allies, particularly the syrian democratic forces in syria. are you satisfied that as of today there are sufficient long-term plans in place to ensure the protection of the
kurds and the allies? >> in syria specifically we're seeking campaign continuity. and that campaign continuity includes the partnership with the sdf to complete the task against isis. we're also working to assure turkey that its security interests are addressed along the border. so, right now, our near-term plan with the president's decision for residual force includes assist for kurdish partners on the ground as well as framework to prevent challenges to them. >> so, it sounds we're working on it but not there yet. >> i'll come here six months from now and tell you we're still working on it. this is a journey. it's a complicated situation and i think we make progress every day. but i suspect we'll continue to work this for months to come,
keeping in mind the thesis of your opening line which was at the end of the day this is about a political solution which is very much still in the works. >> i'll just posit that i think our moral credibility as well as security we tied up with the ability to protect those forces and that population. acting secretary shanahan, i'm deeply concerned about mission creep and the use of the aumf over the last 18 years and obviously congress has authority to declare war and oversight authority of the department of defense and military operations. it's my understanding that orders which outline authorities delegated by the secretaries, the commanders or components have previously not been made accessible to committee staff. we can't do our role unless the committee staff has the obligation. >> congressman, i have been working over the past six weeks to come up with a process so
that we can share that information. i'm going to be prepared next month to come share that and work with the committee. >> so, next month is the goal? >> that's the goal. >> why has the department not fulfilled its obligation and submitted the congressionally mandated report on advice, assist, and accompany methods. >> i'll have to take that for the record. >> that's ndaa just to be clear. >> thank you. >> i yield back. >> i see we do have folks coming back, so we're going to go with mr. bergman. when he is done, we're going to take a 10 to 15 minute to give the witnesses a chance to stretch and relax for a moment. and then we will reconvene at 12:45 and go from there. with that, mr. bergman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general dunford, i know you have heard it from everyone, but thank you for being the embodiment of served leadership,
thoughtful, pragmatic, mission-focused. you set an example that we all can follow on a daily basis. thanks. mr. shanahan, the subject in advance here as i work through the question is contamination. my district in michigan, we have areas of confirmed and potential p-fos contamination, some included braked bases which closed decades ago but also at state-owned national security bases. you know the army and air national guard don't have access to the department's environmental restoration funds the same way the active component bases do. given that the work of our national guard, that what it does is directly related to overall readiness of our armed
forces, i believe that the dod does have a role to play in mitigating p-foss contamination. do you agree that we must find ways to address f-phos contamination not just at active duty bases but also national security bases. >> sir, i think we need to address the issue of p-phos and contamination in all of our communities. this is a significant health and environmental risk. >> can you give me any examples of how dod is currently working with other agencies to address the issue? >> i know the department is working with the environmental protection agency to harmonize some of the standards. our focus has been to substitute. so, when you think about the
fire retardant, how do we just eliminate the contamination. so, we no longer test. we no longer train. we no longer do research with those chemicals. >> understand. is there anything -- congress is a partner in this. is there anything you can suggest what congress can do to further support dod in ensuring that you have the ability to work with all of those other agencies to eliminate this problem? >> i'll take that for the record. but i -- it -- it's one of these we truly need to get a harmization of the environmental mittation plans. we just need to be able to address it. but i'll take that for the record. >> thank you. general dunford, you know, it's clear that the national defense strategy has influenced this budget as does with every budget. but what is less clear is how the joint force plans to operate differently. can you explain in an
unclassified way some of the concepts that are being developed to operationalize the strategy, update the old plans, and combining with budget? >> sure. probably since you talk about old plans, probably one of the more fundamental changes we made is to shift from an o plan basis method of planning to campaign plans that incorporate the problem set. in the past we might have developed a plan for a specific contingency in a specific geographic area, a fairly narrow view of the threat. when we think about russia, china, iran, north korea now, our planning has -- we developed global plans so that we talk about a specific contingency but talk about it in the context of what the entire joint force will be doing globally at any given point in time. i'll quickly give an example. we have done recently a readiness review for preparedness for korea. we looked at what we're doing
across the region in the pacific, to defend the homeland, and what each combatant would be viewing either in direct threat or as the risk goes on to mitigate opportunism in other risks. >> i guess i'm the only one standing between us and a break, so i yield back. >> okay. we are going to take a brief recess in a moment. we will reconvene at -- do you guys need 10, 15 minutes? all right. 10. we'll reconvene at 12:40. mr. brown is going to be in the chair. i have something i have to do, but i will be back. mr. brown is first up. he's not just putting himself in charge and then calling on himself, he is indeed next. we are in recess for ten minutes. thank you.
the house arms services committee taking a break now on spending for the up coming fiscal year. we will bring it to you live on c-span 3. until then some of the q&a from this hearing this morning. >> keeping in mind and acknowledging ranking member thornberry's point that you don't make the policy necessarily that you're sent up here to defend. regrettably neither president
trump nor mr. mulvaney are going to testify on it. so, we have to ask you about it and get your defense explanation. one of the biggest areas in the wall funding that's problematic for the committee and the relationship between the pentagon and congress is the reprogramming requests. and it is, you know, a bit of sort of arcane policy that even i didn't fully understand. by and large the pentagon is not allowed to simply move money from one account to another without coming through the legislative process. given the amount of money at the pentagon and given how much things change, we have given, through the congressional process, the ability to reprogram, i think it was $4 billion last year. but one of the sort of gentleman's agreements about that was if you reprogram unmany, you will not do it without first getting approval of all four relevant committees, defense appropriations, arms, and senate. and the house and the senate.
for the first time since we've done that on the refunding request to help fund the wall, you're shifting money from the account into the drug safety account, whatever it is, drug enforcement account so that you can then take it out of the cap and put it into the wall. and you are not asking for our permission. you understand the result of that, likely, is that the appropriations committee in particularly would no longer give the pentagon reprogramming authority. i think that's unfortunate because they need it. and i guess my question is what was the discussion like about in deciding to break that rule, and what is your view of the implications for it going forward in terms of the relationship between the pentagon and congress in general. and specifically, how much is it going to hamper you to not have reprogramming authority after this year?
>> chairman, what was the second part of that. >> how is it going to hamper the relationship -- sorry. how is it going to hamper your ability to do your job if you don't have any reprogramming authority going forward? >> yeah. well, the discussion, i think, you and i have also been party to this discussion, is that by unilaterally reprogramming, it was going to affect our ability long term. >> the rest of the story is we don't -- whether it's oco or not, we still give it the same scrutiny. we still authorize and appropriate each item and it doesn't matter which category it's in. so, in some ways we don't have to pay attention to any of that. we just still do our work, and i think we will. >> reporter: a handful of members in this hearing have floated an audit of the pentagon. what more specifically would you
look to get out of an audit? >> there may be some new members here. several years ago, 2010, we required an audit take place. and it has taken a lot of time, effort, and money to get to the point where they actually conducted last year an audit. now, what an audit does is it points to problems and areas where you can't trace the money because computer systems don't talk to each other, et cetera, et cetera. so, now the point is to find the problems and go fix them. and that's exactly what's happening. so, as conway, the cpa said, the value of an audit is that you can trace the money and find out where your financial tracking systems are not operating appropriately. now, it's going to take some years to go through all of the problems that are being found when you do an audit. but if you don't do an audit, you don't find them.
>> is there anything more specific that you think you could find out of an audit? >> sure. first you've got to know where your money is going. then secondly you can create efficiencies. you can say i don't want to spend more money on that. or i can spend money more efficiently by putting these things together. so, you can make better decisions once you have that sort of traceability. and the rest of the story is you can save manpower and other costs by having computer systems, tracking systems, that talk to each other. an enormous amount of waste and inefficiency occurs in the pentagon because we have not, over the years, updated their financial systems. >> reporter: any update on -- >> and i'll just say, norquist has his hands around this. he's good. he's making it happen. he did the audit at the department of homeland security and it got to a clean audit. it will take a long time to do that in the department of
defense, but he knows how to do it. >> reporter: are you going to give them a deadline? >> we gave them a deadline to do the audit. now the question is how long does it take to fix individual problems they found. how long does it take to build a new computer system compatible with this one, for example. again, it takes time to replace these antiquated systems, and i don't know what that overall time will be. >> reporter: any update on when we should expect a nomination for a permanent secretary of defense? >> i don't know. you'll have to ask somebody other than us about how that goes. >> reporter: how are you feeling about shanahan? >> i think he's done a very good job today. this is the first time he's testified before us. and i think he's been conversant and he and dunford together have done a good job so far. but it's just halftime. >> reporter: should the pentagon be punished for things omd made him do? >> national security is the first job of the federal government. so, we've got to do that before we do everything else.
now, i think it's fair to fuss about a number of omb-required decisions, but you don't want to punish the guy out there in afghanistan or the gal on a ship in the pacific because of omb accounting. that's what you've got to keep your eye on. okay. i've got to go refill by tea. see y'all in a minute. >> keeping in mind and acknowledging ranking member thornberry's point that you don't make the policy you're sent here to dchbd. regretly president trump nor mr. mulvaney are going to
testify about it. so, we have to ask you about it and get your defense slash explanation. one of the things that's problematic for the committee is the reprogramming requests. and it is, you know, a bit of sort of arcane policy that even i didn't fully understand. but by and large the pentagon is not allowed to simply move money from one account to another without coming back through the full legislative process. but given the amount of money at the pentagon and given how much things change, we have given through the congressional process the ability to reprogram, i think it was $4 billion last year. but one of the sort of gentleman's agreements about that was if you reprogram money, you will not do it without first getting the approval of all four relevant committees. defense aprops and house senate.
for the first time to fund the wall, basically you're shifting money into the drug safety account, whatever it is, drug enforcement account, so that you can then take it out of the cap and put it into the wall. and you are not asking for our permission. now, you understand the result of that likely is that the appropriations committee in particularly would no longer give the pentagon reprogramming authority. i think that's unfortunate because they need it. and i guess my question is what was the discussion like about in deciding to break that rule, and what is your view of the implications for it going forward in terms of the relationship between the pentagon and congress in general. and specifically, how much is it going to hamper you to not have reprogramming authority after this year?
>> chairman, what was the second part of that? >> how is it going to hamper the relationship -- sorry. how is it going to hamper your ability to do your job if you don't have any reprogramming authority going forward. >> right, yeah. well, the discussion i think you and i have also been party to this discussion, is that by unilaterally reprogramming, it was going to affect our ability long term to be able to do discretionary reprogramming that we had traditionally done in coordination. it was a very difficult discussion. and we understand the significant down size of losing what amounts to a privilege. the conversation took place prior to the declaration of a national emergency. it was part of the consulting that went on. we said here are the risks,
longer term to the department. and those risks were -- >> questions. and let me just start by saying that i think, you know, i recognize that as members of the armed services committee, our responsibilities look at authorizations for underlying support in the national defense strategy and that the national defense strategy really implements one of the four pillars of the national security strategy, that's peace through strength the with a focus of building a more lethal force as members of congress more broadly are looking at how do we ensure we authorize and appropriate for the entire national security strategy which includes defending the homeland, defense and nondefense spending in there, american prosperity, a lot of nondefense spending in there, and projecting american values. in fact, if you look at the national security strategy, it talks about vocation nal training. it talks about diversifying the
energy portfolio. it talks about a forward presence of the diplomatic core and our development activities throughout the world. so, let me turn, though, to the focus of this committee, the national defense strategy and the underlying budget. this year, the president's budget request for $750 billion, 718 to the pentagon and which is the highest adjusted for inflation since the height of the iraq war. and overseas contingency, includes oco funding of $164 billion to the pentagon which is the absolute highest that we've seen since the height of the iraq surge in 2007 and 2008. and this is occurring at the same time that the national defense strategy is talking about a pivot away from the counterterrorism fight, not abandoning that fight, but pivoting away as we focus more
on great power of competition with china and russia. i think it's important for congress that, you know, we are open and transparent to the american public and that the department of defense is as well. so, when we have appropriations categories and authorization accounts that we can demonstrate the american people that we're faithful to the original design and intent. so, i just want to ask you about a few items just to shine some light on what we're actually doing here, what's being requested in the president's budget request. i'm reading $8 billion for ship depot level maintenance has been moved from the navy base budget to the oco account and to my knowledge there's not a single dollar for depot level maintenance in the base budget. is that accurate? >> i believe that sounds correct. >> okay. 1.2 billi $1.2 billion for trident 2
nuclear missiles. is that accurate? >> it would be in the oco for base. >> oversea contingency allowance. 500 b 61 low to medium yield bombs are in the oco portion of the budget. is that accurate? >> i don't know that one off the top of my head. >> that is accurate. i'll answer that one. there's $1 billion for the patriot assist in the oco budget. the patriot is to defend against advanced enemy fighters. we're talking about in overseas contingency operation fund. does that sound accurate? na. that may be right. the patriot is also used in terms of defense against missiles. >> finally i want to point out the european deterrence initiative, 500 remains in oco budget. i understand it's been done that way in previous years. but again we're talking about reassuring our nato allies about a long-term commitment, yet a substantial portion of our
funding commitment is in an oco budget which is not long-term funding. is that accurate? >> yes. the edi has historically been funded through the oco budget. >> so, is this sound budgeting practice for the dod and supporting a defense budget? >> so, the use of the oco is divided into two parts. there's the traditional one and we've broken it out in the budget -- >> i get that. my question is this: putting in some of these modernization programs, long-term programs that are not exclusively for current or anticipated overseas allowances, putting, for example, 533 nuclear bombs in oco, is that sound budgeting or accounting practices? >> it's not how we have presented it the previous year. >> okay. let me just shift with the remaining time i have because we haven't asked about the
transgender policy. i think the budgets are important reflection of both our priorities and our values. would you agree with that, secretary shanahan, that a budget reflects our values and our priorities? >> yes. >> so, you know, when president truman desegregated the armed forces, he states it is essential there be maintained in the armed services of the united states the highest standards of democracy with a quality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense. would you agree with that? >> yes, i would. >>. are you aware the army failed to recruit enough soldiers to meet projections for the last fiscal year? >> yes. >> you also heard 17% are uneligible to serve in the united states. >> yes. >> would you agree this directly
compromising national security. >> yes, it does. >> are you aware there are trans gender soldiers in today's military who are meeting and exceeding criteria for the military? >> i don't have the specific. >> okay. because they testified before this committee about three weeks ago. are you aware of the fact that many of these trans gender soldiers have successfully transitioned to their gender of preference? >> i don't know that. >> this is important change. this isn't change from army green to army green and pink. this is a personnel policy that will exclude a certain category of americans from serving. i'm trying to inquire what you do know about it. are you aware that the chief of operation, the marine commandant, army chief, and current air force chief testified publicly in their own words that transgender serving in the military won't effect readiness, doesn't effect military discipline, has not been disrupted to military.
>> i'm aware of their testimony, yes. >> and you know that in july of 2017, president trump said that he consulted his generals and experts when he decided not to accept transgender individuals to serve in the military. general dunford, as the then senior military adviser to the president, is it accurate that within days of president trump's ban on trans gender service that you stated i would just probably say that i believe any individual who meets the physical and mental standards and is worldwide deploy able and currently serving should be afforded the opportunity to continue to serve. did you say that? >> i did say that, congressman. >> has your opinion changed on that? >> it has not, congressman. >> i will now turn to -- thank you very much for your responses to my line of questioning. >> mr. chairman. >> yes, sir? >> general, i think since we have gone down that road at some
length over time, it is important now to put on the record a bit more about the process that secretary mattis used in re-evaluating the prior administration's policy in this regard. and a little bit more full sm about the issues he issued. i don't know which of you is better to do that because you were both there. but i think it would be important to discuss that event. >> i'll take a first stab at it and then see if the secretary wants to add. so, we did use the words physically, mentally, psychologically capable, being worldwide deployable without special accommodations. and then the secretary engaged the leadership across the department, but that also included medical experts from
across the department. so, what the secretary did was based on the definitions. and i think you were sensitive as well, ranking member thornberry, that some of this s in litigation, so what i'm trying to do is be as forthright as i can be without getting into that issue. but the secretary included the leadership and then medical experts. based on the definition of physically, mentally, psychologically capable of deploying, performing in their fields without special accommodation, he proposed a revision to the 2017 policy. that was the process that was used to be able to do that. >> okay. shanah do you have anything you want to add. >> i think it applies standards uniformly. >> i think there's a misunderstanding that the policy was changed on the when i wihe
m of a tweet. there was a longer process that resulted in the policy. we're going to have a sense of congress resolution on the floor this week which is part of the reason that this is coming up right now. i don't think probably it's appropriate to debate that now, but as you point out, there is litigation underway. i suspect there will be more conversations about these various considerations and that may well involve involvement -- involve the department, the service chiefs in looking at these issues. i yield back. >> i'll go to mr. banks. >> thank you. secretary shanahan, have you have a conversation with secretary de-voss about huawei?
>> i have not with secretary dee voss, but i have with the fbi. >> do you believe there's more we can do to restrict chinese nationals who are students on college campuses from being involved in dod funded sensitive research. >> are there good reasons for us to do that? >> yes. good. i'll move on. on september 26 of last year, secretary mattis and va secretary issued a joint statement promising a new and improved joint government structure to manage genesis and the va modernization. i've asked the officials to share the thought process and zero information has been forthcoming. i understand that a study of various options was completed in february. when can we expect such an
announcement? >> i'll take that one for the record. >> even better yet, before the announcement, would it be possible for some of who were involved to be briefed -- receive a briefing of some sort. >> is the line of thinking is where the synergy is being captured? >> yes. >> we are applying maximum pressure to isis-k and other terrorist groups in afghanistan. can you elaborate on this military campaign and how would a quick withdrawal impact the longevity of isis-k in afghanistan. >> my reference there is to the work of general miller and the special forces and their work also with the afghan special forces.
as you're very well familiar with general miller's soft background, he is at this point in time, this is -- this anchors back to our south asia strategy. he's really being a concentrated effect, a more muscular effect not just to al qaeda and isis but to the taliban. >> can you state -- you state the importance of the afghan-owned peace process. do you think our current negotiations exemp fi that? >> congressman, you know what we need to do is start reconciliation. what i'm optimistic about is that they've opened up a dialogue. and after 17 years i'm encouraged to see that. the intent, the clear intent, that's outlined by the secretary of state is that this process include legitimate representatives of the afghan government and the afghan people.
that's the direction we're headed in. to look at the negotiation at any point in time would not be probably a full-site picture. >> what conditions would you expect the taliban from the taliban before the u.s. is safely able to withdraw from their country? >> beyond the taliban, when i take a recommendation to the secretary and the president about our future presence in afghanistan, it will be based on our national interests and the fact that afghanistan is not a sanctuary for which terrorists can attack the american people and the american homeland. >> if -- we've had some discussion already about the -- about the size and strength of the united states navy. even if every congress and president agreed on the goal of a 355-ship fleet for decades to come, we still won't reach that desired goal for at least 40 years. what do you expect the balance of forces between the u.s. and china to be by the time we achieve a 355-fleet navy.
>> let me speak to the time. i think it's 2034 in which we reach the 2355-ship navy. it won't be defined by our traditional measures of 355 ships. the real work that we're understand going right now is what is the right mix? this goes back to, you know, aautonomy, sub surface mix. i don't think the course that the chinese are on is the same course that the naval battles will be fought on. that doesn't mean we divorce ourselves from our current infrastructure but i think this transition to future forces,
space, cyber, missiles will have a profound impact on the type of navy we have and the size of those vessels and the competition. >> mr. kim? >> thank you so much for coming. i want to be able to continue on the line of questioning that my colleague was just going through. i think it's incredibly important that we think about what the american people are worried about, how they understand the issues we're dealing with with the military and security. and oftentimes the coverings that i have back in the district of new jersey are different than the conversations we'll have in this room. we heard some great line of questioning about afghanistan. i think that's key. that is something that's always on the minds of the american people in my district when they're thinking about security. and while these others issues we have talked about are important in this discussion here, as we're thinking about our priorities and our budget, i think it's important for us to
make sure we're always being proactive about what we're doing in afghanistan and what our next steps are. i always encourage the three of you and others at the pentagon and elsewhere to be thinking about how it is that we can raise those issues and continue to show the american people that these are not issues that we're sweeping under the rug, that we're going to stay engaged especially after we know there are people who are eligible to serve now who were in diapers on september 11th. as we're going through this, what are those circumstances that we need to be able to understand when we will no longer require u.s. military personnel in afghanistan. i know that's going to be dependent in part of the peace process. i also understand that the south asia strategy talks a lot about how the regional countries are engaged in this. but when i think about the train, adviser and assist
mission, i see a lot of parallels with where we're at. what i don't have a sense of, when do we no longer need to have u.s. personnel on the ground to assist with other capabilities with that. >> when there is no longer a threat of terrorism in south asia that would affect the homeland or the american people, then the mission can end. until that point, you know we -- if we end the mission before that condition is achieved, then that -- that's the -- then we'll be managing risks of an attack on the homeland. and i will tell you today, given the almost 20 groups that operate in that area and certainly the intent, if not today the capability of al qaeda and isis, it's my judgment that continued pressure on those
threats is directly linked to the security of the american people. >> thank you for that. when we're making that assessment of the threats to the homeland, i agree with you that should be the measure by which we understand our involvement. what can you tell me that reassures me that the afghan defense forces are ones that are being able to develop -- to be able to do that on their own? even if we were to get to a point where you or some other general can be able to make that determination, if we were to then not have the afghan forces where they can do that on their own, then obviously we may fall back into a situation again as we've seen in afghan. on the afghan security forces side, what circumstances or what conditions do they need, what prosht sis do you need to see in their forces to give you confidence that they would be
able to handle this on their own? >> sure, and, congresswoman, it's beyond a right. it's the capability of the afghan government to sustain those particular forces and when would that happen? i guess what i would tell you, if you went back to 2013, we had 100,000 americans on the ground, and that was the size force that was necessary for us to advance our national interest at that time. today we have about 13,000 americans in afghanistan. so i know this isn't moving as fast as the american people in particular your constituents would want it to be, but what we have tried to do is make sure that the level of effort that we had in afghanistan was consistent with the threat and consistent with the capabilities of the afghans to deal with that threat on their own. and it's our judgment today that particularly with regard to
combat capability in high-end special operations capability, the type of support continues to be necessary. those other nations that are with us in supporting the afghans right now. >> thank you for that. i think that's incredibly important. i yield back. >> mr. gates. my first question is, whether or not the manufacturing base has been a consideration in the decision to upgrade the f 15? >> i think when we looked at the factors that we talked about, you want to maintain a competitive industrial base and you also want to make sure you have weapon systems with the right mix of capacity and capability and -- >> specifically as to the manufacturing base, is it your view that this decision to make the f-15 upgrades is essential?
>> i don't know if it justifies it by itself. i think it's a factor that needs to be considered. >> how many f-35s can we build in 2020? >> i can get you that number. >> we have 78 in the budget. i don't know what their capacity is per year. >> procurement cost has been another justification to purchase fewer f-35s and have the f 15 x options that have been laid out. when you finish the f 15 upgrades with the full compliment of targeting pods, what's the fly-away cost? >> i don't have the specifics. the maintenance and operating costs of them will still be lower. >> we can get to that. first procurement costs.
was an assumption that we made that it would be less than buying more f-35 as. >> i believe the main driver was if the maintenance costs. >> which -- the procurement cost of which is lower, how about that? >> of the fourth generation is lower. >> it's cheaper to buy an up grand a fourth gen. >> i believe so. we can get you those numbers. >> i'm looking at an $80 million fly away costs on the 35 a and once you lash the necessary, you know, electronic weapons pod and other tech to the f 15, you're looking at a -- i'm not sure what other additional things
you're attaching to it. >> the mission said that we would assume when we make these budgetary -- if you could provide for me procurement costs that would be helpful. operational cost, you were making a point about that as well. what's the basis for the -- >> there was an organization that went through and compared the set of them, you're talking about the purchase cost, the maintenance cost and the life cycle cost when you think of how allowing the aircraft lasts and it compares it for the different missions we need them for. if you're operating in a permissive environment where you're looking at the capacity of the ability -- >> if you look at a melded rate on the f 15 x, what does it cost per hour to fly it? >> i don't know. they're available. >> so as you guys provide for the procurement cost break down,
it would be helpful to have the melded rate on hourly costs to fly the 35 a and the f 15 x because i'm looking at data that says we're going to drive that cost to $25,000 per flying hour with a -- understanding their different missions. and that's a year after the budget says we would have the first operational of 15 xs, so that would be a number consistent with the data that showed that to be 27 to $30,000 per flying hour. if you can break that down for me. >> i'd be happy to. following the briefings on the mix, these were some of the common wants and we want to give every one of the committees the exact set of data so they -- >> i'm a little surprised you don't have it. there seems to be a decision to lean into the f 15 x, so i would have thought that would be really relevant information. i want to take my final moments
to ask the secretary, can you explain the ways in which these budget priorities recognize the changing environment in the western hemisphere and how we're going to support south come effectively. >> one of the fundamental assumptions that we've been building into the force mix and the force design -- >> if you can do that in 30 seconds, that will work. >> i'll do it even more quickly. we've designed this and the chairman has been helpful here. we can move forces quickly and reconstitute them in areas where there's demand and to increase interonability. that flexibility allows us to surge in the case of socom. but not to change their footprint. >> i yield back.
>> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you general dunford, secretary shanahan, i really appreciate your testimony. i know we've had a few rounds of questions, but i want to dig a little bit further into space realignment and priorities which i believe are really important and to mr. kim's point earlier about making sure the public understands them. and i'm going to direct my first questions to general dunford because i would like to hear from you about this. is it safe to say that space assets exist across all of the branches and all of the functions of our armed forces today? >> space capabilities exist across three of the four services, all the services leverage base. >> so space is a critical component of our war fighter's ability and our overall national security architecture. >> critical from navigation to communications to targeting.
>> also safe to say that developing space assets and capabilities is not an easy endeavor. >> that's accurate. >> okay. so looking at this space question and also i wear another hat has the chair of the space sub commitment and knowing that we have a number of additional players in space. i want to dig into a little bit of what this looks like. i think it's important for us to understand the needs, the capabilities and the future development of this. and certainly it would be my intention that we make the best decisions and the best interests of our overall national security. it's not a partisan issue. it's about our current and future capabilities understanding this architecture is important. across the -- across the different programs, across the different services, do you think that it is possible that right
now and we've also talked about acquisition and cost and audits, that there may be programs or different capabilities being developed right now that are potentially duplicative or could be more efficiently utilized across a common architecture. >> i think it's possible that we could be more effect and efficient in developing space capabilities and that's the argument for the space development agency. >> so following on with that, in the interest of not only protecting our national security but understanding that with additional players hundreds of thousands of pieces of space debris and not only our national security interests but also commercial and our just general lives dated depending on it, what -- we heard from you earlier, i appreciate that. what do you think about the model and the potential pathway
forward? does it need to be a separate force or could it be more of a core model? what is your opinion on that? >> in my view is really two issues hourks do we combine issues today, that takes the force we have today. with regard to the special organizational construct, i'm satisfied with the one we've laid out and i'm confidence that over the next several years it will be refined. i think the important thing is in the current organizational construct we have today, within the department of the air force and within the joint war-fighting force with a space command, gives us the ability to first train the right people, identify and train the right people, develop the right capabilities and when those capabilities develop, field those capabilities in the most
effective way for the war fighters. i think we have all the pieces in place. it will grow over time but we ought not to seek perfection before we start to step out and change the way we're doing business. that would be my own thoughts on this. >> and just to go back one more piece of this, i appreciate your chances, is in the proposal, one thing that caused me to race my eyebrows, there's some changes and some exceptions for employment practices and procedures that we -- that are within this proposal and that provides broad exemptions to current law. i understand the need to realign as something else is being stood up. but i don't understand and i'll leave this to either one of you, can you explain to me the justification behind these broad exceptions? >> there are two types, one was set up on personnel and that was
modeled after the personnel authorities of the national recon assess office. and there was another one that was modeled. so those authorities are designed to be similar to other organizations either standup or space. >> i'm sorry. the time that has expired. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. first a statement and then a question. first for the secretary and then for the chairman. you stated earlier that if forced to prioritize between space force, space command and the space development agency, space command would be your first priority. i would like to point out that the space command did exist in colorado springs from 1985 to 2002 and currently air force space command and the space defense center are located at
peterson both in colorado springs. if the threat is as urgent as you express, and if time is of the essence, i would recommend that colorado springs be the best location, given the massive number of space war fighters and infrastructure already in place. i'll go on record as making that point. my question is this, can you describe why this administration and the department of defense have exhibited such a sense of you a urgency regarding the space enterprise. is it because the danger is so imminent. >> it's now a contested environment. and a $19 trillion economy runs off space. and in that contested domain if we don't protect it, we're all at risk. it's really -- the urgency is the threat that so much of what
we depend on, our -- maps and our cars, the ability to, you know, target our weapons is vulnerable. >> what would you say to someone who says, okay, i see a threat, but can't we attack that problem within the existing structure. i know the air force to their credit has come up with some reform proposals. but is that enough or do we need to go beyond? >> i think we need to go beyond. that's what the proposal represents and really the space development agency, this is the part i'd emphasize, ignore the agency piece, you can call it space development organization, it's about development, it's not about acquisition. this is what the general did. we need to marry up the right
skills so we can go more quickly and leverage off of the innovation and investment in commercial space. our acquisition rules can't accommodate that and that's the restructure that we're proposing. we can use the technology that already exists. to me, waiting to tailor our current environment will take too long. >> thank you. chairman dunford, in your professional military opinion, given your career as a marine and the importance of culture in the services, can you explain the benefits that a separate military service focused on space will provide will as a space force or space corps, however it's denominated, which would not be gained by simply reforming military space within the existing structures. >> sure, congressman. in my experience an organization
that has a singular focus, has responsibility for identifying people, equipping people and then delivering them to the war-fighter for integration has a better chance given the importance of space. it's one of only five domains. we have a much better chance with an organization that has that focus. and we don't drain away resources that might have been used for space for other reasons. i know there's always going to be that temptation. and i think having the opportunity and frankly from an oversight perspective i would see the appeal from congress to make sure you have the oversight that you need to have that those resources that are necessary for us to be competitive in space are actually managed properly. >> and i know some of you have expressed concern about adding bureaucracy or additional flag
officers. does that give more of a seat at the table so to speak to the folks in space? which is important? >> i think a senior leader who does sit at the table obviously has more influence and someone asked me earlier, should this person be a member of the joint chiefs of staff. and if they're a service, then i think that would be a reasonable thing to do. but i have seen personally now over the last couple of years particularly as a result of the general being in the room that when he's been around given his experience in space, the dialogue quickly shifts and we think of things that we wouldn't have otherwise thought about without him in the room. >> thank you. just for everyone's understanding in terms of the order here, there is one confusing aspect of this. basically you're in the order that you're in when the gavel falls. if you leave, you're still in order. what happens a lot is people come back literally in two to
three minutes before they would be next. under the rules, that personal is then next. that's inconvenient because i know a lot of members are anticipating, but even if you think you're next, if someone walks in who was there at the gavel is who is in front of you, that person is next. i'm rethinking that rule because it's a little bit unfair to the people who are planning on what's here. that's just the way it is. if you think you're next, and i wind up calling on somebody else, that will be because somebody else who was in front of you walked back in and that's going to happen right now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a number of questions and thank you very much for your testimony today, gentlemen. i'm going to focus my questions today on the impact of the fiscal year 20 budget on our defense industrial base and our investments in cybersecurity across the dod enterprise. before i did that i wanted to
start by echoing some of my colleagues who have gone before me in their frustration with the department's interactions with congress over the funding for the president's planned border wall. i read a letter from my colleagues, to you, asking if you could provide a list of unawarded projects in pennsylvania that would be imperil asked i also asked for that list to contain an assessment as well of the impact if those items were canceled or delayed as a result of the border wall or the border situation. and i was really glad to receive the list of pennsylvania projects. but i still haven't seen any sort of assessment of the impact of those projects if they were not to come to fruition, nor have i seen any questions from this committee's first meeting in january where i asked for an assessment on the impact of border deployment. and i serve on the readiness
subcommittee as well. and i definitely would have hoped this information would be more readily available now coming up on three months when we initially asked for it. there are four projects in pennsylvania that are at risk and i wanted to highlight only one. last year's appropriations bill included 71 million for the construction of a new facility in philadelphia. the naval foundry is essential for the design of propellers for the u.s. navy. a new facility is needed to accommodate the increase in workers. even though this is a propeller, we can't meet the goals of a new submarine fleet without this. last week the marine corpss wrote that supporting the quote
unplanned and unbudgeted southern border deployment was an and as bags for an already challenging year. i wanted to say for the record that the plan really has significant readiness ramifications and the american people particularly pennsylvania's really deserve to know what they are not just the list of the projects that are possible on the chopping block. and this administration has been very vocal about its frustration with congress and its struggles to appropriate appropriations on time and i think the criticism is very far. but now that i'm also learning more about the referenced kind of department reprogramming i think it's also fair to say that that burden is not just shared by the congress but by the fact that we are reappropriating money. i have heard from companies across pennsylvania that they are struggling to hire, train and restain staff.
and so now i guess my questions to you are, did the department actually assess the impact on the defense supply chain, especially on small businesses before deciding to move ahead with proposing these cuts and delays, and if not, why not, and if so, what were those assessments? >> and you're referring to the -- >> the study of the four pennsylvanian projects and what their impact would be on the supply change if we were to pull back on those for small businesses and suppliers in my community, particularly. >> right. i can't speak to the total assessment. i'll let -- i believe the project you're referring to on the propeller capacity is to be awarded in july. that would not be one of the projects that would be -- >> it was provided to us as one of the possibilities. >> if i can clarify, what was provided to the congress was a list of projects that had not been awarded since january of
this year and so that was the full vision of what's in the pipeline. what the secretary has directed is to not affect any of those projects that were scheduled to be awarded before october. the reason for that is that in the budget there's a request for military construction funding in order to back fill those, so those -- i know the chairman has views on that, but i understand the department's intent was to make sure there wasn't an affect on those facilities by ensuring that by the time you got to the next year when those projects were scheduled to be awarded, there would be additional mill con to keep them going. but they would not be affected. >> it seems -- >> the gentle lady's time is expired. >> i didn't notice that. i'm sorry. >> first i want to thank you for being here and i appreciate your
leadership. thanks for stepping forward and doing this. our country needs people to step forward and lead. my first question revolves around readiness and modernization. 26 months ago when president trump came in, our levels were the worst seen since 1977. we had three in the army, only three could deploy, they were ready to fight tonight, half the navy aircraft couldn't fly. air force pilots were getting about half the flying time that they needed in training. i think it was negligent for congress to let us get to that spot. we dug a modernization hole as well with some of the tanks when you look at the average age. until two years ago, we cut the military budget 18%. and the last two years, we've added 60% of those cuts back in. could you tell us what has been the impact of this increase on our readiness and modernization
and what happens if we don't sustain it? thank you. >> sure. it really is very simple. we're better able to meet the requirements that we have dated. i manage the force, make recommendations to him. if you think of the inventory that are available, there are more forces available perhaps more importantly we benchmark very carefully our ability to respond in event that it fails in places like korea or europe and so forth. and our ability to respond is significantly greater than it was before. there's a lot below that, air force fixing maintainers, modernization efforts that are ongoing and so forth. but at the end of the day it's about the deliverable, it's about meeting today's requirements and then meeting our overall requirements to respond to a contingency, and the progress is measurable.
>> i want to ask you a question about the triad. how important is it to maintain the triad that we've had for 60 years, what does it do to nuclear deter residence? >> if something has worked well for 70 years, then the environment hasn't changed, then why would we change it. the obsolescence is an issue we have to address. but more importantly i think it comes down to why would we unilaterally disarm when our competitors are arming themselves? >> as part of that, could you tell us how important nuclear command control and communications upgrades or modernization is also needed. >> yeah.
this was a little bit of the discussion we were having earlier around 5-g. the nuclear command and control, communication system, is so fundamentally vital and when we think about spoofing or we think about systems being compromised and as we invest in a new space architecture, we need to have total confidence and the information that's being provided is completely trusted. this is a new world in terms of cyber. that's probably one of the most critical modernization programs that we have before the department. >> i agree. i've got a followup on a question on electronic warfare. we have five domains, we don't
criminal th consider that as a separate domain. our doctrine doesn't identify the electronic domain as that and i think it should. i'd be curious for your opinion, should we make the electronic spectrum a separate domain because we want to own it. >> let me start by agreeing with you, we want to own it and frankly in the recommendation i made to the secretary for this year's program recommendations, the spectrum was along the areas we highlighted. as we do studies, that area comes back. there are a lot of critical functions inside of our war fighting capabilities that aren't in and of themselves domains. i right now am comfortable with electro magnetic spectrum being something we look at through the lens of a function. >> i thank you for your testimony and your time.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, general, i want to thank you for taking your time. thank you for being here. i want to talk to you about a specific issue dealing with california. as a fight -- a contract has been awarded for a flight simulator for the 446th air lift wing located at the nasal air station. in november of last year, it had to be evacuated due to wildfires and it happened the 26th air lift wing halls has been critical to combatting the wildfires with its aircraft. now, you had said earlier in your testimony that any contract that was going to be awarded after september 30th, 2019, the funding was going to be pulled.
this specific simulator, the contract has been awarded, it was going to be awarded after the date that you had mentioned. any delay of the critical flight simulator programming for the air lift wing would undermine readiness and impede training for pilots fighting wildfire and conducting search and rescue. this is a big issue for being a californian. specifically why would we cut funding for this critical flight simulator when it's so strategic to the training that these pilots need in order to support this critical mission here in california? >> the intention is not to cut funding for any of those projects. i think there's two things. first of all, just being in the pool doesn't mean that those projects are going to be selected. the secretary hasn't made a
decision yet on the authorities. the others that we requested money in order to ensure those projects continue and so our hope would be that those fundings would be included in any bill and allow us to ensure those projects go forward. >> secretary, i notice in your testimony, our responsibility is to remain responsible stewards of your test and the american taxpayer's hard-earned tax dollars. why would we fund them again and how is that being responsible in watching the taxpayer's tax dollars? >> we're going to be responsible managing the taxpayer's money, absolutely. that's my rule and you have my assurance that we're going to in this department take care of your people, maintain readiness, and modernize it to fight future
threats. >> but would you say making them pay for the same thing twice is being responsible of the taxpayer's dollars? you wouldn't go and buy a vehicle and have the car dealer take it away and say you know what i gave it to somebody else, you're going to have to pay for it again. why would we do that to the american taxpayer? >> we haven't paid for it once yet. this is the process that we're stepping through. and i think that was the place where we started this discussion. it's a complicated situation and it's tied to a new budget. we're really buying time so we can backfill these projects. >> if you're taking money away from a project that's already been funded and then you're asking to fund that project again, it is being paid for twice. but i'm going to change topics here real quick. general, the marine corps made a statement about deployments down
to the border and having the -- you know, fund transfers under the president's energy declaration has posed unacceptable risks to the readiness. he said they haven't been able to fund other training that had been planned. do you agree with his assessment that sending troops down to the border is hurting marine corps readiness? >> i would like to put that letter in full context. when they did, and i read the letter and spoke to him as well as the secretary of the navy about it, he listed a number of unanticipated bills that the marine corps was confronted with in this fiscal year. those bills created difficulties for him in funding other priorities and that really was what it was about. this particular letter wasn't a letter about the southwest
border and didn't single out the southwest border as being the issue. it identified it as one of the unanticipated bills. >> the gentleman's time has expired. vote the coming up, they're estimating between now and the top of the hour. we'll be done. >> thank you all for being here today. secretary shanahan, many of your predecessors are touted our nuclear enterprise if not the top priority in the defense. do you agree with this? >> it's our most important in addition. >> i'm on record saying the same many times. >> yes, sir, thank you. chairman dunford, do you also believe then it's important to advance our low-yield nuclear
weapons' system. >> i do, congressman. >> maybe just -- yes -- >> it would be hard to do it. but i'd be happy to chance that question when the -- for the record or whatever because i do feel like that low yield option is critical for deterrence. >> what does this budget do to accelerate u.s. development of hyper sonic weapons? >> let me get you the number. we've accelerated the hyper sonic testing and deployment several years with this budget. 2.6 billion in this -- this year's top line. >> and do you think that it's on an appropriate and comfortable pace considering our adversaries' advancement. >> i would like to be further along but this is a faster pace. >> chairman dunford, many of the department of energy's nuclear
weapon support facilities are over 40 years old and are in need of refurbishment. how important is that capability to your ability to provide a credible neuuclear deturns. >> thanks linked. >> secretary shanahan, what do you foresee the national guard's role being in the space force? >> that's a good one. yeah. we've had a lot of debate and the general has been at the center of that debate. there's some complexities about how those resources align and how their training and support is conducted today. but as they do in so many other elements of the total force, they'll play a critical role. the question today more is around how do we organize them than it is the importance of
their role. >> okay. and i'm going to give two minutes back, mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for taking the time to be here today. thank you also for your service, what you do for the men and women in uniform as well as for the entire country. thank you. as we discuss the $750 billion national defense budget, i speak for many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when i express my deep concern regarding the department of defense failure to address pfos contaminants. i deeply appreciate the congressman for bringing this up and your comments that the epa is working to address those standards, you are merely working to eliminate use of pfos
underscores that this response is wholly insufficient. i hope that the adodepartment hs the concerns and stops hiding behind red tape to avoid helping communities clean up pfos contaminants. two weeks ago when you testified before -- they asked if you read a "new york times" article called pentagon pushes for weaker standards on drinking water, have you had an opportunity to read that article. >> yes, i have >> can you speak on the second question as well, is the article accurate and is the pentagon pushing the trump administration to adopt weaker standards for ground water pollution caused by pfos and other chemicals. >> the article is not accurate and the department of defense is not asking for the standard to be lowered. >> thank you. i hope that your actions will also reflect the importance of
this issue. thank you. i want to close by reiterating what the senator said to you. i know there is a right way to do this. it is to follow the science, the right way to do this is not to set a standard that is based on trying to limit liability. i yield the reminder of my time. >> ms. hill. >> acting secretary, the president's fiscal year budget request has a $600 billion decline in funding yet in your testimony today you noted that russia last year conducted its largest military exercise in almost 40 years, and is escalating efforts. what's the rational for reducing the spending when there's an increasingly hostile actor next door and our defense strategy says russia is one of our two
biggest concerns. >> i'll ask the comptroller to walk you through the numbers. what it represents is that the standing up of the initiative are complete and it's really about sustaining the level of effort and deploying more troops. david? >> correct. so the amount we're investing in presence and putting troops -- is up 170 million. the amount we're spedding on training is up 300 million. what's down is the equipment. once the equipment is moved into place, you don't need to keep playing for it. >> thank you. so do we have -- does this have anything to do with the fact that european countries are filling some of those gaps or is this -- do you have any -- do you have any sense that this will affect our position in any way. >> i think they'll fill more gaps particularly with the
initiative to have, you know, more battalions, more battle ships to be able to deploy more quickly. we also are conducting more exercises with nato. so i think what you're seeing is just more of the front-end flow of money, especially from nato, starting to get to the front line. this is -- for nato, what i think we'll see with their uptick in investment is more capability and capacity coming online. what you're seeing with the initiative is the u.s. leading the integration and conducting higher level exercises. >> thank you. so can you give some specific examples of where nato is filling those gaps or increasing? >> i'll take that for the record. but i've seen some of those plans, i've seen some of the contributions that they're
making to increase capability as well as the exercises that we have organized so that we're conducting more sophisticated exercises, but let me take that for the record and provide you an update. >> you have any concerns about the signals this might send to our allies and partners in europe considering the comments that are coming from this administration and our president, the ridicule for nato and the, you know, proposed cuts that it might send to putin and our allies. >> i've had probably since i've been in this position 50 conversations with my counterparts in nato and it's really been the office. they're more engaged. they've -- they have a strong sense of leaning forward into these exercises and i think they're more encouraged by our participation and presence in
europe today. >> i had different conversations when i was in europe for the munich conference and it seemed like the tone was a bit more insecure. but i'm curious why you feel like that's the case? >> well, this is -- so when i think about the defense ministers, i don't know who you were speaking with, but this was the defense ministers as we were doing the planning and it wasn't just in terms of the nato exercises there, this also had to do with our activity in afghanistan. but particularly around nato, i think the best evidence of support was their support to the -- our withdraw from the inf. it was large in terms of supporting our position, but the
side conversations to the person is thank you for pushing us. we look forward to the exercises because the exercises that we've been conducting have been very successful. >> general dunford, do you have any comments on this? >> the only thing i would say, congresswoman, is other nations are contributing more but no nation has increased its commitment to nato more than the united states. to the european defense initiative, the admission of the second fleet to ensure the trance atlantic link, the increased intelligence people, i would say in my peers understand that the united states of america is still the most significant contributor to nato in the most significant contributor to the detendernerr that it provides. >> ms. holland will be last. we have votes. >> thank you, chairman. thank you. thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. i appreciate your time
immensely. i would like to sort of continue the comments of my esteemed colleague from new mexico in a different way, i guess. i'll ask a few different questions. but it's concerning that the contamination of military installations. the fy 20 budget request contains $1.1 billion for environmental restoration down from the fy 19 enacted amount of 1.24 billion. in my district, the fuel spill on the air force base which resulted in 24 million gallons of jet fuel contaminating our ground soil and threatening the clean drinking water has yet to be properly cleaned. at other paces in new mexico throughout the country, dangerous levels of pfos have been found in drinking water and this contamination seeks to ruin people's lives. given the scale of these and other environmental issues at
dod installations, please explain how the dod's environmental restoration efforts will dreaddress public environmental safety. and i'll add that you testified earlier about the money you essentially saved on not having to spend it on military personnel which is, you know -- which everybody wants to, you know, see go toward the wall. and i'm asking why not spend money on cleaning up contamination that the military has caused? >> so the number -- let me make sure i have the -- right here, for the environmental restoration we have -- let me double-check. my understanding the program is flat but i will double-check. sometimes we get congressional adds. even if we're the same number from year to year, you can see
that trend. i think when it comes to the contamination concerns you raised, we are three priorities. first we protect to make sure people are drinking safe water. our second one is our responsibility to remediate those and our operations and the third is to research alternatives. the secretary talked about this in his comments which is finding alternatives to be able to reduce our use of those contaminants as well as as we're doing the cleanup. >> you feel by spending less money on environmental restoration you can achieve those ends? >> i don't think we're looking to reduce our investment in this area. >> okay. thank you. >> last, i'm going to switch gears over to transgender troops. do you agree with me that the united states is stronger and safer when our military reflects our nation's diversity and upholds the constitutional belief that all people are created equal?
general? secretary? >> congresswoman, i couldn't agree more. >> okay. >> yes i agree. >> okay. dur do you agree with me that the administration's policy to obstruct transgenders from serving in the military makes a mockery of this commitment. >> the current policy that's in place that was signed in 2017 allows transgenders to serve in the u.s. military. >> so they can serve freely right now? >> today they can. >> okay. very good. and i've heard that -- an argument is put forth that, you know, spending is a concern, that they -- that we don't want taxpayer money spent on gender disfore ya issues such as psychotherapy, prescriptions, surgeries and so forth. and i just want you to know that we realize that that portion of
the budget is minuscule in comparison to other things like, for example, erectile dysfunction which took $84 million with respect to budget knowing it's a min school amount spent on transgender troops, i don't think that is anything that should dissuade them or us from their service and i yield my time. >> thank you. if i could follow-up on that just briefly. the policy that was just announced by the administration to the dod is a bit more complicated secretary, and i talked about this yesterday. an i don't think it is correct a policy. it is not a blanket band on
people who are transgender from serving in the military, it makes it very difficult for people depending where they are at in terms are they in the service, trying to join, transition surgery, all of those things, really really complicated the ability of transgender people to serve in the military. i also feel that the policy as announced does not accurately reflect -- well, medical facts. but we will be dealing with that later. have you struggled to get the right policy there but it is considerably more complicated than you or i thought at first glance, i don't think right now the policy meets the standards that ms. holland was hoping to have, assuming they can meet the qualifications for whatever job in the military. >> quickly. >> i do, mr. chairman. in the presence of the
secretary and chairman and the comptroller, i just want to note while we've been meeting today, andy marshall has passed away. he ran the office assessment from the nixon administration to the obama administration. i can think of fewer people who have had a bigger impact on focusing our defense efforts, our national security in right selection than mr. marshall. and we talk about a lot of stuff today. but i think as general dunford started out, people today, some of them not in uniform, it is a remarkable life. he has been before our committee i don't know how many times over the years. so i wanted to note that that passing and but also to honor his memory because he made such a difference. >> and i think that is very appropriate note to end on.
talking about. >> i don't think they are talking about impeachment. we have the greatest economy we've ever had. our country is unique rescue credible shape. they and others created -- ridiculous witch hunt where it was proven very strongly no collusion, no obstruction, no nothing. we are doing so well, we've never probably had a time of prosperity like this. >> i think it was very high up. i think what happened is a disgray, i don't believe this country, we cannot never let it happen again. it went very high up and it started -- with instructions from the high up. this should never happen to a president again.
we can't allow that to take place. >> the west wing of the obama white house. >> i don't want to say that but i think you know the answer. >> who did what? >> mueller report. >> mueller report was great. it could not have been better. it said no obstruction, no collision, it could not have been better. >> let me just tell you exactly what my message is, the republican party will soon be known as the party of healthcare, you watch.
coming up live tomorrow on cspan 3, mike pompeo will testify about the state department's 2020 budget request. appear before the house foreign why fairs committee that begins at 1:00 p.m. available online at span.org or free radio app. coming up next on cspan 3 we'll show you a portion of the hearing of the budget fiscal year 2020 beginning at 10:00. patrick shanahan and joint chief of staff chair joseph dunford along with the pentagon's comptroller. we'll show you q and a with the witnesses. keeping in mind and acknowledging, you know, make a policy necessarily sitting up here