Skip to main content

tv   House Armed Services Hearing on U.S. Military Activities in Indo- Pacific  CSPAN  March 28, 2019 1:00pm-3:15pm EDT

1:00 pm
o the people that was true people power. in the 40 years since the landscape has clearly changed, there's no monolithic 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 on television and online c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. >> the house armed services committee yesterday held a hearing on u.s. military operations in the asia pacific region. the admiral in charge of the u.s. indo-pacific command, the top u.s. general in south korea and the assistant defense secretary for indo-pacific secret affairs testified. congressman adam schiff chairs the services committee. >> before we get started one
1:01 pm
housekeeping item in terms of how we do the questioning. as you know, when the gavel drops, you're on the list if you're not here you then go to the back of the list. if you leave as a number of people are going to do in their -- i should drag this out so you guys can't leave. but i wouldn't do that to our witnesses. at that point you're on the list. when you come back you get in line. but that creates an inconvenient situation. we're thinking somebody's next and two minutes before its their turn if you come back you get to bump that person. if you're thinking you're next somebody else gets called on it's because somebody else came back. it's in the rule. if you're here for the drop of the gavel, whenever you come back you get to jump anybody else who was there. personally i'm not in love with that rule. but then again i approved it. so we'll think about that for
1:02 pm
the future. but that's the way it works. i say that also because once again we have a classified hearing after this. we're going to try to stop at noon. i will try to get people in who are here. but approximate if somebody comes in at 11:57, that complicates things. we're going to try to stop at noon. try to start the classified hearing immediately thereafter. it will be between sometime between noon and 12:15. i'm sure our witnesses were fascinated by that. >> on behalf of the members of the team i have to go to markup and vote we appreciate you covering for us. >> you will be missed but we appreciate you -- giving us a heads-up. we have our hearing this morning with the u.s. indo-pacific command, our witnesses are the honorable randall striver department of defense, admiral phillip davidson and general
1:03 pm
robert abrams, u.s. forces korea. welcome, gentlemen, appreciate you being here and your service and look forward to your testimony. the pacific region is a critical region. both president obama and president trump has emphasized our need to place greater emphasis on the indo-pacific region and we look forward to hearing about all of the issues. obviously china is the largest issue working with them but also working with countries around them to make sure they're playing by the rules and respecting their neighbors. i think the number one most important thing is it is crucial to maintain a strong u.s. presence in the indo-pacific region. i think our presence brings stability and makes it more likely that it's going to be a peaceful place. crucial to that is building alliances. our presence alone doesn't work unless we have friends and allies in the region who want us
1:04 pm
there, who see us being there as an asset to their interests. i believe we can do that and i think we've done a good job of it. i want to emphasis, this is the first year that it is the indo-pacific. a change we made last year to reflect the rising importance of india to our role in the region. the improvement of our relationship with the nation of india is a positive development. i hope we can build on that and improve upon that. the most pressing question today, how do we deal with china on a wide range of issues and militarily what do we need to do to make sure we have the equipment we need to deter them and how are we doing in terms of working with other players in the region to form alliances to contain that threat. of course, we have north korea, without question, the situation
1:05 pm
has improved in the last couple of years. i've had numerous people say that tension on the korean peninsula is lower than its been probably since the end of the korean war -- since the cease-fire of the korean war. curious as to how your thoughts how we build upon that how we continue to increase the stability and get to the point where we have a denuclearized korean peninsula. with that i will turn it over to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and let me add my welcome to our witnesses. we appreciate you all being here today. i think in a lot of ways some of the most important statements were on the first page of the written testimony that admiral davidson submitted where he talks about what we've accomplished over the last 70 years, liberating hundreds of millions of people, lifting
1:06 pm
billions of people out of poverty, what is helped accomplish that or provided the foundation for that progress is commitment of free nations to work together which i believe is your engagement mr. chairman as well as the credibility of the combat power of indo-pacific command and a robust and modern nuclear deterrent. on the next page i'll read one sentence u.s. power underpins the post world war ii international system that helped strengthen the foundations of a fuel-based international order for economic growth and prosperity in the region for everyone. i think that is absolutely true in the indo-pacific. i think it's absolutely true in the rest of the world too and what i worry about is that we take some of those things for granted and could let them deteriorate with consequences that will result in a darker
1:07 pm
more dangerous world. sometimes i think we need to just remember the basics and part of the basics is strong u.s. military presence and engagement are the key not only in this region but maybe as importantly as anywhere in this region given what we see coming with china and the other challenges. so we'll go down into a lot of details about what that means for 2020 bill et cetera but i think it's important to remember that combat power, that nuclear deterrent, that engagement have been very successful for 70 years and we should not take those things for granted. i yield back. >> good morning, and thank you, mr. chairman, thank you ranking member. very pleased to be here this morning to talk about our defense work in the indo-pacific and particularly honored to be sitting with my great colleagues.
1:08 pm
our vision for a free and open indo-pacific we believe will be made possible can only be made possible with a robust military presence and combat credibility. we believe this vision and our aspirations are durable if we achieve those aims because they're founded on important principles that are widely shared and have benefitted all the countries of the reelkgion and beyond. it includes, sovereignty, free, fair trade and adherence to international norms and rules. though china has benefitted as much as any country from this order, china under the current leadership seeks to undermine this rules-based order and seeks a more favorable model. russian is an authoritarian actor seeking to undermine the rules, we see north korea and their continuing dangerous
1:09 pm
behavior. we can backsliding toward a governance in countries, we see the persistent threats by nonstate actors including terrorism and criminal enterprise and we see the persistent threat from nontraditional trans national threats. china's ambitions, though of pressing concern as they seek a different order. in the security domain china devotes resources to eroding our advantages and threaten our interests. there's perhaps no better example of this than chinese actions in the south china sea. they've militarized the south china sea and they've threaten
1:10 pm
our interest as a result. we have specific response in the south china sea. we encourage other countries to do the same either along side us or unilaterally. but nonetheless we're concerned with china's drive for a different security architecture in the region. if the authoritarian approach becomes ascendent, we could expect nefrlseveral trends that would be unfavorable, we could see a weakening of sovereignty to global commons. we could see an undermining of member states and we could see a diminishment of respect for individual and human rights and potentially even the normalization of the brutal repression underway in places. our policy response at the department of defense is through
1:11 pm
implementation of the national defense strategy which outlines how we will effectively compete with china. this strategy has three major lines of effort, the first is to build a more lethal joint force. this must take into account china and russia's ambitions, their pace of morndernization. strengthening alliances and partnerships. it not only enables our presence but it gives us partners who are more cable in defending their own interests. a key example of this is the work we're doing with the help of congress through the indo-pacific maritime security initiative. our third line of effort is reforming the department for greater performance and affordability. this focuses on efforts to promote innovation protect key technologies and protect the
1:12 pm
national security base to protect us. the sfraj talks about competition not conflict with china. competition does not preclude cooperating with china where our interests align and as we compete with china, we will continue to seek a military relationship with china that aims at reducing risk and continues to push china towards compliance with international norms and standards. we at the department of defense support our inner agency approach to china including efforts to counter china's global influence and we are very supportive of our state department in efforts such as the build act which was another tremendous example of our work with congress to give us better tools in this competitive environment. so to close, we work at the department of defense along with our colleagues in uniform to implement the national defense strategy framework, to ensure we're on a trajectory to compete and win in the indo-pacific.
1:13 pm
thank you i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> good morning, chairman smith, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for providing us the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the indo-pacific region. i'm also joined by command sergeant major as well and i'm glad he's here with me today. let me say thank you for the support we have received from congress over the last two years. the temporary relief from the budget control act and a nontime fiscal year 2019 budget helped to restore the military readiness necessary to safeguard vital u.s. interests. but there is more work to do. the budget will help the department address the challenges described in the national defense strategy and ensure our military remains the most lethal force in the world. and this funding is critical to
1:14 pm
sustaining the readiness recovery while increasing lethality. it bears repeating from what chairman thorn berry red from my statement early, for more than 0e67 years the indo-pacific has been largely peaceful. this was made possible by the willingness and commitment of free nations to work together for a free and open indo-pacific. the credibility of the combat power of u.s. indo-pacific command working with its allies and partners and of course the credibility of our nuclear deterrent as well. our nation's vision demonstrates our continued commitment to a safe region that benefits all nations large and small. and it continues to place a strong alliances and partnerships as the foundation of our approach to the region the vision of a free and open indo-pacific includes a whole government approach with economic governance and security dimensions and it
1:15 pm
resonates with our allies and partners across the region. indeed we are seeing a general convergence around its importance as japan, france australia, have all put forth similar concepts and visions and indonesia is leading an effort to elaborate one as well. as the primary military component of the united states efforts to ensure a free and open indo-pacific, we work with the rest of the u.s. government to advance our shared vision. now, there are five key challenges that i believe threaten that vision and our u.s. national interests. first until the nuclear situation is resolved on the peninsula, north korea will remain our most immediate threat. the recent summit clearly identified the negotiating possessions, narrowed the gap and made clear that the united states expects denuclearization
1:16 pm
of the dprk. the outcome of the summit also reinforces the need for general abrams and i to maintain the readiness of our forces on and off the peninsula. china, however, represents the greatest long-term strategic threat to the united states. and indeed the region. through fear and coercion, beijing is working to expand its ideology in order to bend break and replace the existing rules-based international order and prevent a free and open indo-pacific. in its place, beijing seeks to create a new international order led by china. an outcome that displaces the peace of the indo-pacific that has endured for over 70 years. china is using a variety of methods including lending schemes like the one belt one road and promising loans or grants to extend their diplomatic and political reach by gaining leverage against the
1:17 pm
borrower's sovereignty. this is happening in the pacific islands with their south, south initiative as well as closer to home here in the united states where in just over a year 17, 17 latin american countries have signed onto one belt one road. the activities extended last year with the placement of anti-cruise missiles on disputed militarized features in the south china sea and today they continue testing and development of advanced capability like fifth generation aircraft aircraft carriers and counter space technologies. i'm also concerned about the growing malign influence of russia throughout the region. moscow regularly plays the role of spoiler, seeking to undermine u.s. interests and oppose and impose additional costs on the united states and our allies whenever and wherever possible. terrorism and other nonstate actors also pose threats to our
1:18 pm
vision of a free and open indo-pacific as they seek to impose their views and radicalize people across the region as evidenced in 2017 when isis captured the southern philippine city a city of more than 200,000 people. lastly the indo-pacific remains the most disaster-prone region in the world. it contains 75% of the earth's volcanos. many countries across the region lack sufficient capability and capacity to manage natural disasters. to address all of the challenges i mentioned, pay come is focused on regaining our competitive military advantage to ensure a free and open indo-pacific over the short and long term. we must field and sustain a joint force that is postured to win before fighting and if necessary ready to fight and
1:19 pm
win. u.s. indopacom is the foundation of the deterrence and our ability to compete. by fielding and maintaining a joint force ready to fight and win, we reduce the likelihood that any adversary will resort to military graegs to challenge or undermine the rules-based international order. to meet this demand my top five budget needs are focused on the following, increasing critical munitions, advancing our high end warfare capabilities enhancing and improving our persistent air and missile systems, involving our counter unmanned air systems capabilities and developing the tools provided by the strategic capabilities office darpa and others. it will deny those who seek to undermine it in both peace, below the level of conflict and in war. i must add that our five
1:20 pm
indo-pacific treaty allies in japan, korea, australia, the philippines and thailand they have all be dead fast in their support. our ability to ensure a free and open indo-pacific and only possible with your support. so i would again like to thank this committee for your continued support to the men and women of u.s. indo-pacific command. thank you. >> thank you. general abrams? >> good morning. i've had the privilege to serve in this position as the commander of a united nations command and u.s. force fs korea for just over 120 days. in that short time i have assessed that the rock u.s. military alliance is stronger than ever. if called upon we're ready to
1:21 pm
defend the republic of korea. we have tremendous opportunities before us as well as some great challenges. ongoing diplomatic engagement between south korea, north korean and the united states has led to a significant reduction in tension compared to the recent past marked by missile launches and tests. diplomatic is creating the opportunity for north korea to choose the path of denuclearization forge a lasting peace and to build a better future for its people. and while diplomatic is not without its challenges it remains the mechanism underpinning that transformation we have witnessed as we've moved from provocation today taunt. we have witnessed multiple presidential summits, dialogue, and international support to sanctions. the steps agreed to last april
1:22 pm
and specified later in the agreement combined with the aforementioned diplomatic efforts have all contributed to a marked reduction in tension on the peninsula and created mechanisms and confidence building, essential ingredients to the process of making history on the peninsula. still, i remain clear eyed about the fact that despite a reduction in tensions, is coupled with public statements of intent to denuclearize little to no change has occurred in north korea's capabilities. for instance we are watching the ongoing korea people's army winter training cycle. it's progressing along meaning that we have observed no significant change in the size scope or timing of their ongoing
1:23 pm
exercises compared to the same time period over the last four years. further, north korea's conventional military capabilities along with their continued development of advanced munitions and systems all remains unchecked. these capabilities continue to hold the united states south korea and our regional allies at risk. as such i believe it is necessary to maintain a postured and ready force to deter any possible aggressive actions. fielding our force in korea, requires support and sustainment. that foundation is sound. it serves as the bedrock from which we deter agreegs and ensure stability not only on the korean peninsula but in northeast asia. our posture allows us -- our diplomats to speak from a position of unquestioned strength as they work to achieve enduring peace and final full
1:24 pm
verified denuclearization of the dprk. i also want to thank you for the support we have received from the congress as we have significantly improved the posture and readiness of our forces on the peninsula. i cannot underscore enough the importance of the on time appropriation in 2019 as it has enabled us for the first time in many years to make smarter investments, improve our planning and provide predictability to our commanders in the field so they can sustain the hard-earned readiness that is essential for being a fight tonight force. with the support of congress, the fy 2020 budget continues the work of maintaining our posture. the readiness required is perishable. we must continue to exercise the core competencies necessary to
1:25 pm
the planning and execution of joint and combined operations under the strain of crisis. however, we must also strike a balance between the need to train and the requirement to create space for diplomacy to flourish. we've tuning four dials that fod fi exercise design and conduct. size scope, volume and timing. adjustments to these dials enable to remain in harmony with requirements without sacrificing war fighting requirements and war fighting readiness to unacceptable levels. our combined forces, republic of korea and the united states recently completed a significant step in our evolution by conducting the first of our command post exercises 19-1. earlier this month, we exercised tactical operational, and strategic competencies to be
1:26 pm
prepared should the call come to respond to crisis defend the republic of korea, and prevail against any threat. this training is built upon the relationships, lessons learned in staff interactions derived from many combined training and exercise events conducted by our components and our counterparts throughout the year. therock u.s. alliance remaining ironclad. our military partnership continues to deepen and broaden the relationships that and it at every echelon. on we thank all of you for your unwavering support. and i'm proud to be their commander and work hand in hand with the republic of korea to protect our great nations, i look forward to answering your
1:27 pm
questions. >> thank you very much. as you mentioned, as i think all of our mentioned, our presence in the region is very important. but certainly in japan and korea, we have troops forward stationed there. there's been talk about, you know cost sharing, how much the countries that we have our troop presence in pay. we in my view get an enormous benefit from that presence. are you satisfied right now that our partners in the region are paying their fair share of what the costs should be for our troops being there? >> i am and i think the deals that have been struck to date have been mutually benefit with our allies and ourselves. we're entering new negotiations shortly and i expect the same outcome. >> and there has been talk about this cost plus 50 idea. it's just a rumor. no one has confirmed it. but just for the record i assume you would think that not a good idea and not a good approach to
1:28 pm
our negotiations? >> i've seen discussion mostly in the media. it's not anything we've been directed to seek and it's not part of any formal guidance and again i think our presence view is known, we think there should be burden sharing, but we'll leave that to the negotiation when the time comes. >> would you comment on the idea that cost plus 50 is a good idea or bad idea. >> we will try to seek a good deal for the united states obviously but it won't be based on that formula that i'm aware. >> and just for the record a number of members of this committee have expressed an concern about that. the importance of our alliances on the international treaties countries with democracies working together to promote that greater people in the region.
1:29 pm
what are the most important steps that we could take to shore up the various international treaties organizations in the indo-pacific region and what countries are most important to expand upon those relationships. what can we do to enchance that level of cooperation and that rules-based democratic approach to the region? >> thank you. i think we are not only strengthening alliances and making investments with our partners but we're expanding the network and india was mentioned i think in the opening comments as a great example of a partnership that we're investing a lot in. we've had our first two plus two. we're making great strides. but i would say throughout southeast asia vietnam, for example, is a country that is kornd concerned about their own sovereignty, freedom of the seas
1:30 pm
and we've expanded our defense relationship there. i think there are a number of partners the philippines, tradition ally, we're strengthening that relationship. and we're investing when we can because we see a strong demand signal. >> if i could just build that point, our values really compete well across the whole of the region. all china has to offer is money. our ability to expand those values protect them absolutely but expand them to others i think is going to be critically important as we seek now partner and is the whole of a free and open concept. it's going to require some work, it's at the heart of my engagements, i know whenever
1:31 pm
assistant secretary -- >> it's rubbing a lot of countries in the region the wrong way and pushing them more towards us. >> i think everybody recognizes that a country with a close order would be a threat to a free and open international one. >> and final question are there countries in the region as you see slipping more towards china's influence that we need to work harder to try to pull back? >> well two of the countries was mentioned by assistant secretary shooifer and that's mine mar and cambodia. we're going to have to find the areas in which we can indeed compete with china there. it's going to be difficult. >> thank you. >> admiral i want to go back to engagement for just a second. at the initiative of this
1:32 pm
committee in previous years, we have created an indo-pacific stability initiative. and the idea was you see that the european defense initiative was pretty successful both in funding, needed improvements but also sending a message that we're here and we're coming with dollars, not just the chinese, but we're coming and we are committed to -- in that case of course a nato alliance. i understand there are differences in the pacific. but i'm concerned that i don't believe the administration has requested a specific dedicated funding for this initiative even though it is authorized in law now. can you comment about the benefit if any that you see to having this sort of indo-pacific stability to help make it -- to help training facility
1:33 pm
somewhat of the idea that we have pursued successfully in europe. >> i think the eri model has been very successful for resources and sending capabilities to europe in a place in which there has been some capability and capacity withdrawal in the few years before that. while there has been no money either appropriated or asked for, i put down a pretty assertive issue last year for some capabilities and capacity needed in the theater, and i think in the fi 20 budget you're seeing a down payment on that. >> i'll comment, one of the requires in i believe last year's bill was we need a plan about how you would fund various elements of this initiative we hadn't gotten it yet. you all work on that because we intend to pursue it.
1:34 pm
i wanted to ask the general briefly, you talked about north korean military activities that are unchecked. what can you say in this format specifically about their production of missiles and nuclear weapons? has there been a change? we know they have not tested. but in the production of nuclear weapons and material and missiles has there been a change? >> sir, we -- their activity that we've observed is inconsistent with denuclearization. and we'll be happy to go into as much detail as you want this afternoon during the closed session. >> i just didn't know how far you could go in an open session but i think that gives us a direction. thank you, i yield back. >> thank you.
1:35 pm
thank you to the witnesses, this morning. admiral davidson on page 14 of your written testimony, again, you talked about some of the challenges for increasing joint force lethality, the undersea warfare provision. i think you very clearly stated sort of what's happening in that domain with -- as you put it, 160 of the submarines in the indo-pacific region belong to china, russia and north korea. as you go onto describe that's happening at the same time as our fleet size is shrinking. just to finish that thought. he walked through our attack fleet size right now is 51. with the retirements of the los angeles class, it will be at 42 by 2026. so given the fact that again, you don't get all of those -- that sub force, you get about
1:36 pm
60% of it with the allocation to the asia -- indo-pacific region versus other combat and command areas, that trajectory which your predecessor described repeatedly in his visits to our committee over the years is a big concern and obviously it's not getting any better i don't think -- i assume based on your written testimony. i'm wondering if you can talk about that a little bit. >> sir, the undersea domain despite the capacity shortfalls the number of submarines is an area where we hold an advantage over well owl our adversaries. it's a critical advantage that we need to extend. the capacity limitations as we go down over the course of the next several years is the threat of the day-to-day operations that i think we need to have in the theater for presence needs and risk plans.
1:37 pm
i'd be happy to talk about more details as we get to this later session. >> it was testified that only about 50% of the stated requirements for subs can be met given, again, the fleet size today as opposed to -- again, that was open testimony. is that still pretty much the state of play? >> my day-to-day requirement is met by slightly over 50% of what i've asked for, yes. >> okay so this tried to change that last year in terms of getting some up stick in the build rate. the new budget embraces that and just -- it would help i guess the cause in terms of your choices that you have to make out there, if again, we move forward with a three-sub build rate for this year's budget which will not be executed until
1:38 pm
2023. i wonder if you can comment on that? >> yes, sir. we're doing our best. the time frame is a critical need in the indo-pacific, yes. >> i would like to change the subject for a minute to talk about -- recently the coast guard actually was part of a deployment in the straits of taiwan the coast guard participated in that. i wonder if you can talk about that part of sea service in terms of helping, again u.s. presence in international waters. >> yes, sir. it's on deployment and it will be for a few months to come as well. they're in a very important partner with the u.s. navy on really all things in the region. in fact the mission that they were doing not long before the
1:39 pm
taiwan straight transit was helping us to enforce u.n. sanctions against north korea and the illegal transfer from oils there in the east china sea. the coast guard has key relationships, but they have perhaps defense forces and even less where there's just law enforcement forces. it really helps with key challenges that some of these nations have whether it's illegal, unreported and unregulated finishing narcotics, maritime domain awareness. they're an important contributor across the region. i've got a good relationship with my -- the coast guard pacific area -- >> real quick. i just want to thank you for putting the spotlight on that. during the shutdown there was this view that again, this was not part of the dod fabric and obviously what they're doing out
1:40 pm
there really rebuts that narrative. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we'll go to mr. turner. >> i'm very much waver that we're going to have a classified session but i am looking for a full nonclassified chance in this session because as you know as you give us information it helps us formulate policy not just by ways in which we know by which we can in nonclassified areas be able to share the information with others as we advocate. i'm going to follow to the theme that ranking member thorn berry had of using our nato alliance as a question that comes to us in this area. the united states just backed away from the treaty with russia which is viewed more of as a european issue than of another theater issue. we know it also affects the --
1:41 pm
our relationship with china and as we look to china's modernization of its nuclear forces the inf is a concern there. and we look at your testimony, page 6, china's undertaking hyper sonic glide vehicles and this is the most important -- beijing is also modernizing and adding new capabilities across its nuclear forces. here we have an adversary that's adding new capabilities. this is not a sustainment issue trying to modernize what we have in our inventory that might be requiring updating this is actually new capabilities that they're doing. you then go on to say that they have nuclear power submarine which will be armed with ballistic missiles, intermediate range missile and you go on.
1:42 pm
so my question relates to the -- the united states is now leaving the inf and it poses both an opportunity as we look to our own capabilities but also an opportunity diplomatically. would you please give us some characterization of the threat that china poses in the interfere mediate range missile threat what operational importance non-inf compliance assets would represent in this environment and what would be the benefit of a possible russia-china-u.s. deal on an inf treaty in that we know that when the united states entered into this there were significant assets that were dismantled. these treaties at times have resulted in lessening conflicted by detroying weapons systems. could you give us a picture of
1:43 pm
that? >> thank you for the question congressman. long question. china -- let me put it this way. at the operational level, about 93% of china's total inventory, if they were a party to the inf would be in violation of that treaty. these missiles number in the hundreds and we can talk more specifically about that later today. and present a serious challenge to not just the united states but all of our allies partners freedom of action in the region. our long range precision fires are con trained to air and sea assets right now with a wider set of capabilities with the united states you really present a problem to the chinese or the russians and you improve our freedom of action by
1:44 pm
presenting a like dmimilemma to them. the secretary should talk policy here a little bit. >> with respect to any kind of future arrangement, of course it's not under active consideration because we're not quite out of the treaty yet. but given the significance of china's capability falling in this range certainly would make sense to -- if we were to go down that path of another agreement to think about china being included. i can't see it being meaningful without china. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral davidson and general abrams what do you think is the appropriate number of u.s. troops to have on the peninsula
1:45 pm
to maintain deterrence against kim jong-un? >> our current troop levels that we have with both assigned and rotational forces is appropriate and meets our requirements to provide an adequate and credible deterrent to the dprk. >> i fully agree with that. >> and ij you covered this next question whether you can confirm that our force posture is designed to provide the best deterrence versus north korea? >> yes, sir, i think our current force posture does do that. of course it takes other forces off the peninsula as well and as general abrams mentioned in his opening comments the committee and the department have done a lot in the last two years to make sure that capability is sound. >> thank you, admiral. with that in mind let's go through some projects that the pentagon has given us that could
1:46 pm
be raided to fund the president's border wall and please tell me if you think each project is more or less important than a wall. >> $17.5 million for command and control facility in korea? do you want me to go through the four or go -- i have about three more questions after this? >> i'd appreciate the list, congressman. >> 53 million for a hanger in korea, 45.1 for storage facilities in guam 23.8 military for c-130s in japan. are these more or less important than a border wall? >> congressman, i can only speak to the two projects that are in korea. they're important to us forces korea, but it's inappropriate for me to make some sort of judgment as we got to take into
1:47 pm
account all of national security. i'm responsible for providing a credible properly postured force on the korean peninsula and we'd have to defer that to, you know the acting secretary of defense -- >> i understand. you would agree that at least those facilities that you're familiar with in korea are very much necessary to enforce protection on the peninsula, correct? without making a judgment on the wall. >> right. i'm pausing just for a second. so not necessarily for force protection but principally for command and control and sustainability. >> we often hear about the need for munitions, the fled or intelligence and air lift and sea lift. a general told us last month that there's no military threat
1:48 pm
at the southern border. in light of that why would the department use money allocated for a threat like china or north korea to pay for a wall that doesn't help us with a real threat -- versus a real threat? >> i think as secretary shanahan said yesterday we've made arguments based on what we think so our defense priorities are. we now have a lawful order from the president to execute and we're looking how to best do that. >> i think what i'm trying to -- and i'm sure again i don't want to put you in a difficult spot. the one thing i'm trying to highlight we have real threats to our alliances, to our country, and potentially to the world. and when we're choosing to use our military funds that are very limited and resources for something that's an imagined threat i think that's a problem, especially for us on this committee.
1:49 pm
i understand that we are more frequently using freedom of navigation patrols to push back on claims in the pacific. what else can we do to ensure chinese doesn't -- as they're able to do. >> i think they have changed some facts on the ground with the militarization of those outposts. our goal is to make sure that that doesn't become a tool to operationalize illegal sovereignty claim. to the freedom of navigation operation are important. we've taken other steps along with add military davidson's predecessor, we disinvited china from rim pack. we've encouraged other countries to join in presence operations joint patrols, and our responses in the future may not necessarily be on point. their activities in the south china sea could be met with consequence elsewhere as i think was like rim back. we're making sure no one country
1:50 pm
and change norms. >> thank you. following on that line of questions, o statement, at anye1 point in time face value. you mentioned his comments in the rose garden, in '15 i can't believe that he didn't already know that they were going to, as you said militarize those islands. china has a longer-term horizon than most of us. we go,ok you know, continue resolution, to continue resolution year to year budgeting. each step of thet(e1 way, they seem to allow some period of time for a new norm to establish itself. the new norm are these features, as admiral davidson refers, toi] militarized. what do we think what, can you share with us, in this arena, what youi] thin&e chinesei] steps might be next, in terms of trying to gain control i think there was a dust-up between the &÷laysia one of their features and
1:51 pm
recently, andñi can we see ahead whate1 the chinesee1 might do next, that we would need to try to nter a counter and not letñr that become the newokok norm?perati from anw3 operational space one of theçó things that we're starting to see is a higher i degree ofjiqiq%=9nteg forces that forces that are not actually on those features. sore we'res. seeing fighter patrolspatr bomber patrols, the int ft integration of isr, aircraft qq reconnaissance, intelligence, aircraft, operating from those d bases, and a higher degreew3 of and intra operability from the functions and the float functions they have area in the area wel as g >> so counters to that would be usould bee1 continuing to operate in the international waters? >> certainly. mr. sh river m mentioned earlier t%- importance of a allies andko
1:52 pm
partners operating with us in the reelken. that stepped upjf lasth us in n. fall. th and i think we're at a critical factor, in the international respo response there,ko and some of the saw behaviors that we saw o like china and both the ra%q1 space e bac and the diplomatic spacek back in the fall and i think that is going to be i aym critical approach going forward is to have ourxd allies and partners operating with us in the region. >> you're not telling us what they areó[ necessarily, are our sailor crews, sailors, airmen, are they aware of what their self-protection stepse1 should be, should something come upok es suddenly? >> yes, sir,i] absolutely. so i know admirable lpaqualino hasicers met with his commanding officers a number of times both in in the western pacifiç@e9 on the west c coast of the united states. and i talkedjf directly with general brown offó[i pacific air forces as well to make sure d everybody understands the tha authorities that they thave, and ure to be sure to ask for the s the authorities they need goingy
1:53 pm
forward. >> and general foabrams, i know specific i know theñrc answer to this but you mentioned in your that t testimony that tensions on theen peninsula have relaxed or seem?; ó[ reduced,çó dramatically, north korea has xd continued to exercise. s is there any stancee1ense among our korean ally, south koreanj:hr(t&h allies,áhp &hc that they are less likely to defend themselves or &uare theyok becoming toou relaxed or at r at risk of being unprepared, ou should the northld t koreans do g? something? >> congressman cofá absolutely not.ilitary the iraq military continues to train intensely atnb echelon.y very capa"v. veryeble,eg;1e traincommitted,ed. dedicated professional for#a6ñ 3) ey have not taken their foot offf the off tgas. hank y >> thank you.ou yield?;e1 back. minutes. >> thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning. thank you, mr. chairman. i just kind of want to five minutes. on that question as far as we
1:54 pm
gentleman.o i want to follow-up on that the question as far as we go with the training t you know, inrainin the military, drilling exercises, ex train, ercitrain, train, kind of like like our piano teachers told us if, we make piano lessons,qeiip r(t&háhp &hc% practice makes perfect, that's what we're striving for..ld% s!we're canceling or downgrading some of these exercises that we have traditionallyt( done to prepare, you know, our w forces there, on the koreanean peninsula how are we making that up, how are we continuing the é@training how are we continuing to make sure our prime operation, to make sure sure we're ready?congre >> congressman, thanks fort( the opportunity. first, let meq clear up some lplpnovemb misinformation. i assume command on the 8th of november. just since november, as ofnove last mb o week we havef we've conducted 82 combined rock u.s. military field trainingi] exercises at appropriate echelons. tr so training has continued.
1:55 pm
combined trainingng has has continued. inwku exercisesq everyone'se1 well aware that last fall,e1 we, or last fá august we postponed one of our two two annual exercises the secretary of defense, secretary e rm
1:56 pm
communications and isr plans and validated the alliance decision making process. r very rigorous, e1e1tough demanding command post lpexercise, is driven by simulation. i' and i'm happy to go into more detail in thexd classified session, as to what made it so ous a ri w%=um and sond forth but we are are a trained and capable force t ready to meet oure1 treatye1 ope obligations. >> are we continuing joint training w operations with our naval forces in the region too, with our ma air force and marines as well? >> sir, absolutelyre. we are. the biggest different we just don't talk about ite1 publicly. >> and then just to t kind of sa follow up on that the presidentre says he is canceling these exercise, we are saving $100 million, that money has already been appropriated for your training and operations. w what are we doing with that $100$100 million that we're saving when he's canceling thesew3 operations?
1:57 pm
opera >> congressman, imy can't speak, i know whatxd has been executed, ed what's been planned for, programmed for for u.s. forces korea and we are executing our appropriatedñ1 budget as we have planned ande1e1 programmed. a >>z'erár ivernd do you have anyx1om have idea what we're doing with with those, the $100 million that that we're saving there by canceling these operations? >> wewe are atxd the request of congresslp looking at the differential between the previous between exercises ande1 ur . program now. awa i'm not awarere that we have a plan plan for specifically what to do if there is a signi÷i"ant cost differential and how we would use thate1 money. >> i yield back the remainder ofyou, my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and general abram, i have several questions for you.ree but thank all three o of you for ce your service to our country in your various capacities. this committee has worked hard to preserve, excuse me, to e
1:58 pm
approve a joint emergent ational operational need to providee1 enhanced missile defense capability to ourur forces on the t korean peninsula.sula. over the past year, what r progress has beenxd made on the to specific gin efforts to enhancece missilele defense?ha >> nks vcongressman, thank you very much for that. and we are grateful for thexd support, from the congress of th'y united states,jf on that joint operational needs statement. principally, threet. capabilities. thr allee three remain in development. they're all on time. right now.they'v they've, thee first and most import importantan capability is slightly ahead of schedule. and weáh to have it fielded here f in the next 12 to 16 >> months. >> excellent. than thank you.and >> and then what is the the status of theth revised missileñiok with guidelines with our o south koreanat is allies? and whate1 is their planned path dev forward on missile development,
1:59 pm
and how do we factor that into nt operational planning? >> congressman, i thi >> congressman i think if i hat have your question right, that is one of the capabilities that's part of our e1 conditions-based op con transitions plan. in an unclassified setting their p progress continues on track.track. they've got a plan. it has been resourced in their budget. and i'm happy to provide some a additional information this n in you yodesire. >> okay, i lookok if forward to thank you. and now, with admiral davidson, i have a question. in the issue of çóreadiness, if we hav have a conflict with a peer competitorm in the indo-pacon theater, do we have another nd ammunition stocks on hand and prepositioned to fight and win ah war, and along with that, howw3 much supply do we have and what are our risks if we don't have enough on handw3 pre-positioned? >> sir, i'd@t
2:00 pm
most of thate, question down to the closed hearing ifw3 we could. i will say that in stocks, in the t the theater of critical m munitions supplies, is a a challenge, andxdñi an ongoing hallen challenge, and onege of my consistent requeststs of the department, as they pursue theirsue and budgets, as well as the ability to resupply out there, that remains a need as well and i'm hat r happy to get into more details into going forward. >> thank you. i appreciate the answer. i look forwarde1e1 to that assi well. and general abram, back to you, we have heardñi concerning rumors rning about r the level of investmentó[ nvestm the southw3 koreans haveen made i'i their own provision of arm armaments. calling into question the viability of ourvi operational plans because they don'tq have ?mu whereniti do they stand with pgms and small arms acquisitions, to ort o support our jointurxd requirements?
2:01 pm
> congressman i'd prefer to talk about that in a classified session. those numbers arehat classified. >>those n okay. excellent. i look forward to that onent as.jf well. okay. i'll try another onenewell that maybe we canan address here openly. ope and this is a more broad q question and i'm sure weue can ;tu take it here in public, it is a sensitive topic beám trilateral cooperation between the south koreans b and japan is essential to to our common security. so what is yourok assessment of o the level of tr t(ó[ilateral 'c cooperation, especially between ally these b two very important security partners?>> >> sir, i think you know that the most key evidence right now is at the!u enforcement ion coordination cell that the u.s. sponsors in coast japan. we have both japanese and korean partners sitting side by side, to helping to enforce the u.n. . sanctionst( regim against north
2:02 pm
korea..ko andhe the illicite1 transfer of oil of o andil ship to ship transfers jpfrensfers in the east china sea and korealp bay. bay. i think that's an importantt " weather to keep in mind, that we're working in a very clab tive cooperative, and totally n transparent manner, at sea,e1 in and the air, andu coordination ofe1 those forces in a single headquarters. >> thank you. i'm very ebb couraged by. that i appreciate yourb. i'answers. and mr. chairman, i yield ñiback.r. >> thank you, mr. secretaryp,ary shriver, thanks, good see to see you again. i have a follow-upe1 on mr. xdñ sisneros' questions with regard train toin training on the peninsula ande i was wondering dou any demonstrable or demonstrable or tangible action the from the dprk in response to cessation of readiness n exercises? on the peninsula?ula? >> on our core area of interest and concern, the issue of de
2:03 pm
denuclearization, we have not gress seen anybody progress to speak so of. >> so wout( would it be fair for me to cob cloud up something for nothing asrif stxtáu&t? was if i said, if that was my thought, would you say that would be axd reasonable sion? conclusion? >> i certainly understand the concer concern. i think whatfá we'veve i tried to do an ise1 create an environment for a p diplomatic process to e1unfold. in hanoi we weree1 disappointed ointed that the north koreans weren'te1 door prepared to talk about how howxd ave to fulfill chairman kim's pledge. the door is open but to date we t que have not seenste1 movement on denuclearization. >> the next question is what shoulde1 weu from this -- this diplomacy? e >> we expect themxpect to fulfill chairman kim's pledge made at ade in singapore which is to pursue complete denuclearzation and we woul would like themd to start by o cf1 o identifying a commoncared mo
2:04 pm
definition of what denuclearizationfá means, and thenn wewe can build a road map alongside them, on how to achieve that, but ultimately it is the fulle1 final verifiable denuclearization that includes or all categoriesies of weapons of mass destruction and missiles and other mis delivery systems. >> do we have a time line under consideration when we will restar restart full readiness exercises?cise when will wes? stop waiting forfá rth north korea? >> congressma>,ç]e are looking to the president to the president and the secretary of state and their judgment on hownt on the diplomacyq willing go, and they'll give usxd gnal o the signal of how to make adjustments in the future, if they soe1 d%uhrmine. >> thanká'yfá for tha is that thee1 pentagon's role in this this i is to8.h%qjf#or a signal?re are you in fact justxd waitingfá for, as opposed to injecting any
2:05 pm
information into this, in this e ìl)á(uáárjr(u$e administration? >> well, i think as job abrams indicated, that thee1 objective isis t to do both, give our diplomats s1e and maintain sp readiness through the adjustments that t haveha been made. we if there are risks with a associated with a prolonged posture like turethis, we would certainly make those known, and we we have made knownzv;) interests in all the all things we think we nee needd to do to maintain readies dine be and i thinkss general abrams is doing a tremendous job onñkó that regard. + ;yñ a follow-up, another set of questions fore1 you on the budget-related, we talked about this a couple of weeks about t ago on thexd strategic supportok forces that china ht created ande@,he re re so of their own, of the plala. and i'm wondering how the budgete1 proposed to congress reflects perhaps a response or an attempt to get ahead, to the re
2:06 pm
reorganization of the pla specific to theñi sff development. >> i d think that i would i primarily point to wou increased investments in #xsq) in that ñi regard both in termse1 of the resiliency and protectione1 of our own infrastructure, as well as expanding the competitive space. we can talk about that more inokçó the closed session.e1. but given the mission of the al special security force, i think that's the area i would point w3 to. >> i think from my first setti th of questions you pz understand and understand eral a general, is wanted toe1 ask the policyó[ guys, a set of policy bo sort of question aboutut my concern that we seem to bee1 giving up, giving up something big, for not anything for from nothing, from dprk's place of negotiations and it is something i think is worth exploring for tee a this committee as wells continue to press onnpr this question, and
2:07 pm
nd expect that to happen.el so thank you very much. and i yieldd jf, >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank our witnesses for joiningg us.çó admiral davidson i'm going toó01 begin with you. earlier this month general scaparrotti talked about the the challenges he faces in the european command saying hee1 was r really two destroywrq short, needed a better presence of both the carrier strike group and amphibious ready group there to counter russian aggression in the area and i wanted to ask youter r three yes or nous questions and ask thene1 i want to get to you then elaborate. would you say that g there is a sufficientok attack submarine presence in the indo-pacific. >> they are not meeting my my requirement, no. >> would you say you have a a sufficientróp)rier strike group presence in the indo-pacific. >> that that's is also below what i requested. >> would you say youourequ have a sufficient amphibious ready group presence in the indo-pacific? >> that's slightly below what i've requested. >> the map you gave us i think ery
2:08 pm
is very telling.s there's lots of blue on here. her your e.aor has a significant amount of area that requires a naval presence.i know z&k"tr know that the navy isqq going through forced structure assessment looking at what the future navy should be types ofçó ok at ships, have they consulted with o you to look at your needs tookok assess the risks that are going @/- to be there in the future, and are have they talked goi to you in the e respect of beingng able to help you reduce your risk to an acceptable levelxú!s you manage this okaor in the indow3 parch,fá indo-pacific. >> the naval staff is completelyw3ew aware of existing contingent planning and where we're going in the construñ%(u nd forming for this force structure, ent t assessment that they have going on on right now. >> thank you. assistant secretary shriver, yeste hanahan yesterday secretary shanahan h spoke before this committee and he was discussing the we were talking we were talking about those things that were in it but also tha those things that weret not in it. one of the things that is
2:09 pm
concerning is the reduction overall of the numberr of aircraft carriers out to 2027, 6!5i taking cvn 75 out of the of inventory which actuallythe takes us down to nine aircraft s. carriers and i'm curious if you dis would discuss with us and give t ushe your thoughts behind the a analysisna withly the shipbuilding rojectio projection that going down to o nine carriers, betweenw3 now, and ó[ 202, 2027, which is what d retiring cvmn 5 would bring, do you think in relationa5 to what admiral o what davidson just told us do you admiral indo-pacific voig admira acceptable level of risk with navy presence around the world?ecisions>k5 go beyond my purview. >> >> acceptable or not acceptable >> risk? >> i thi ç i have to defer toe t the leadership that has to makeo ñi hat has the global considerations!u on n tradeoffs. i am concerned about any short comings identifiedi]] by the war fighters such as admiral
2:10 pm
davidson. >> admiral davidson in your best professional military milita judgment would you sayoktpá reducing the number of r'c carriers with takingo+há cvn 85 and the inve inventory, do you think that th leaves youin and your availability with having carrier 2.0 presence, doo you think that 0 pr leaves you with anes acceptable a level ofn risk? >> sisir, as ir, think about the the future, and the capability of the aircraft carrier, i don't see, as i constantly revisit our campaign planning and our present needs, i really don't see the requirement goingçóó[ down. >> veryq good. >> do you see, too in the region as you work with as you work with yourxd allies there, we had talked earlier ier a about making sure5a that we are coalescing resources, jointly ope4 ing, doing joint operations, do you believe that with potentially havesing fewer to carriers available, do you our commitment
2:11 pm
in the in indo-pacific region as far as our naval presence?si >> sir, i wouldr, say our allies andnd partners aczs the regiowatchn everything we do alle1 of the jointe1 force, the level ofe@.articipation we provide in exercises, what our r current operation[ncre doing a and they takend signals from th!uñe1+> cf1 o absolutely. >> very good. thank you, mr. chairman. with that, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chair. to all and thank you to all the witnesses for beingfá here.he admiral redavidson, economic milita military and diplomatic efforts ld all should all be coordinated in order to implement an effective and and coherent tragedy. when one of these elements of power goes rogue, it impacts our overalle1 strategy.conomic sanctions provide to our military strategyegy on the korean peninsula, and two two can you speak to the north korea illicit sources of funding and what efforts indo pac-come1 is
2:12 pm
taking to reduce those sources?e1 >> yes, sir, i mean most import importantlyan we're supporting the state department's pressure ca campaign.n. thee thregime's ability to sustain funding or gain funding from outside, really outside, really undermines our dipl diplomatic effort, because it ua" cf1 o fails to bring themil to the table. wefrf work wor with our law enforcementt(r pa partners as well as posts across the region,e1 on everything that north korea mightht be doing across the economicac and diplomatic spaces, asñrfá you indicate..indica we should note that what they'rer doing comes in the formok of ht outright counterfeiting comes in t inxdhe the form of cyber theft, ly a really across thecros globe. and not in just the region.egion.lém t we're certainly in coordinó4%on with law cement enforcement, and the rest of a the gov government onernm those issues, but
2:13 pm
they're actually in the lead in the there. >>th how effective are sanctionst( right now? >> well, speaking, really just to the illicit transfer of oil, theire1 imports of refined oil at po sea arerts o about a third less than rd before the sackse1 regime began. it is very difficult to figure out what impact that those, thatact that sanctions enforcement re fweem isñr regime is having because it is owe opaque in north korea, what are they ku)jr' strategy in reserve, how they distribute it around the theater, excuse me, around the peninsula, me and how itt affects kgu's decision making overall. >> an areae1 that wee1 do not focus enough on arere the threatsg associated with weapons proliferation particularly in s sho regards to north korea. reports show thatlp north korea has exported conventional arms and ballistic missiles for
2:14 pm
decades. and has proliferated these arms to countries like syria, which t!ujutáháq)io5)á threat to ourok reats international security. admiral davidson, as best as you can, in this unclassified setting you can provide us withdavi better situation awareness on situa this issue? tw two, are there concerns that north korea is proliferating nuclear nuclear materials? and three,d how can we do better to address thisxd >>n? it's well known, i think, across the united states, and nd o our allies that north korea hasg÷z't&ong been a proliferator of rato nuclear andr ballistic missile missi capabilities around the globe.e1 that's i think part and parcel !:ly s really say the basisay t e1 of why o we're going after denucleatzvr'g the peninsula, because they are no nottq a reliable country ont( the and it causes instability ine1qe1 areas that, that we don't want
2:15 pm
toñi see.e. i think to getet to more details, i would like to rather take that into a that into a classified setting mr if chi. >> thank you. mr. chair, i yield back. myr, i time. >> thank you very much mr. thank chairman. thank you, gentlemen. i wanted to follow up on the yo line of questioning we had, the discussion with our relationship with the allies and ourok importance of that, in thee1 and our indo-pacific region and specifically admiral davidson, you talked about in the fall of last year, weñi really started 6/aat. and i applaud that, i think to that's great. j i wanted to just mention that rch 1 march 133 the b-52 bomber, oure1e1 b-52s conducted routine trainingtine in the south china sea for the second time this month. mon and i thinkth that's very, very y important, foror the freedom of navigation operations thatw that have in the region but it appears that many of our allies in the pacific are reluctant to conduct the samew3 type ofó[w3 freelddom
2:16 pm
of navigationw3 activities so i deri was wondering yourng y thoughts on that and can we expect to see our allies and partners support rt this effort in the future? >> if i could, ma'am, the bomber patrols that we use really around theñáát of the region n and not justot in the south chinae1 sea are to maintain our readiness and to understand howow others respond in the region. don't we don't actually use them for freedom off navigation operations. >> ions.okay. >>w3 those are training missions, they' and how they're emplo=ey to the point about maritime ut forcesi]çó doing freedom and navigation operations though, we have encouraged all nations ions really, to step up their op operations in the south china hitj?j na and ifuá they're not capable able of taking a policy decision to actually do the very assertkow3 ivetions we freedom and navigation operations we, do we do themw3 more assertively across the globe, and always have in theó[ united states, to enforce these international rig$s.ese i if other countries aren't aren' willing to do that,e1 we're perfectly happy to see them operateñi in the international sea
2:17 pm
space that isñi the south china sea. itxd demonstrates that it is an international concern, to4r r(tf o maintain that open,t free, andok excuse me open sea and air ertain space, and certainly, and we welcome people to do it s wit unilaterally as well as with us h and in otherok multilateral forms. wan "i&dy, you got anything you want tot add?d?>> i >> i would agree with all of that and i would just add, given the expansive nature of o6kchina's claim, the entire, everything inside the nine dash line, presenceokok operations are valuable in and of themselves even if it of is not a direct 12ok nautical dm claim by anyiral party and presence said as admiral davidson said is extraordinarily important given the nature of their claim. >> as far as the partnerships have go we have several compacts set to expire in the coming years like compact free association suj _r impacts!u our mpac relationshipts o with them, you know, economically, diplomatic
2:18 pm
and militarily, so can you ex pabd on then the importance of these agreements and whether we should continue to fund them or should we let them expire? >> we look>> w forward to workingu f with congress in the hopes of to f continuing to fund them, based on the needs. over time, it is our hope that that the requirements will be less, les given the. ráupáes of their eco economic development. ac fornono the foreseeable future, we think ñ there will be need, and the compact relationship is mutuallye1 beneficial. we do make certain pledges with respect to their defense, but we alsoso gain access weg support, support, international forra, thatt we have a special the relationship with these compact states that we want to extend. . >> admiral? >> if i could just addfá madam, those three compact states or the conne"lñ tive tissuexd etween ween t the united stateshe and the western pacific we fought and bled in those lands, during war world war ii, and thet( tha relationship that we'vet w ained in this compact i think think it is important toe1 maintain that going well into that
2:19 pm
the g >> i want to mention japan a just a little fábit, had an n opportunity to travel there, o lastthe1 year as well as south and, y korea, there has been a period o off heightened tension between orea a south korea and japan, and i know it goesi back a long ways lon so i was wondering, can you kindan of give an update on that relationship and thee1 efforts thatdate o the department is doing to undertake to try to bridge this ivide?re25 >> ifáqqhr(t&há commentedhp &hc% a little bit earlier, congresswoman, about the the enforcement coordination cell inorcement utuska which we're using to enforce u.n. sanctions against north korea and are japanese and korean officers are sitting side by side rightuarter in s that headquarters with united states officer and in fact other officers e1enlisted from allies and partners from across thee1 regionm and t(indeed across the globe. i think that's a verye. positive sign. because it's providing the t transparency and the col collaboration ande1 cooperation of
2:20 pm
what the sea and air forces are doing in that sanctions regimiññsa toncti each party. i can tell you, i talkedñr extensively,q with both the cheap of defense, from korea, andçó the chief of defense in japan, about least t at least the military incidents that had occurred earlier thisccurred ar and year, and things seemed to be >> >>e1 thank you veryó01 much. tha >> mr. chairman, i like the way you enfk youhe thank you very much for your courtesy of callinge1 on me and my the rules. colleagues. >> there is purpose here,es. so i >> appreciate that thank you. apo >>lo my apologies to my colleagues for jumping in front oflp them. mr. shriver, we have had ae1 discus discussion about theof ofmfluence chinafá throughout the pacific,what particularly pacific islands. what is the bestt way for the united states to be present, to elf pand or at least maintain n our our position?i
2:21 pm
i noted the admiral just talked, admiral davidson just talkedxd about the history back in world n war ii, and beyond, so if you could elaborate on that. on not just with the pacific islands but beyond, in the i entire region, let's leave indiaor aside for just a moment, butxd the others thank you. >> well, i ithank think our engagement t is very importan4kñu)u$ respect to the pacific islands, bothe1 admi admiral davidson and i have ledñi i h inter-agency delegations there within the last sixt( months. but it is really providing an t's alternative that's whole of government, as was mentioned earlier, some of thesee1 countries don't have militaries, this very law enforcement entities, so we ave bring our coast guard in, we coa bring ourst agencies in to really createe1 approaches that meet their needs, whichxdxd are very significant. illegal fishing.g. criminal activity. fishing et cetera. so we have tt3 fashion approaches that meet their needse1 and app provide anro alternative to what alt china or any otheri] country mighter
2:22 pm
or provide. !s" i'd also add that we have like-minded partners that are lookingrat oceana, austragram its lia hasstep-up program, new zealand has its wre-set, we are alle1 looking to do better, and with respect to broader approves in thehe region, i think it's the same. there is s isblowback from how china is approaching some %l these relationships in the death trap diplomacy, predatory economics, but we've got to be there as well a alternatives and i think a demand signal is there and we nal are doing our best to meet that that demand signal withe1 quality engagement and meaningful engagement that meets their ts interests and needs. nd >> admiral davidson would you davids likeon to add anything toq that?t >> just one more specific thing, we have undertake be an initiative to lookwe at our defense attaches whereok they're pocked, particulart28w3 across the ction t pacific island chain and taken network near term action to expand that network immediately. >> i completely agree with allñi ould of mr.çó shriver's comments. >> i would like todown drill down but not in the next two minutgaxe1
2:23 pm
what on what specific things we should beshould w3 doing. and why " 't we take another minute or so and then maybe i have a follow-upt( question but let's get down to specifics. what is it? it's military attaches what s. about the rest of the jf of the government the whole of government? mr. shriver? u would if you'd like to do it.. or admiral, jumpmp xd in.. well, as i mentioned, whole of government, bringing in oure1 coast guard, whether military, they have ship writer agreements that a with. so countries that assistñi them ine1 wat monitoring their sovereign of territorial waters for the fish purposes of preventing illegal rd sta fishery other criminal activity. i we have nationaln guard state partnership programs in place isl where thereçóand are pacific islands that are militaries, we just to expanded that to include fiji o through the state of nevada, there are a number of tools that the gook just beyond the>dengame the that presence of attaches, and we're to working to build thoserout. our foreign military financing
2:24 pm
with state department, has been stepped up in the region, fiji would be an example of that as well where we're helping with their peacekeeping forces. >> well, was kind ofof chumming çó f the for you peq$urá )jz the peace corps and return of the peace corps to the micronesia i will just mention it myself.nmen it a will draw my colleague's attention to the whole of esid government and inent' whole the president's government with the whole of government with thee1 exception of the military isñi ore, our significantly reduce and therefore our presence beyond th the military iseñi i'll let it go at that. than thank you very much mr.w3 >> chairman. >> admiral, i want toiral thñ thank you for for mentioning communist china and their use of one belt one use road in latin america and the ca western hemisphere in our backyard,xa backyard. i think it's interesting that vietnam asked m a orsk allowed us, asked orxd'c allowed to whichever way we want to5it us to us to park the carl vincent+ rig
2:25 pm
right there, and i think that's if you wanted proof that you can't trust communist china, eve their neighbors don't trust communist china and their5a s movement into the western hemisphere concerns me. we're not here to talkçóçó about tal thatk a a çó today. thi butnk i don't think we as a are enough the united states pay enough 8% )jrin our backyard in the western hemisphere and i'm afraid one day5a we're going to wake up one day and day and have a rn chinese base5a in that western we hemisphere and that's something that i don't think we can afford to allow. t so with thatj1said, assistant secretary shriver, as communist china continues to grow v physically and virtually around the world, what impacts is this havinghavi on the united states ability toto strengthene1 our partnerships in the indo-pacificw3 region, are we at risk of5a losing our partnerships because of comm communist china and theirun use of one one belt one road to buy their way way into favor? >> quite frankly, i think we're
2:26 pm
more often than nottq w preferrede're partner.. i think a lot off chinese se engagement has resulted in a backla backlash, because their intent is notot benign. theye1 come in with the goal of entrap entrapping countriespi in many instances. when we go in we wanti] genuine partnership. we want to helpe1 countries ??p8q)ess their needs. all we really want is countries to be sovereign and have the act to protect that sovereignty, and theirçó independencet( and freedoms for maneuver. so i think we're the preferred partnerr but we've got to show up and got5a to be a good reliablea5 i partner to them. w >>xith in that the and the things li]qi relations quite hobtsly, in many incases, have as much if not more to do with peace than the military strength. and i think it is unfortunate that when the tpp was being discussed, it became a political football that got kicked around und by bothe1 sides, quitefá honestly, and we need to havm the trade
2:27 pm
relationships in asia, and we ed tra need trade relationships with countries other than china, ande1 asia. general abram, you've stated te thatd you have a persistent need or for isr. k i know of no commander who thin thinks that they h!5r enoughxdñr isr. the gee graphic challenges of the korean penshallenge lark the size of it and so in your first 120 days asfá commander, your support with isr,fá tot(çó detect attack as early as possible, are you port t receiving enough support there?het, and if not, what do you need from congress as congres we pushqe1 forward with 4rh national defense o do that? >> >> congressman, we are adequately resourced with isr, during armistice conditions, as as itt( it relates to the current reduction intentions on the peninsula. so i wantnt to xex clear one1 th#ly
2:28 pm
not i'm note1 ringing a five alarm fire bell right now on bel but as we look to the future, as co conr changecy negatively, then our nd stance and ourt( posture is not adequate to provideñi us ane1 unblinking eye to give ust( early ear warning andly indicators. e and i'd give you a couple of ity examples during the closed session of exact capability that need but suffice it to say we're short to be able to do that, if things start to turn turn bad. >> well, i am i willl tell you the robbins air force base, i'm glad that we're starting to do the depth of maintenance work at fo robbins avgs, and hopefully we t can getha that turned around e shortly and get more of those o j planes in the air.ust i just want to leave you with at( couple of things.
2:29 pm
ie1 mentioned this to the secretaryce of the air force this morning. hurricane michael hit the the rn uni southeastern united stateste just under six months ago. we have approximately three not fly okin, fly out days, before we leave forleave the easter break and we have yetehwo have a disaster bill passed. tha if that is nott passed before we leave fore1 easter, then it will b potent/!1 even anotherpo month. i hopeñi d.o.d. will help hold our feet to the fire to get that done prior to leaving and i would m mention to you that you are about six months fromu sequester. >> the gentleman'ss time hast( expi expired. if you want h to wrap upe that thought, he is moree than welcomewelcom to. >> i would just caution you thatdar the calendar is ticking.. and we need e1 some type of ä@dreement on a cats deal, i i thinknk the chairman would agree with me on that, sooner rather dopt than later so we can adopt our >>
2:30 pm
national defense i authorization as you >> i would echo thate1 thought.fy as you mentioned in the offset ctober having fy xd'19, october 1youñi wer knew how much moneyhp7 you wo/zi going too have, you were good to go and that was the first time in i don't know how long and to get that again for fy '20, would be enormously important, and i think it is the greatest burden in congress and the white househe we need to find a way to work together and get thatat deal. i think it's there to be made.fá obsessing over the budgetfáe1 caps aps that were set back in 20gqr inw3 aation situation where i mean mr. mean turner and i had a robust disagreement exactly what that hat tha situation was, but we did agree toda today, that it was all part of tryin the controversy of trying tog wha figure out what to do about the budget. the debtñr ceiling and how do we nd how get the deficit and the debt nd deb under control. but to jeopardize the entire discretionary budget over an amount of money that isn't going to have any impact on our long-term deb 29 deficitw3 is the height of irresponsibility to my mind.ity we need to work together. and certainly for d.o.d., but nd for the entire discretionary budget. so i appreciate the genflgman bud
2:31 pm
making that w3qpoint. >> thank you. ms. willhan? tha >> thank you. i'm going to and thank you, ou gentlemen, for coming today, and for testifying, i'm going to continue asking the q]vtion that our representative larson and and mr., representative sisneros a were talking about.nd i also serve on the foreign affairs committee, and the asia subcommittee and i had ok the mr. opportunity to ask the same d kinds of questions of victor chao recently that had to do ave with the exercises conducted overseas that have been % suspended ind in s some cases and i'm to answer.angulate you mentioned that you had been been asked to be creative about e effectively redesigning, reimagining the exercises so that they coulde1 be effective. he mentioned that he was conce concernedo6k thate1 if those reimagined exercises continued in the capacity that they were, which was in some casesw3 not actually in the places they ought to bein some that by the o springtime, he would be anxious that we should be returning to actually exercising in the uld places thatbe r we plane1 to have those scenarios actually unfold.arios
2:32 pm
4, of concern where as if we, if we m5itju)áut to sort of exerciseçó xercise off-site for lack of a better e1 o descriptor, which isokçó how hee1 was ripter alluding to it that we are in some ways less ready than we would have been otherwise? >> w3congresswoman, i did read those those comments, and i've got theok utmost respect for mr. chao, but he's not fully read-in, on how on we conducted these exercises. i i prefer to, i'm happy to give the members allll the e1details you want on things that we have done, with the exercise design, but i want to assure you and allssure the çn ember,t( this exercise was, members, this exercise was pró!bly morw?] rigorous, more challenging, and stressed our systems more appropriately than we we hauq in h many years past. i'd prefer to go into how we were able to do that in a closed
2:33 pm
session.n. bututse the5a department ise1ok committed, i knowowi theok secretary of defense is committed, to us being able to sustain that readiness and rain continue to train and exercise as we need to, to keep it as a look forward to >> thank you. and i will look forward to having that conversation in theñi next session. my next question is for mr. . shriver -to the bases that are little bit to do with the bases d that arejibo currently in djibouti and if you could look at kind of at the map of the area that about i we're talking about today, and think about if there are any countr vulnerable countries that you f can think of that are maybe, well maybe succumb to the lure of china and their money and their their resources, could you identify what countries those ountries are, that you would be maybe+++#af type situation? >> before naming specific countries i think it's important to note it's i that china's opportunistic, wherever they see op theport conditions, and fáqgenerally,
2:34 pm
theyeneral are weaker, in some cases authoritarian states, vulnerable economies et cetera where ics h they're predatory economics have attacks.k what we attempts in places like sri lanka and the e1maldives and malaysia were somewhat row bust ct andions malle1 xddives,amin lost the election, in sri lanka, they were replacedre at least temporarily and in malaysia, we ç 3ow have mr. okmahatear in the second term as leader, and much i of that as a result of china's th overplaying their hands. certainly in the pacific islands, wexd see some vulnerable states that china is approaching and there has vuln been some press coverage on some of those for as examplefá vanuatu and i have visited and the administration has visited tofá assure them there areqw3 alternatives and shine a lig lighthtn&oe1xd on what has happened
2:35 pm
in some of these other countries so they don't fall prey to it. >> i have one last question which has to do with that ande1 i think that people do q mnute w say thathi china is more successful in developing economic security and security relationships with countries because it doesn't have the sameries kind of regulatory requirements and restrictions as we do in terms of human rights uire and vettinglyw(t d anti--corruption requirements s and and those sorts of things and youq mentioned that our values t compete well in this area. and so iiar wanted to ask you do o a you believesk that countries choose china over us because of these requirements? or that we have, or do you think that we are able to continue to to have our values and also be v4a=5a %q%ytitive in the that we're in right now? >> iq think as admiralxl3 davidson ino think alluded tow? earlier, our values are key to our ability to com compete and there is anc an attraction to it.. i think the countries that aree1 most susceptible often times have weak authoritarian governments that are willing to engage if1 activities that are quite frankly corrupt but what what
2:36 pm
we offer even if it is not in the vast sums that chinañi can come to the table with is clean, transparent, open approaches pp that have roachelong-term benefitsçóxd to ef the itpeople, not just the t a leadersh) w >> i agree with thatt(e1 thanks to muchor y for yourour time. i yield back. t >>hank thank you mr. brooks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral davidson, intelligence suggests china has made strong chi progress ine1 the development of hyper sonic weapons that pose unique challenges to america's current missile defensew3 systems. my first question, do you have at about judgment about whether china is na apt to use hyperç sonic weapons in a regional or strategic scenario? >> sir, they don't have the capability that they would use, ha iw3t t think, inhe combat immediately, diatel but their initial capó"%lity, i think is in the horizon of justt the next few isyears, yes. >> with respect then to china's expected eca%1%q% 1%uz you ou planning forq them to have conventional tipr
2:37 pm
nuclear tip warheads, or both? >> i think the nation needs to at beion prepared for any outcomet( there. both. >> and what are our cu.q/euw3 hyp hypersonic def"@w; capabilities? >> well, as youñi indicated in the preface to your question,dsir, si our r,ability, of our integrated airxd and missile defense systems to handle hyper sonics, is short s of the capability. they have a different flight profileñi trajectory, that makes it hard for current sensing systems to maintain track on those things, and it makes it t m hard for our current interception systems to actually make the turn and do the ts. intercepts. so continued advancement here byby ã=h=h department and i thinkfáe1 oing you're going to see, be pleased with with the down payment int(e1 the fy-20lp budget.ere i continued advancement here in sensing which isxd going to require an n9'=i9or space layer, as well as continued co advancement in our abilitye1 to
2:38 pm
intercept these weapons, defeat them, i thinkçó you're going to o we see that, theapon beginnings of that y in the t('20 budget. >> how long do you anticipate iticipate it will be before our defense capabilities are such that we can rely on them? >> sir i'll have to take that for the record.oney money is a resource here that ist is a factor. but so isw3 time. i and i think dr. griffin and as the services pursue this capability, i think they can give you a more fine answer thann i would buti need i needjs5 coordination with them tor back to you. >> that>> flows into my next question. how muchhques more moneytiçó do you believe we need in the next fiscalfá year, defense budget in order to adequately accelerate defense capabilities to hyper sonicweapon weapons?3"yrñ sir if i could take that t question down below, ie1ñiyou could o h begin to address that but i'm going to have take that for the record as well. . >> we move moved now from defense
2:39 pm
now to offense.fens assistant secretary shriver, the missile defensese review opens the aperture for hypersonic glide defense. what investments are necessary gl to getides thexd department of defense developing such a capability for the indo-pace1 com area of responsibility, and then follow res up on that with, in your judgment, how long will it be before america has an effective ef offensiveok hypersonicw3 capability? >> i can only answer at the very i general level. there areçó parts of the department that deal with both o the offensef the aof the defense equation.ense but i do think you will see this reflected in the 2020 budget, anbudg increase in resources both on bot the defense and offense side. i do think time is of the essence, givenok where china and competitors may be on this. of course it's not limited to hyperimited sonics but as was pointed poi
2:40 pm
out all of the enabling sensorsen and other capabilities that china is pursuing as well, as because there's a variety of e a ways to deal with thisçó abilit capability, and it may not only y be shooting down a missile. it may be disabling other aspects of theirw3e1 infrastructure, but to get into more detail it would probably need to be an another setting and i would probably need to haveuu colleagues support of colleagues who have more of a technical background. >> too a use a football analogy,b. sometimes the best defense is a good offense. do nse. you have anything that you wish to have about our development of offensiverilit capabilities, offensive hypersonic capabilities? >> only that i know only it' it has been ifie identified as a priority andd a it sri isority being resourced at greater áa1 m greater levels in our >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield >>ñik. thank you, mr. and thank you all for being here and for your service. admiral çódavidson, north korea has has a variety of3w sources of funding ando+háhe u.s. enforcement
2:41 pm
of u.n. security resolution sanctions the u.n. sanctionses and i know ns you spoke a few minutes ago about sanction+oñ enforcementçó but ing can youok speak to howe1 china and russia are living up to their responsibilities to do the same?ell, >> well, think of the diplomatic space both russia and china have continued to try to undermine the sanctions effort t by 8rt(osing relief to sanctionss7 at the u.n. but that's certainly not helpful i in what i think should be the tive world's objective to get to a denuclearized north korea.orea i also believe that russia kind russia kind of confounds our across the region by direct plom diplomatic engames with other countries. to garner the votes thatount they need to prevent these sanctions. i can tell you that china in the maritime space using terrestrialrial sensors and airborne sensors they're watching how we do thefá sanctions enforcement regime. they're offering zero
2:42 pm
assistance. i can't sayyas that theyjf aref3.s preventing our ships and and aircraft from doing theirt( t mission, but they're certainly not not monitoring their own territorial seas very well.nd and they're not adding to the picture atpicture all. i they'm continue, i'm sorry, they undermin continue to undermine the effort at the u.n. as well. a >>t thank you. so i guess along those same li lines, you spoke earlier about how russia plays a spoiler role in the region.xd can you talk a little bit more e about the specifics around that, and what that entails? >> there's a one of the things that they tell othere1 nations in tion thes i region is that our sea and s our desire to maintain an open n sea and air space in the south china sea for example should notvpbe our objective, yet they use that same sea and air space themselves, and actually usemf%e open seas and airways to fly threatening bomber profiles to our allies, and in fact on the uni
2:43 pm
united states as well. i think that'ss a high form of hypocrisy. they're doing some engames in the region where they're seekingng to gain access in a commercial in a science fashion to lend that could lend itselffáq to capab military capabilities. that's been upsetting.hese the good news there is some of t cal these other countries havele called us andfriju)t)q" us of that. and@uétk have made it, they have partnered with china, in ae1 large exercise, last fall,e1 that was in russia, and they just w2c w3e1 unhelpful in the whole of the diplomatic informational and economic space. >> do you have anything to add on that? front? >> congresswoman, i will tell tel youl that there is, we continue it to see positiveive effects on the sanctions general davidson on b briefed earlier but reiterate what the admiral said, the chi
2:44 pm
chinese can and should do much, muchch more to meet their obligations in accordance with the u.n. s%j$sity council resolutions. >> so what do you think this all kind of boils down to? what do you think the general effect is having, and what do we need to do about abo it?from from your end? >> well china is tay arettemptingnal to undermine the rules based international order to their own benefit or to the benefit of people or entities or regimes frankly that they seek to rtne partner with. it's not it'sxd helpful. >> same thing for russia? so along those lines, then then we've had,w3 we've made, the e -- president has made the decision to cancel u.s. participation in key resolve and full eagle. what message do you think ending those operational norms with thes say rok the white house says we on
2:45 pm
will not pose further sanctions on north koreaip with because of his essa relationship withge kim jong-un, ge what message do you think that to sends to our allies and partnerss in asia and toxd russia and china selv themselves? >> congresswoman, if i >>could, just i to be3w precise, and this is not semantics, key resolve and full legal weree a not canceled. we have concluded that exercise regime that was in effect for aboutpñi 35 years. that was prob fly ñinecessary, d'(signed, optimized, based on e the situation on the peninsulañr vis-a-vis bell cos, and belli aggressive and provocative behavior from the dprk we have since transitioned now from guidance from secretaryfá shanahan and the republic of core and their statement, so we have of concluded that previous exercise regime, and they have given us thee green light to develop a new set of exercise regimes so we can continue to meet and maintain our readiness
2:46 pm
requirements. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. c andhair i believe it was chairman smi smiththw3çó who said during his opening statement that on the korean peninsula, we are at a ean high water mark since the ma cessation of conflict during the korean war.g i t wanted to givehe general abramsq and admiral davidson an opportunity to reflect on how those improving conditions have manifested, whatj !s the evidencee that we see, and what do we expect from the trend lines as it relates to the overall status of conflict on the the korean peninsula. >> congrecongressman, if you go back just twoq years to ñi201, during the height of missile tests sts nuclear weapons tests by the zdprk, and i was not the commander then but i was as certainly watching very closely as the u.s.t( armies force provider, to have forces ready should crisise1 be required i requir would characterize our posture c and ourha stance ise1 we were in a
2:47 pm
low crouch. we were increasing our reas stockages, increasing our force incr poqfái:uz made the decision to d deploy anq additional very capable integrated air missile defense system calledçó thad, and you knowy ñi things were very tense on the peninsula. people were at the low ready. now,now, compare and cjf contrast w3that, jux to pose on to 2019, andok there is a palpable air of calm, cal on them peninsula. we are penin able to sustain and we co continue to train and maintain m ouraint readiness, but ltan simultaneously, along theq demilitarized zone, on the west sea, the east sea, along the northern limit line inside the li joint security area, that for the first time since 1976, the joint security area is now 100% demilitarized. all of that are evidence i would i say of how we, i can say things have
2:48 pm
-- the the tension is reduced significantly. >> admiral davidson do you have anything to add to that?? >> no sir but i wille1 a'>bq!q the the readiness of ourok forces are key in our mind and we want to make sure that both the tactical forces and thej@ q%nal levelokevel forces, the headquarters,ra t( coordinate between the united states, and the republic of ted st korea, all that training and publ readiness is sound. as general abrams indicatedzv earlier, we're keeping a close e're eye keepi on any cham"5)jz the capability set, whether it is inenti conventional forceóú$n north n korea, whetherorth it's in nuclear the potential for a nuclear test, and missile testing and we'll beb+ +háo respond. it should -- should those indicators say they're on a differentt trajectory than what general abrams just described. >> and mr.r.abra shriver, it seems to me that this new to era of calm has been ushered in by an een unprecedented.écuju jt
2:49 pm
engagement with the administration on the actors, the players, the chairman of north korea. have w youith th drawn any conclusions about the actions that have been taken by the administration, and the extent to which they have contributed to the new sense of calm that general abrams articulated? >> well if think the unprecedented step of meeting l#!i too leader has made this environment whatjf it is. is. ultimately -- >> what it is is safer, right? safer, right?sions tensions are down. and i woulddo describe it as safere1 in $u;> i'm not sure i am qualified
2:50 pm
to give a answer and we're nse looking at the defense and offensive side to make sure oure1 competitive advantages are :m,a5%9q%99 >>@$r consequences withmer behind china in hypersonics going forward, how do you think that impacts the balance of power globally? >> increased risk and greater vulnerability for our ability to impact our security interests and our broad interests in the endo pacific. >> thank you, mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank >>you, mr. chairman. i'd like to start with general abrams. general abrams thank you very much foror coming into my office yesterday. i appreciated the discussion. and ior just want to start by saying that when your commander, ourwa commander in chief handed you a deck that meant that you could not continue your prime exercises in this theater i learned yesterday that l you innovated remarkably and have improved upon the existing the old exercises to modern size
2:51 pm
them --m modernize to make them full spectrum. i know that's not easy to do in the u.s. military and i appreciate that very much. admirable davidson you stated inn your testimony that north korea will remain the most immediate challenge until we achieve the final fully verifiable denuclearization -- at the summitec in june of 2018. so we gave up the exercises. what did we gain from the summit? >> i think we gained an opportunity to engage in a way that could be productive if north korea's prepared to take the difficult steps in the direction of denuclearization. >> that's an opportunity to didn't exist before. >> i thinknkha leader-to-leader engagement did create opportunities. north korea has not taken the
2:52 pm
steps and we're disappointed they haven't comeir to the table in a serious manner. >> are you surprised? >> a having worked on this in some form or another for almost 30 years i think i've seen a lot oflm different approaches. a none of which have been ch successful. i think this is the best opportunity that north korea will ever i have whether or not they make the strategic choice that's difficult to say. >> why would they give up their nuclear weapons, mr. schriver? >> i think there's a better path andan better future for the country, quite frankly. i don't think the weapons are making them more secure. we're at a period of high tensions and possibleer military action. i don't think these weapons arend making them more safe and ns secure. >> so a you talked about this the fact that tensions are down you said. my colleague just said there's a new level of calm. have tensions ever been higher than they werer at the beginning of a this administration when north korea's hot headed leader wasr exchanging tweets with ours? >> we have had periods of
2:53 pm
heightened tension, i think 1994 secretary perry used to say that's the closest he came to war while he was secretary of defense. >> while he was secretary. has it ever been as dangerous as it was a couple years ago? i guess my point is that it's one thing to talk about tensions being down. if you're just solving your own problem, you know the tensionsiffi that you created yourself and as a result we are where we were before in terms of negotiations this that north korea hasn't given upio anything we now know from public intelligence reports that they are actually continuing their nuclear weapons development so they are farther along than they were at anylo time literally they are farther along than they have been at any time in americann history and all we gained after giving up our exercises is a quote/unquote opportunity that nobody isis surprised that the chairman hasn'tt taken. where do you think this goes next? and what diplomatic leverage do we have at this point? >> thent choice for north korea is c very clear and it's a stark one. they can continue to live in
2:54 pm
isolation. they can continue -- >> i understand their at choice. what leverage do we have? >> well the maintenance of sanctions, i think, continues to put pressure on north korea. >> so you think sanctions are>> helpful?re >> i do. >> so why did the president just cancel the latest sanctions? >> as i understand it none of the sanctions have been removed or changed since the tweet as the white house -- >> since the so you would disagree with the idea of removing sanctions, that would be unhelpful?fu >> i think it's helpful to maintain pressure. the decisions on future sanctions are beyond my purview. >> doing pressure by tweet would not be helpful. i wanted to shift focus for a second to india. you previously mentioned how important our relationship is with india. how does india's recent h purchasing of the s-400 and the leasing of russian nuclear submarines impact our relationship going forward? >> the decision to procure
2:55 pm
s-400s has not gone to contract oror completed. we are keen to see them make an alternative a choice. we're working with them to provide potential alternatives. i think it would be an unfortunate decision if they chose to pursue that and of coursese we have the legislation hanging overn all of that. the legislation is not designed to be an impediment in a growing strategic partnership we have. it's designed to impose cost on russia and consequence for russia. so one way or another we want to work through it because india is ann important emerging strategic partneref for us. >> we're going to do the classified hearing athe 12:15. so we're going to be wrapped here before 12:15 no matter how many people are here and we're going tote go upstairs for the classified at 12:15. mr. banks. >> t admiral davidson in the past you p mentioned that endo pay come only has a quarter of the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities
2:56 pm
required to address the range of threats in the aor. for fy-19 the cno included sauna buoys on the p navy's -- a portion of the funding request again appears in thee upl. in looking at your command's requirements and the current andea foreseeable security environment would you also include assets like sauna buoys as a critical isr short fall especially in light of submarine activity in your aor? >> yes, sir, giving the ongoing expansion of chinese submarine operations in the pacific and the p endo pacific, as well as new capability that the russians will be introducing into the theater over the next couple years with the severed class cruise w missile, capable submarine, sensing like sauna buoys it's going up in value and need. >> thank you for that. shifting gears yesterday we had secretary shanahan in the same seat you're in today. i'm going to ask you the same question that i asked the secretary yesterday.
2:57 pm
even if every congress and president agree on the goal of a 355-ship fleet for decades to come we will not reach the desired goal ford at least -- i said 40 years yesterday without a firm commitment the secretary pushed back and said 18 years. i'll give the secretary 18 years on the low end and some experts say 40 years on the high end. inrs light of that what do you expect the balance of forces between theat u.s. and china to be by the time we achieve a 355-ship fleet and when do you believe it's realistic to achieve this goal? >> to your first question congressman, i think we're going to lose our quantitative edge in about the 2025 time frame. i think that's going to be a challenge for our equities in thee region absolutely. i can't comment on how much faster or slower the need needs
2:58 pm
to happen here. there are some shipbuilding limits. thee capacity in the united states to actually produce they ships. but i thinke the navy's four-structure assessment will n take that fully into account as they come forward later in the year with it. >> thank you for that.. mr. schriver, in your testimony you said "there's an active north korean effort to undermine sanctions and so political division in their execution. north korea has turned to the use of illicit ship to ship transfers off china's coast to evade caps on reporting refined petroleum and the sale of textiles and t coal. these restrictions were imposed and periodically strengthed -- lethal weapons dating back to march 2016." with that what is the logic of the trump administration considering lessening t sanctions on north koreap and rewarding north korea if they won't comply with the original sanctions to begin with? >> as i said i'm not aware that sanctions have beeny removed or changed. i think it's very important to
2:59 pm
keep pressure on and it's i think, a defensible statement we wouldn't be where we are today without the pressure that north korea has felt. your point about -- well quoting my statement about china we will not be successful unless china does more to enforce sanctions themselves including the activity in their territorial water, period. >>n good. on that same note admiral, you've talked about in the past about naming a and shaming those entities that sanctions of india and north korea. have we done that made any successful efforts at all to minimize sanctions of asian? > there have been a number of flag states that the united stateses has engaged and as well as other countries to sideline vesselsha that have been participating in theip elicit transfer of oil to north korea as well as some of the ownership companies and shippers involved.
3:00 pm
and i think the key is to disrupting that providing network asti we go forward. but there has been engagement at the diplomatic level to your point, naming and shaming ofng these individuals, and we have seenin robust action from other countries in that regard. >> so you have seen progress orou we hope to see progress? >> yes, sir, we have seen progress. >> you have seen progress. >> and. it will continue. >> thank you. with that i yield back.with >> thank you, gentlemen. i've heard a lot of questions and a lot of the a ones i was going too ask. i'm taking this a slightly er direction, if you would, i think congresswoman -- touched upon this talking about persian gulf ports and china's presence. a little bit outside your ao. but the national security strategy national defense strategy does talk about reorienting ourselves for competition to include china. a lot of people think of this in
3:01 pm
only military to military engagement. butge you often talk about the economic aspects of all of this. i was curious, we haven't really talked abouti afghanistan. i've been reading some reports aboutve china starting to have a little bit of military to military cooperation with afghan national government. we certainly know that their relationship in pakistan think about one road and the port that they'ree developing there, their ability toer drive into afghanistan, get into central asia and the gulf you know there's ports, and iran, i think the success of those ports, you know figures largely in that region. in security in gi afghanistan. sota it's kind of the back door to your just thought i'd give you an opportunity to talk about, as the u.s. talks in negotiations with taliban, talks about withdrawing, what kind of a footprint do you hope to see in afghanistan and what kind of a role how important it is to
3:02 pm
your area of responsibility that the u.s. is present and has a strong relationship with the afghanan government? >> i think it's critical. we are in afghanistan, first and foremost, to protect the united states and protect americans if ambassador kelly azad is successful in the efforts, it's expected there would still be some terrorist threat that would remain. it is our objective that throughbj those negotiations that we have the latitude to maintain a presence sufficient for that terrorist threat that may remain. post-reconciled environment we would expect theha afghans themselves to deal with the terroristea threat. they certainly don't want that on their territory, at least the government in kabul. it will be conditions based and i think that's beinghi reflected in our negotiations. >> sir, if i could just add quickly, i'd mentioned earlier
3:03 pm
that i think our u.s. values compete extraordinarily well and they do in afghanistan very much so. and when you look at china's what can only be said incarceration of more than what'sn t estimated to be right nowon i think a million and a half people in the -- i think afghanistan would view heavy chinese involvement in their country and chinese interests as a c chilling factor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i want to thank you you -both particularly your families for -- it's a team effort to serveve and thank you for yourrv years of service. i want to talk -- go back to india for a tomoment. i agree, i think it was the ranking member who said that's a seminal or perhaps the chairman
3:04 pm
really one of the seminal alliances, i think, moving forward. what more can we dord in our engagement with india and what more should we be doing, what more would you like to do and how can thisng body help? >> sir, the assigning of the conkasa and the two plus two meeting that the secretary of defense and secretary of state had last september in india is a breakthrough. in the t operation level we're workingwe to really operationalize -- t it's an agreement, i.t. essentially agreement underpinning that we can do information sharing and other things. there's an opportunity for us to share tactical flyaway kits and an operational planning system that i think will advance our relationship on a military to military level very very well. i continue to make the point with them that our -- our
3:05 pm
interoperableabilityoi and compatibility going forward will beo advantaged with the purchase of u.s. systems. that allows us to get to training doctrine tactical levelat coordination that's really powerful. so while they very much want to protect theirir non-aligned policy the tactical and technical capability we get out of like systems will really advance that relationship downl in the military t space. randy. >> yup. >> thank you. and just so on top of that switching to swspace, how does china's growing capability anti-sat dazzling their capabilities that they'reap essentially putting all over the globe in o terms of tracking through one belt one road and through their debt diplomacy, how is that affecting you operationally? i leave it open to anyone on the panel. >> it's a capability to development in the battle space
3:06 pm
that would have effecte on the freedomm of action of the entire joint force, not only in the endo pacific command but really around the globe. >> switching to china -- excuse me switching to japan, do you believe, mr. schriver it's time i understand this is an internal japanesee issue. it's a very contentious political issue in terms of article 9. we're taking a hard looking at cost sharing, growing chinese capabilities you just can't do it alone, we're looking at losing the quantitative edge in terms of our fleet as the admiral just mentioned by 2025. should we -- what can we do to talk to the japanese d about taking additional steps, tabing that hardse step internally and making those changes they need to their constitution to be a more effective military partner. >> well you rightfully acknowledge it's a sovereign decision of the government of de japan, and people there. i think the step to re -- >> but they have a responsibility as anav ally. this is a 70-year, you know
3:07 pm
construct now, and the world's changed. >> i think the step they took to reinterpret article 9 gave us greateric flexibility and latitude and we are taking advantage of that. their new t national defense program guidelines when compared with our national defense strategy revealed to us that there's nothing but open space for us to build this alliance out. i am not aware that the distinction between reinterpreting versus actually changing theio constitution is an impediment right now. if it were to bm one we would certainly raise that with our japanese friends. >> in the time i haveis remaining, admiral, how does the latin american angle in h terms of their -- the 17 snagssnations that you mentioned, participating signingni agreements one belt one road how is that affecting your force laydown or forced posture, is it significant, what do we do going forward? >> all those countries are
3:08 pm
actually in south com's area of responsibility. i talked to admiral faller last night to make sure i understood and he wanted to understand my concerns asla well. i think you're not seeing pro found military action in the south-co m aor right now. last year china -- >> i do understand they put a satellite tracking system in argentina on land lease so it's a road that -- it's a trend we're seeing. > and we've seen other, you know requests across the endo pacific aor. but the net result of which is the potential for more bases, placesia for china to operate out of base airplanes, fixed ships. >>ix gentleman's time has expired. we'll continue the discussion upstairs. ms. lorria and when he's done we're going topi reconvene. >> thank you for being here today, admiral davidson it's especiallyly to see you again.
3:09 pm
i spentai four years in the western pacific on theer destroyer. i'm familiar with theer area. what's most striking is the large distances that have to be covered.d. i want to focus today especially on our charges to do with logistics based off large distances in the papacific. and our current logistics enterprise is based on the ability to deliver fuelel parts supplies in an uncontested environment. i appreciate that you also see this as a vulnerability in your comments you provided in preparation for thehe hearing. while china continues to develop weapons such as the df-26, they've called it the guam killer which gives you an idea of the range and what they couldnt intend to use that for, that threaten our ability to deliver logistics from the fixed bases we've w relied on for more than 50 years, but we really haven't changed tactics or procedures with regards to logistics and practiced those recently such as console apps with taos in
3:10 pm
theater for about a a decade. do youou see logistics as an achilles heel in the pacific theater? >> certainly advancements with our logistics tactics, so to speak, is important going forward. we have donee some console ops here in the last fiveso years. we just concluded the pacific blitz exercise as well which merges essentially what was a tactical exercise and a xe logistics, both navy marine corpsma kpersexercises to exercise that capability. recapitalization of our sea lift system is o important. aging out and has propulsion plans that are expiring and capability and our ability i to maintain them. >> i was going to comment on that as well. we hadaw an opportunity to hear from admiral busby as maritime admin industry for. and we focus within the c-power subcommittee as well on the age of the c lift fleet and, you know on any given day, of say 50% of the c lift fleet were
3:11 pm
unavailable what kind of impact w0u8d that have? when we were briefed that was basically what was unavailable at a snapshot in time. what impact would that have on your most limiting o-plan and ann ability to carry that out within the theater? >> it's a risk to our troops and t all of our people that are forward in the aregion. if there is any delay in our ability to deliver the logistics in accordance with the t o plans. >> and going back to theth consult ops and the availability of tankers within the regionle currently in our msp program there are noin tankers whatsoever and do you see that as a need in order to execute your most pressing o plan? >> yes, ma'am, the military sea lift command is also exploiting commercial opportunities to do some of these things as well. >> and lastly many of our ships in the theater heavily rely on shore infrastructure such as in guam and different areas around the theater. are you takingsu any actions to harden that shorere infrastructure or provide additional defenses for itn to make sure that we can
3:12 pm
maintain the logistics necessary to carry out our two, you know principle "o" plans withinai the area? >> certainly there are defensive capabilities in guam i would like to see improved. we're using a mobile system right there now with fad on the ground as well as ship support from then threats that are there.he we need a more robust fixed site there so our mobile sites can be deployed for needs around the region. >> i'll wrap up by asking you thee same question i've asked all combatant commanders who've come before us on a different note what percentage of your requested carrier presence have you received within the theater over the last two years? >> about 70%. >>%. well thank you.'m and as on the last to go today i wanted to thank youou you all again foror taking the time to brief us and help us be more informed on a decision-making process throughout the budget making process thank you. >> thank you very much and thank you, gentlemen, appreciate your testimony answering
3:13 pm
questions. we'll reconvene in 2012 as soon as we can get up there.
3:14 pm
president trump holds a campaign rally in grand rapids michigan tonight starting 7:00 eastern. you can see that live on companion network c-span and also online at and listen with the free c-span radio app. this weekend former texas congressman beto o'rourke kicks off presidential campaign in el paso texas, live at 12:30 eastern on saturday on c-span also online at and you can listen with a free c-span radio app. sunday night, on q&a a biography of chief justice john roberts. >> john roberts controls however john roberts votes


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on