Skip to main content

tv   Joint Chiefs Chair Acting Defense Secretary Testify on Pentagons 2020...  CSPAN  March 26, 2019 1:58pm-3:11pm EDT

1:58 pm
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 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 to defend,
1:59 pm
president trump or chief staff mulvaney is going to testify so we have to ask you about it and get your defense/explanation. in one of the biggest areas in of the wall funding that is problematic with this committee, between pentagon and the congress is the reprogramming request. it is a bit sort of arrest cane policy even i didn't understand. the pentagon is not allowed to move money. given the amount of money that the pentagon and how much things change, we have given to the congressional process the i think it was $4 billion last year. but, one of the sort of gentleman's agreements about that was if you leave money you will not do it without getting approval from all four committees.
2:00 pm
the house and the senate. for the first time since we've done that on the reprogramming request to help fund the wall, basically you're shifting money from one into the -- yeah, drug safety account, whatever is it. drug enforcement account so you can take it out of the account and put it to the wall and you're not asking for our permission. now you understand the result of that likely is that the appropriations committee in particular will no longer give the pentagon reprogramming authority i think that is 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
2:01 pm
authority after this year? >> chairman, what was the second part of that -- >> how is it going to hamper the relationship that -- i am sorry, how is it going to hamper your ability to do your job if you don't have reprogramming authority going forward? >> well the discussion i think you and i have 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 we had done in coordination. it's a very difficult discussion. we understand that significant count 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
2:02 pm
that went on. we said here are the risks longer term to the department. and those risks were weighed. and then given a legal order from the commander in chief, we are executing on that order. and as we discussed, the first reprogramming was a billion dollars and i wanted to do it before we had this committee hear because we've been talking about this for some time. i've been deliberately working to be transparent in this process. fully knowing that there is down sides which will hamper us. >> ultimately you asked for are a billion dollars yesterday, is it the still the plan to ask for $2.4 billion out of the drug enforcement account? >> we haven't made the assessment of what to consider these increments or -- however you want to phrase them, potentially we could draw it
2:03 pm
$..5 billion when we look at the total general transfer authority. we think beyond that would be too painful to being able to continue maintain readiness and operations. so we don't know what that next increment of funding would look like. >> final question on this piece. getting the money because i believe it's the army or army and marine corps that did not meet their end strength goes. >> let me ask david norqist. >> the beginning is the military personnel account. the arm me was following short -- falling short of its recruiting targets by 9000, 9500. funds that would have gone to pay, soldiers having been on board is no longer needed for that purpose. multi-personnel account is in a sense if there is no purpose, there is not a lot of uses. so it's available for reprogramming. >> fy 20 budget, does your
2:04 pm
personnel request reflect that inability to recruit? do you sort of factor, we la like to have this many but we're not. if it's going to wind up in the drug enforcement account into going into building a wall. >> we went ahead and planned the 20 budget off of the army revised expectations for next year accordingly and that number is in the 20 budget. >> final question. when it comes to the overall budget number, and do you have a slight quibble with the idea this is all a problem because the obama administration cut defense i think the extent we rely on that talking point under cuts the fact that this happened because of the battle over the budget. i mean, the budget control act wasn't passed because the obama administration decided they want to do to it, we were literally two days away from not paying our debts, it was a refusal by the then
2:05 pm
republican controlled congress to raise the debt ceiling, the only deal to raise the debt ceiling was to agree to sequestration of the control act. a bipartisan act of -- well, self flagilation because we didn't have the political courage to live with the consequences on money. >> bipartisan unwillingness to address the reality that you can't balance the budget while cutting taxes and increasing spending, a choice has to be made. but we decided not to make that choice, punt it into the artificial 0 act, sequestration act. the best way out of this not, you know, any fault to the trump administration or obama administration. but the question i have, general dunford, several months ago he felt a $700 billion defense budget made sense.
2:06 pm
several days after that, you know, they had settled on, well before that there was $733 billion number which people had talked about as i think what was reflected in, you know, plus inflation, 5% number that bipartisan group had come up with. so, you know, it hasn't about 733, the president said i think we can do 700. then there was back and forth. a but of people talked to him then it became 750. okay. and, you know, one of the things on the credibility here, we always hear from you guys we have to have this money i think the one way general testified anything below 7 p 3 creates an unacceptable risk. i kind of find that hard to believe, the statement anything below 750 becomes unacceptable amount of risk. where is the rigor in terms of what that number is to make sure it is truly funding what our national security needs are if that number can move $50 billion in the space of a few tweets? >> chairman, i can address this
2:07 pm
specific part of the bunch budget war fighting, 2.9% real growth increase over last year. in the terms of analysis, going back to 2015, we did a detiled analysis at a top secret level in competitive areas, space, cyber space, electronic warfare, maritime capability, land and so forth. so we looked at ourselves and we looked at what we had in the plan going out to 2025. then we worked weekend the intelligence community and we did a similar study of china and russia. a benchmark, if you will for our path of capability development and looked at the trajectory of capability development that russia and china were on. what should our force look like in 2025 to make sure that we had a competitive advantage. again, that competitive advantage defined as the ability to -- as a result of
2:08 pm
that process, you came up with the $733 billion number, correct? >> that number is completely informed by the analysis we did for path of capability development, yes, chairman. >> worth noting that the president's request was for 750 despite all that analysis, it said 733. so, that's the type of rigorous an analysis i think we need to get to a number not just deciding we want to spend more money for the sake of spending more money. i want to to some people and yield 0 -- >> let me just mention that i completely agree with the compare man 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
2:09 pm
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 3 to 5% 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 and what sort of top line growth, there is lots of discussion beneath the top line. 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, china and others?
2:10 pm
>> thank you, sir. quite often people -- kind of pick a number, look overtime and say an aggregate, what number be or what should a trend be. going back to chair dunford an d analytics. three trends that factor in to the rate of growth, real growth rate adjusted for inflation. first the world continues to get more dangerous. and so that manifests itself in troop strength. the second component is we are still recovering readiness. real account that we have to restore and sustain. probably the biggest driver for our growth is modernization. with great power tis and a focus on russia and china, we haven't modernized in three decades and the investment required to do that
2:11 pm
and parallel with three other activities drive 3% to 5% real growth. if we want to do it in a timely manner. this is all about how much risk and how much time we want to, you know, assume. >> i don't think we have enough time to address these issues, that's were you need the greater growth. >> and so i guess the flip side is without 3% to 5% real growth we are taking increased risk, we cannot accomplish the three things that you talked about? >> i think it's -- sometimes risk gets too broadly characterized. i look at the risk really into two elements. you can take operational risk, a risk on modernization. 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 do -- and have
2:12 pm
a smaller force or a larger force to deal with the threats of the world and forego some of the great power competition. i believe we have to do both. when i think of the risk, those are the two we have to manage. >> general dunford i am not sure you and the chairman were exactly communicating. when you talked about the analysis that yall performed, did that result in a defense request actually it's national security request, of $733 billion? if so, where did the 3% to 5% real growth come from because $733 billion is not 3% real growth. >> thank you, for allowing me to clarify. what i was speaking about, inside the budget the piece that i provided recommendations on were the military capabilities inside the budget.
2:13 pm
those thing that will directly contribute to joint war fighting. and in that area i'm confident of the analysis that we did and confident that the budget reflects 2.9% real growth in joint war fighting cape abilities. >> okay. so, do you have any amendments or change to the testimony you have given us before that 3% real growth is necessary to stay even 5% real growth is necessary to catch up on china, russia and readiness problems. >> i don't have any change to that at all. that is exactly what our analysis highlights. >> okay, thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to all of you joining us today. particularly to general dunford and really an honor to work with you over the years. i had a visit to the border and to our troops really a few days ago. and in light of that i wanted
2:14 pm
to just address some issue that the chairman just mentioned. because i think there has been some confusion and as you are talking about the need to really, you know, focus more on 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 not sustainable. i think we all acknowledge that. so, having been on the border, we're about 3000 short in terms of personnel there. and that makes the 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's happening, what just happened in terms of the transfer of money and when is that going to
2:15 pm
be done? is that done? still in process? >> david, do you want to give the status on the reprogramming. >> the reprogram 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 on to a contract. those of course take some amount of time. make sure the committee is aware we are not trying to rush things, we want to do it in deliberation, but that will move at the moment when it is necessary to -- we wanted to make sure the committee had the notification that we are moving it from one to another and of course -- >> did you speak to the nature of those contracts as well? >> those are construction contracts for border barriers. >> okay. and as you said, you haven't started that process yet? >> in terms of -- do you want to talk about process -- or do you want me to? to go back to the overall process for 284.
2:16 pm
with the authority of the 284 we received a request for assistance from the department of homeland security. by the secretary. he then passed out to the department to do our analysis, joint safe, general council, comptroller and ott 0ers identifying which of those construction projects are appropriate, one of those requirements is intra ticketing drug quarters, he has identify add set of projects to use those fundings for and one of the steps before we can move the money is to send the notification for the committee. the date the numbers changes colors, it needs to be moved prior to any contracts being awarded. >> and you said the money is coming from the unallocated end strength for the army? >> it's coming out of the military personnel account
2:17 pm
provided for recruitment that didn't happen and it's available. >> it goes forward, are you not worried that that is going to make a difference down the line? >> well, the -- that money is only available until 30 september. it is not an account that would carry over from one year to the next. the amount of funding in fy 20 it is a number requested for 20 budget, this committee would need to assess separately. >> you spoke with making adjustments down the line. you are not able to meet those targets. >> the army made adjustments as the chairman asked earlier in its 20 budget reflecting the fact it was not meeting original 19 targets, we are not asking for more money in 20 that we would not be able to use again, we made sure we accounted for those concerns. >> we also know that basically congress had denied president trump's request for the dollars
2:18 pm
to build a border wall. and here we are. i know you said it was a difficult decision. because it sets precedent. >> okay 0. -- >> i already got to address these issues. >> we received a request from dhs, we go through the evaluation process, we understand that there is other issues going on with the congress, but this is a direction we received from the administration regarding the failure and this is how we responded to the question for systems. >> i have to say i'm concerned we are not able to meet our needs on the border in terms of our border patrol agents but there are reasons for that. we can deal with them in our budget and in a way that we respond to this issue. >> time is expired. >> we are not going to get to -- >> mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're asking the department of defense to do three major things that we don't ask them to do at once, rebuild the military in response to the
2:19 pm
readiness crisis, second is complete the modernization on our books and look to the future to already say our adversaries are beginning to threaten our superior receipt and to plan for modernization. we've given you and fiscal year 18 and 19 the beginnings of rebuilding the military, planning for 3% to 5% real growth. we have a number of things to do i want to associate my comments with the chairman on a number of areas in which we have bipartisan support for the fact that our military budget should not be cannibalized for our border security needs, disagreement on how to accomplish that. i believe the congress needs to fund closing the border and the house voted last year to do so. i agree with the chairman with respect to we have bipartisan support that -- should not be used hopefully we will have a bipartisan budget agreement for two years to cease that, i know it has affects on your operations and then thirdly his statement
2:20 pm
that bipartisan support for an audit. making sure that this department of defense can effectively tell how the funds are being used. all those things managing them, whether it's bipartisan support of constraints on you still translate we need to you be able to effect wait modernization, rebuilding and at the same time ending our crisis on operations. i am ranking member on the sub committee i am going to ask general dunford and yourself concerning nukes. we have had on the books nuclear modernization that's needed not just because of our adopted verse varies are beginning to bypass, aging inventory, aging capabilities. even if russia and china were not modernizing could you articulate why we have a need to modernize our nuclear weapons stockpile and current threat for nuclear stockpile to
2:21 pm
remain inactive certain, secretary. >> sure, first most fundamental issue obsolecence. bomber program capacity and capability to deliver nuclear beep on. first and foremost this is about a nuclear enterprise that has run its course in time. there is another critical envelope, nc 3 capability, command, control and communication which is even, you know, more complicated than replacing the ballistic miss sills, chairman. >> general, if i could add, could you please also add to your answer the issue of the triad and the issue that we have of the vulnerability of an effective deter rent. subs have some ability to avoid
2:22 pm
detection, tomorrow that could not be the case and we would be in a tough situation if we did not have the triad could you explain that to us. >> first just to reinforce, we use three adjectives to safe, reliable and effective. and so your question was even if russia and china weren't modernizing which they are, we still have to make sure we have a safe, reliable and effective nuclear deterrent, particular area concern not with understanding what the chain's, russians are doing right now, so we absolutely would have had to get after that. your question of triad is somewhat related. we have done two nuclear reviews since i have been a chairman. during president obama's administration, during president trump's administration. in both cases we looked -- people went into that with an open mind to see do we need to continue to maintain a triad to have an effective deterrent.
2:23 pm
it was concluded we needed to do that. a unique capability and it also complicates the adversary's ability to have a tech who logical breakthrough that would undermine the credibility and ability of our nuclear triad. so, that's a big piece of t you talked about the submarine specifically and will address that, that gives us the most secure, a reliable second strike. if you look at the bomber, it's an option that can be recalled. and if you look at the ground based element to the nuclear deterrent it's an element that -- again each one of those has an operational wall but it also in the aggregate prevents a technological breakthrough that would undermine our deterrent. >> do we have -- your microphone. >> we absolutely do. we need turkey to boy the
2:24 pm
patriot. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms.secretary, welcome before the committee in your current capacity and gentleman thank you all for your service and the work that you are doing. is mic on? secretary, i am going to start with you, if i could. the national defense strategy folks is great power competition. places emphasis on countering extremist organizations. has been primarily focused on extremist organization mission since 9/11 and geographic commanders continue to have insatiable appetite for soft and ct security cooperation and other missions. so i remain concerned about the demands place on your soft and
2:25 pm
believe we need to rethink our reliance on this force for every mission to ensure that it doesn't break from over reliance. so ms. secretary, has the department considered a major force restructure review -- to underscore and determine what it needs to fulfill title 10 -- maintain sustainable counter terrorism captain and to also ensure readiness for future conflict? >> thank you, congressman. the focus of the accident has not been separate title 10 capability. but in capacity. do we have sufficient capacity? as you describe there is constant tension to address a variety of global missions give own the extreme organization that continue to
2:26 pm
propagate around the world. the chairman's role as the global question grate i don't remember is to determine what is the risk about that we need to maintain and what is the appropriate capacity. so, our budget is really focused on the right cap asbestossity. i just ask the chairman to comment on how he prepares his global campaign plans and the sizing the counter terrorism effort. >> congressman -- >> primarily concerned. >> we share your perspective about the overuse of special operations capability and the need for special operations capability to be relevant across the range of military operations. and so with that in mind, two years ago it really a forced management issue, we adjusted the employment of special operation to be at a more sustainable rate that does two things, one is addresses the human factors associated with over employment. but the other is it allowed
2:27 pm
them then sufficient time to train for high end tasks associated with operations in the context of power county asian it. >> how is department moving across the conventional forces to determine what missions and requirements could be filled by forces such as the army security force -- versus soft? >> congressman, a great question and that's part of our what we call a global force management allocation process. we look at all the requirements that are identified by the combatant commander and try do come up with the right sources solution for the combatant commander staffs. but completely informing specific allocation decision is a need for us to get to a sustainable operational deployment. over the last two years we've pulled back the throttle so to speak to make sure our forces are being deployed at a more sustainable deployment rate. >> i continue to remain concerned about overall -- soft
2:28 pm
and we want to make sure we get that balance right. let me turn to another topic, secretary, climate change. fyi 18 continue provision i that i automated osceolaed that was supported by bipartisan majorities in this committee and the full house and instructed each service to assess the top 10 military installations likely to be affected by climate change over the next 20er use. the report that would deliver the january ignored the clear in provided by law, failed to provide ranking of installations and not just looking at conas but world wide and -- metalogical -- to adequately -- in response to the concerns i raised the department came back yesterday what i consider to be a half baked joiner using the same methodology list of conas installations and the
2:29 pm
initial report. secretary shanahan, i repeatedly myself available to clear the content has taken me up on the offer, do you agree that cry mate change poses a threat to our readiness, to achieve military objectives? >> i'm sorry, it is going to an quick answer because we are about out of time but go ahead. >> microphone, i'm sorry. >> i believe we need to address resilience in our operations and our design and how we build out our facilities. >> okay. thank you, and city shoot us at the beginning, we try to keep it within 5 minutes questions and answers. try not to cut you off but make sure that we get to as many people as possible. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you forking about here and your service to our country. secretary shanahan i appreciate you taking the lead in the space force and department of defense. the administration space force proposal is very the one that
2:30 pm
you sent over is very comprehensive. how would you prioritize the reform efforts within the dod given the choice between a space force, u.s. space command or space development agency, which one do you think is more importantly pushed through today? >> i would push forth standing up of the u.s. space command because it's the easiest and most impactful by the space development agency. >> excellent. we heard it argued creating a space sent trick forces anti- joint that tries in the face of the effort to make things more joint within the department over the last 30 years, i would argue the leadership in space is equally existed in the moos 30 years. my question is, how do you recognize the two trains of thought, does creating a space force go against the -- joint necessary, how do you believe such a move can
2:31 pm
contribute to a more joint effective lethal or fighting future. >> no i think it is enormously powerful to be able to create jointness. we have 10 different architectures 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've never been able to achieve, uniting construct, and then we also have a chance with this singular focus to drive much greater integration into the combatant commands. >> can you elaborate why you chose to put space force in the
2:32 pm
defendant the airs force? >> the air force is where the skill is for space. so most fundamentally is we reshape and reconstruct, you want to be where the people are that have a background. this is more about a structural change. the silcom model is different, the types of equipment and capabilities they develop are less -- much less complex than what we put on orbit. air force inherently has the skill set to manage and lead the space force. >> great, thank you. general dunford great debate over the value of air legs and sea legs of the triad. what is your best military advice to how to balance these priorities. >> congressman for clarification, about the priorities against the triad or port --
2:33 pm
>> across the triad. >> across the triad. congressman, we've done as you know two nuclear reviews in the past 8 years. in fact, two since i've been the chairman. and both of those have indicated the need for triad. so we have a in the program right now modernize all three legged triad and to do that in a way that allows us to represent at the peak 7% of the department's budget which means 93% of the 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 device, would you advice the adoption of a no first use policy? >> i would not recommend that i think anything that simplifies an enemy's decision making calculus would be a mistake. i'm comfortable with the policy that we have right now that
2:34 pm
create ambiguity. it is exactly right for the security environment that we find ourselves in right now. >> excellent, thank you. i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. chairman dunford, in response to chairman smith's comment that a series of assessments that you developed is base line to determine the state of what the competitive advantage is of the joint force. curious though, how we can -- or 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 resources, we have an idea who we are competing against. but we don't seem to be necessarily choosing between all the tools that we can use versus the ones that won't
2:35 pm
be as successful in this competition. can you talk a little bit more about the science versus the art of this competitive advantage and these choices you make in investment in resources? >> absolutely we can. first in what we are trying to do. russia and china are the benchmark against which we measure our cape abilities, against russia and china do two fundamental things, we want to move forces into theater, advance our national -- eurasia or in the pacific. and then we say we want to be able to operate freely across all domains, sea, air, land, space and cyber space. so i think we actually have a third degree of analytic rigor in looking at the challenges currently posed by china and russia. to our ability to project power and achieve superiority in any of those domains in space we
2:36 pm
are choosing to accomplish our mission, benchmark against campaign outcomes against those two peer competitors. so i would be happy to come up with and spend more time talking to you about it, we have a clear target that we are shooting on, we have a very clear assessment where we are today relative to where we need to be, we'll refine the path along which we will maintain our competitive advantage in the future i think we get a pretty clear sight picture where we need to go the next 5 to 7 years, defined by war gaming and so forth. we have a clear vision now, the cardinal direction that we need to go on to do the things we anticipate needing to do. >> i would like to take you up on that offer. >> sure. >> to come up and brief a little more on that. i want to poke at this a little bit as well though because we
2:37 pm
get testimony from the department on the advancements and super computing and ai so we have a set up and moving forward. rdt and e budget i understand is $9 billion more than last year, is that right? but most of that increase is actually not in the base budget, it's in the base oko budget, is that true as well? mr.norquist do you know that? >> i don't believe that it's in the budget, weapons systems sustainment, the r and d -- >> well i think you are going to -- the increase, go back and take a look at it. if these things are priorities, how you make a choice between putting them in the actual base budget versus the fake base in the oko. >> would not assign any higher or lower priority in the base versus the oko for base.
2:38 pm
we did -- >> would because i have been here since early 2000s and it's -- this is exactly the problem with oko it started off as a global war on terrorism and we could define thing that were specific to gwad and now we're in -- whats a happening now is exactly what we thought would happen using the budget for something that isn't -- it's not supposed to be used for, supposed to be on the base. i guess would disagree with you although we sit in different spots in making these decisions. and now we're stuck with a budget that's not based on the base, it's available not because they are supposed to be doing it. >> so, we built it according as mentioned earlier to the direction we were given. what we did to try to make it easier for the for the staff that we work with. those things would think of
2:39 pm
traditional direct war costs and those are in the budget listed separately from the oko -- >> oko budget that's what it's for. >> understood. >> it doesn't seem like it. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. recently returned from a trip to jordan, iraq, kurdistan and kuwait. in jordan we observed and looked at and talked with the jordanians about a $350 million investment that the defense threat agency -- reduction agency to create a virtual it 1stcentury border wall along the 300 plus miles of the jordanian syrian border to keep out drug smugglers, apartment amount smugglers as well as isis. by all accounts, the
2:40 pm
utilization of electronic s equipment, command and control, rapid reduction, rapid reaction capabilities proved to be extraordinarily effective. now, we are in front is of transferring some $8 billion from the department of defense to build a less than 300 miles of border wall. so my question to you really are about the wall, it's our understanding that last night the department of defense sent a notification of intent to reprogram funds and use from 10 usd, usc, 284 to construct portions of the border wall. the department of defense may start awarding contracts using funding pursuant to 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
2:41 pm
specifically have you made any determination that the supposed national emergency requires the use of armed forces, mr. secretary, if so why. >> the status of 2808 is that i received a request from the department of homeland security. part of the process for me to make a determination is i've tasked the chairman to do a analysis of that request. he will come back to me and provide a military recommendation. chairman. >> do we -- have you made any determinations that a border wall is necessary to support the use of troops at the border? mr.dunford. >> chairman. >> res man to make sure i'm answering the question. we are responding to the president's direction to reinforcement the department of homeland security because they have capability, to that extent we have responded to
2:42 pm
requests for assistance for u.s. military personnel. we have determined that u.s. personnel can appropriately back fill the capability gaps in capacity size gaps that homeland security has. >> 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 asked me to do now congressman is to look at legislation which i did yesterday and determined whether the projects that have been applied by the department of homeland security would be enhancing the department of defense's mission. >> next, have you or anyone else at the helicopter 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.
2:43 pm
>> very good. next, what border wall projects will be built with section 2808 fund as soon as where along the border will the wall be built with these funds, are these sections of the border wall military installations, if if so, why? >> congressman, we have to tell you we are in the process, we have a list of projects identified by department of home land security. but the secretary has not yet identified which of those ago regate projects that dhs has identified would be funded by 2808. >> i will -- 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
2:44 pm
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 usurping the power and you are part of that usurping of power, with that i yield back. >> thank you, mr. gallagher. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary shanahan, dunford, to the maximum extent you are able to -- i recognize there are limitations, can you explain espionage threat posed by -- on voice communications over their network. >> if you think about the implications, you are talking in the future with 5 g in particular? >> yeah. >> if you think about the implementations of 5 g the internet of things as well as the primary means that we'll use to share information, intelligence with our allies
2:45 pm
and partners. >> one of the critical aspects of 5 g has to be assurance that it's a secure network. if not, we'll have vulnerabilities and capability that we field in future that will leverage 5 g, alliance is the ability to share securely information and intelligence, and it will be much more difficult for us to have those kinds of assurances to facilitate exchange of information, given the trends with china's influence. >> would it be fair 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 woway systems? >> congressman, yes. this is a broad fundamental national security issue and it needs to be a full some debate where we are hided. do you believe the vulnerabilities are acute. >> and what steps has dod
2:46 pm
undertaken already or could you possibly undertake to mitigate these threats? >> well, maybe i will pick up on this. you are talking just add to the chairman's comments. so if we look at 5 g and the environment that those systems are develop and where they come from you are talking about a canary that has a clear history of cyber espionage, company of predator rei economic the. we are talking about looking at, you know, of people having to have a social credit that part of doing business over there, have to share data with that as a backdrop and then not having the understanding how you can trust the network, that's our concern with 5 g from a department of defense standpoint. so, in the ash absence of being, provide sir trustworthy, we have to ask secure networks
2:47 pm
that keep that equipment off of that. but, the real risk is we have to operate in environments that we don't know how secure that network is, this is where we get into discussions with our neighbor partners in other countries. as they pursue economic advantages of purchasing low cost equipment, therefore going security and that is our biggest concern. >> sure. in light of those concerns would you recommend that american technology companies sell critical enabling components to firms like woway and dte. >> i am 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 4 g. we should be the leaders with 5 g. it's not only in our security interest but in our economic interest to be able to have that kind of capability. >> and then chairman dunford you talked about the concern that we would have if we're working with allies,
2:48 pm
close allies that would have -- the aussies who are one of our closest allies, have been at the lead and sort of disallowing china from competing in australia for 5 g technology, my understanding understand is new zealand may follow suit. we should start there and build outwards to our nato allies. >> congressman, in fact sunday night at my home i will have 5 i counter parts talking about -- won't talk too much in detail here, understanding where we are as a group in terms of our amount to manage this challenge and many other challenges associated with our competitive advantage. >> i appreciate that and i know you guys are checking on this issue which i view to be -- i mean, perhaps the most important one we face right now. so thank you for your attention
2:49 pm
and thank you for being here. >> i yield to balance my time. >> thank you, mr. chair. chairman dunford let me add, too, my thanks four your service. i think your commodus is going to be greatly -- commodus we are going to e going to greatly miss you. amounting secretary shanahan. defined in the law as any construction, development, convergent 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
2:50 pm
military. correct me if i'm wrong, getting a project selected to receive funding is pretty difficult and in most situations it takes years for installation commanders actually get projects funded and included in their budgets. diverting funding hampers the department's ability to sustain what you all have been stressing is readiness. and as the come dant has alluded to congress did its job by authorizing and appropriating funds for projects that the department and members of congress saw as vital. and what we are being told is that this funding is is is not going to be used where the law states it should be used. secretary shanahan, you are asking this body to authorize 3
2:51 pm
$3.6 billion to projects we already authorized. you're 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 is the use of military assets to deliver humanitarian aid being used to send a cig issal to russia and other foreign e entities of this administration's b intent to solve the crisis militarily? and does the dod have any plans or intentionsing of sending additional support other than humanitarian aid supported by u.s. aid. and three has dod been given any requirements for assistance to fulfill from other agencies?
2:52 pm
>> so the use of the military for humanitarian assistance voice tall. and us think one of the reasons that we were drawn in by the state department was because we could do this so quickly. so your question regarding other plans and activities as they relate to supporting venezuela, the chairman and i have been in discussion for the last several weeks. how do we put a more regional face on our humanitarian efforts. i will be going down to southern command to meet with the admiral to have further discussions around what are the things we can do to provide support to the people of venezuela. >> your first question about was it designed to signal, we fwot the request. it went to the state department
2:53 pm
and they asked us to capacity shortfall. it was our ability to deliver a large volume over a short period of time, which troef that initial humanitarian assist request. >> let me had finish with the time i have left. is it this administration's intent to use the resolution on this issue to achieve a military resolution? >> it's not my understanding. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> we have five people left to ask questions. i'm going to press on. i think we can get done in the next 45 minutes or so. >> gentlemen, thank you for your service. and thank you for being here today. i want to talk to you a moment about space. russia and china have weaponized
2:54 pm
space. they have done so, they are in the process of doing so and they expolicety seek to dominate the united states in space. they are prepared for war. and, in my opinion, they are not. with the flip of a switch, they can destroy assets in space. china had more space launches than any other could be country in the world. we need to help americans understand that our entire way of life is dependent on space now or navigation or supply chain or banking, how it communicates over $400 billion of our economy is now dependent on space. yet in the pentagon our various components for war fighting in that domain are all over the place. we have stake holders involved
2:55 pm
in this organization in terms of acquisition is, oversight and the air force. i personally believe we are with space where we were in the 1940s with the air force where it had to be split off for all kinds of reasons that are obvious. i have introduced legislation that cleans up some past legislation in terms of making it a fully unified command versus the subordinate command. bottom line, gentlemen, and i'll go with you, mr. secretary. are you confident that 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. >> are you without the current budget trajectory, are you confident that we could win in space in the next five to ten years. >> we just don't need to take
2:56 pm
that risk. this is about $19 trillion economy that runs on space. that's why the cr is so painful. the growth that we need allows us to even go faster. but it's vital we get the top line. >> mr. secretary v you made a decision on where the new u.s. space command would be located. there's reporting it would be in colorado but there's been a nomination. i would submit to you spaces in florida's dna and to strongly consider florida as you move forward with that decision. separate topic on counterterrorism, capacity building. i would just submit to you, and i'm concerned at hearing testimony across the board from across the services that i
2:57 pm
understand where we're going with the national defense strategy. i think that's the right thing to do. however, we can't do what we did post vietnam and flush those lessons down the tubes. do you believe isis is defeated as a military organization? >> isis maintains global capability, congressman. so while they have been cleared of the ground in iraq, it rem n remains a threat. >> no, i don't. do you believe the taliban forget their political will they have the military capability to deny al qaeda use of afghanistan. and military capability that 300,000 afghan army. and i certainly participated in,
2:58 pm
do you believe the taliban have that capability? if we bought into the fact that they desired to do so? >> congressman, i'm not pushing back on your question, but it's hard for me to imagine having a conversation about the taliban fighting al qaeda given how close they are as organizations right now. >> 100% agree. they have the will to deny al qaeda. then we have to look at what's their enforcement mechanism. what's their capability. with the time i have remaining, i'm glad you touched on the fact 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 mean s s to prepare our young
2:59 pm
people to serve in all types of capacities and locking forward to that. >> let me start by saying i think i recognize as members of the armed services committee to look at authorizations for underlying supporting the national defense strategy and that the national defense strategy really implements one of the four pill alreadies of the national security strategy. that's through strength with a focus on building a a more lethal force. wz members of congress more broadly are look iing at how doe ebb sure and appropriate the entire national security strategy, which includes defending the homeland and nondefense spending that's in there. and projecting american values. if you look at the national security strategy it taus about vocational training and diversifying the energy port foal owe.
3:00 pm
it talks about a forward presence of the diplomatic core and our development activities throughout the world. so let me turn to the focus of this committee. the national defense strategy and the underlying budget. this year the president's budget request is for $450 billion. which is the the highest adju adjusted for inflation. to the pentagon, which is the absolute highest that we have 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 competition and
3:01 pm
with china and russia. it's important for congress that we are open and transparent to the american public and the department of defense is as well. that we can demonstrate to the american people we're faithful to the original design and intent is. so a few items to shed some lying on what's being requested in the president's budget request. i'm reading $8 billion for ship level maintenance as we move from the navy-based budget. to my knowledge, this is not a single dollar for maintenance in the base budget. is that accurate? >> i believe that sounds corr t correct. >> $1.2 billion for triad for nuclear missiles in the overseas operation funds. . is that accurate?
3:02 pm
>> it is. low to medium yield bombs are in the portion of the budget. is that accurate? >> i don't know that one off the top of my head. >> that is accurate. there's $1 billion for the patriot missile system in the budget is to defend against advanced enemy fighters. we're talking about in an overseas contingency operation fund. does that sound accurate? >> that maybe be right. it's also used in terms of defensive facilities and bases against missiles. >> and finally the european deterrence initiative, $500 million remains in the bugt. it's been done that way in previous years, but again, we're talking about reassuring our nato alloys about a long-term commitment, yet a substantial position of our funding commitment is in an oco account.
3:03 pm
it's better than a cr, but it's not long-term funding. is that accurate? >> yes, it's his ttorically bee funded through the oco account. >> is this sound budgeting for the defense budget? >> so the use of the oco as divided into two parts. there's the traditional one and we have broken it out in the budget. >> my question is this. putting in some of these sort of modernization programs, long-term programs that are not exclusively for current or anticipated overseas contingency is allowances putting 533 nuclear bombs. is that sound boughting or accounting practices? >> it's not how we have presented to the previous year. >> let me just shift with the remaining time i have. we haven't asked about the transgender policy. i think that budgets are
3:04 pm
important reflections of our priorities and our values. would you agree with that? >> yes. >> when president truman desegregated the armed forces, he said it's essential there maintained the highest standards of democracy. with a quality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense. would wow agree with that? >> i would. >> are you aware the army as of september 30th failed to recruit enough soldiers to meet projects for the last fiscal year? >> yes. >> and you also heard that 71% of young americans between age 17 and is 24 are ineligible to serve in the military. >> that's correct. >> would you agree that a man power shortage compromises national security? >> yes, it does. >> are you aware there are transgender soldiers in today's
3:05 pm
military who are meeting and exceeding standards in every criteria we use to measure performance? >> i don't have the specifics. >> they testified in front of this committee about three weeks ago. are you aware of the fact that many of these transgender soldiers have successfully transitioned to their gender of preference? >> i don't know that. >> this is an important policy change. this isn't changing the army green to the army green and pink. this is aers knelt policy that will exclude a certain category of americans. are you aware the chief of naval operations, the army chief and the current air force chief all testified publicly in their own words that transgenders serving in the military won't affect readiness, military discipline, has not been disruptive to the military service, nor has affected cohesion. >> i'm aware of their testimony.
3:06 pm
>> president trump said that he consulted his generals and expert when is he decided not to accept transgender individuals. >> as the senior militaried a vurz to the president, is it accurate within days of president trump's ban on transgender service that you stated i would just probably say i believe any individual who meets the physical and mental standards in his worldwide deemployable and serving should be afforded the opportunity to continue to serve. did you say that? >> i did say that. >> it has not. >> i think it is important now
3:07 pm
to put on the record a bit more ab the process that secretary mattis used in reevaluating the prior administration's policy in this regard. and a little bit more wholesome about the factors that were looked at, how the decisions came to be made, that he issued during his time. and i don't know which is better to do that because you were both there, but i think it would be important to discuss that a bit. >> i'll take a stab at it. so we did use the words physically, mentally capable of being worldwide deemployable without special accommodations. and then the secretary engaged the leadership across the department but that also included medical experts from
3:08 pm
across the department. so what the secretary did was based on the definitions and i think you were sensitive as well. some of this is still in litigations. and medical experts. based on the definition of physically, mentally, psychologically capable of deploying performing in their occupation fields without special accommodation, he proposed a revision to the 2017 policy. >> i think the 2018 policy applies standards uniformly. >> i think it was changed on the whim of the tweet and that's
3:09 pm
part of the reason it's helpful for members to know that there was a deeper, longer process that resulted in the policy. we're going to have a resolution on the floor this can part of the reason this is coming up. i don't think it's appropriate for us 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 with the department in looking at these issues. i yield back. >> coming up live tomorrow on c-span 3, mike pompeo will testify about the state department's 2020 budget requ t request. that begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3. also available online at or you can listen with the free c-span radio app.
3:10 pm
>> tv was simply three networks and a government-supported service called pbs. then in 1979 a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see. bringing you unfiltered content. this was true people power. in the 40 years since is, the landscape has clearly changed. there's no media, youtube stars are a thing. but c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. it's nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded by your cable or satellite provider on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government. so


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on