tv Senate Armed Services Committee on Presidents 2020 Defense Budget Request CSPAN March 23, 2019 1:48pm-4:18pm EDT
trump's veto of the congressional resolution that would terminate his national emergency declaration on border security. it is scheduled for tuesday. on thursday the house will vote on a measure rejecting the ban on transgender people serving openly in the military. when the house is in session you can watch live coverage here on c-span. when the senate returns to session next week, lawmakers will continue to debate on judicial nominations. later they will take out the support for the green new deal. when the senate is back in session, you can watch the chamber live on c-span two. patrick shanahan and join chief of chest airmen, general dunford, testified in front of the armed services committee in regards to the 2020 defense budget request. the pentagon is seeking a 5% increase in its budget.
[indistinct conversations] >> we will come to order. >> we are pleased to have patrick shanahan, general dunford, david, i enjoyed our breakfast together. and i think it's pretty outrageous that we can actually have an audit. but i'm glad you are in charge of it. i thank the panel for their distinguished service to the country. and please see the department of increase.quest
the amount is an increase of less than 3% of real growth. this manual represents the blueprint that we are following right now. we had a hearing on this. i think in all of the years i have been here, it was the most productive hearing we've had. republicansrats and try toto an agreement to perform this function. one of the things in this book that we all agreed to, and everyone who came to the hearings agreed to this, was to have an increase while pulling out of this period of time and rebuilding the military would be between 3% and 5% over inflation. 750 is less than 3% over inflation. i want to remind people of that.
we did not quite get to that point. the topline is only the part of the story. we must ensure that we are effectively spending the money. that's why i want to commend you, secretary norquest, for your hard work delivering an audit of the defense department this year. us audit should help identify areas that need more attention and would be morentable to spend properly. despite leadership changes at the department of defense, and the implementation of the national defense strategy, it should continue without pause. trump came to office, he charged the -- he believed the american military was in crisis while china and russia were rapidly modernizing and passing us in many areas. hasica's military advantage
eroded in several areas like long-range ground-based fire, cyberspace, electronic warfare, and air and missile defense. the commission of the national defense strategy, a bipartisan independent commission stated ", lightly, the u.s. military could lose the next state versus state war it fights." conclusion is that we need urgent change at a significant scale to address strategic competition with china and russia. i look forward to hearing what the urgent changes are and what our witnesses recommend. even the best prepared budget request will be meaningless at if we do not reach a budget agreement soon. the commission on the national defense strategy stated there must be "there must be greater urgency and seriousness in funding the national defense. without sufficient sustained and
predictable funding, the -- we squander the progress the military has made over the past two years." improved readiness, increased recruitment and critical capabilities and investment in future technology. i see no bigger imperative than this to reach a budget agreement immediately in order to fully fund defense and to fully fund defense and implement the national defense strategy. senator reid? sen. reed: thank you very much and let me welcome our witnesses. before we consider the detail of the defense department budget request, i would like to address some of the fiscal challenges. once again, we find ourselves in a situation all-too-familiar, debating how best to fund the government under caps required. there is bipartisan consensus that enforcing budget discipline through the bca and sequestration is ineffective and
shortsighted and that the bca caps for fiscal year 2020 will deprive us of resources needed to sufficiently meet the needs of our nation. last year, because we had passed the bipartisan budget act of 2018, we knew the permitted spending parameters and were able to mark up and pass the fiscal year 2019 defense authorization and appropriations bills before september 30. this gave the funding certainty that it had to lacked. i believe congress should pass another two-year budget leave to -- agreement to provide further relief and stability for budget planning. without such an agreement, we will face great difficulty in crafting a bipartisan authorization bill and will be hard-pressed to provide the defense department with another on-time appropriation. delay will likely lead to recurring continued resolutions that disrupt planning and , ironically, inhibit, and to the chairman's point, undermine
the sense of certainty that is probably worth billions of dollars in the budget. i would urge that we do that. today, we consider the fiscal year 2020 budget of the department of defense, which seeks $544.5 billion. to the base budget and 164.6 billion dollars in overseas contingencies. 97.9 billion is designated to pay for base requirements. in addition, there's another $9.2 billion requested for emergency funding. in the base budget request, the defense department highlights resources intended for advertised programs targeted for high-end fighting with competitors and operationalize the national defense strategy including investments to the states for cyber domains, in an large and -- larger purchases of aircraft, ships and increased development for unmanned systems, artificial intelligence, hypersonic and direct energy. the base budget request also supports a quality life of our service members by sustaining
family support initiatives and a authorizing a 3.1% pay raise, the largest in 10 years. however, it is clear that the base budget request will not cover all of the defense department's requirements so even the senate with particularly egregious misuse of the account i acknowledge both , congress and other administrations in the past have included elements of base funding and other accounts. but $97.9 billion of activities truly belong in the base budget just to avoid the threshold of the bca cap far exceeds any precedent and cannot be justified. ironically, last year the president's acting chief of staff called for a "transitional -- transition away to avoid using them as a gimmick. -- gimmick." . yet, this defense budget is a prime example of such abuse and undercuts the integrity of the entire request. i also highlight the section
1524 of the fy 18 defense organization act, direct the defense environment to update the guidelines that may be caused by ocio. i hope our witnesses have shed some light on when this will be done and what the details are for base request. i also have serious concerns with the $9.2 billion requested in emergency funding for unspecified military construction projects. $3.6 billion is to replenish funds for military projects that congress already authorized and appropriated to build a wall on the southern border. even if this funding is replenished, these could be delayed or canceled. i would also add that congress has not been yet given a written list of projects whose funding may be diverted. i'm interested if the witnesses can provide some information on that list. moreover, we are aware an additional $3.6 billion of emergency funding in the defense
department budget will be used to build more of a wall. projects that have not been identified in any way. it's a project that has not been identified in any way and arguably has no military ability. much of our witness testimony today describes the $750 billion for the national defense strategy but the strategy commission, as the chairman sites, noted that copperheads of -- comprehensive -- will require the whole of government and even the whole of the nation cooperation expending far beyond dod. diplomatic and other military will be critical so will adequate support for funding for those elements of power. with the state department and other agencies facing cuts in this budget request, i am interested to know if the defense department will truly be able to realize the national defense strategy. it is the duty of this committee to ensure the men and women descend into harm's way have the resources necessary to complete the mission and return home safely. if senate decides to modify the
budget caps for fy20 , we must do so in a manner that continues to provide funding for both defense and nondefense as we have done every other time we have adjusted the caps. i am proud that this committee has always worked in a bipartisan fashion during this process. i look for to working with all of the committees to come to a reasonable agreement again this year. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator reid. we will not have opening statements and your entire estate will be made a part of record, but if you could hone it down to 5 minutes, we have a full house and we want to get to questions by all members on both sides, so we will start with you, secretary shanahan. >> thank you, chairman. distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on support of the president's budget request for fiscal year 2020. i am joined by chairman of the
joint chiefs of staff, general dunnell joseph dunford, and the chief financial officer, mr. david norquist. during my time at the department of defense, i have engaged in discussions with many of you. in our conversations, there has been an enduring constant. that is the bipartisan nature of defense, proved by the sustained funding increases congress has provided over the last two years. on behalf of our military selfless patriots, thank you. it has been a privilege and honor to serve alongside the men and women of the department of defense. it was a pleasure to work with secretary mattis to craft the 2018 national defense strategy. released in january, 2018, that strategy laid the foundation for restoring military readiness and modernizing our joint force for an era of great power competition. i now oversee the continued
execution of our strategy, which is the undisputed driver of today's budget request. it was extremely helpful for the department to receive the authorization and appropriation bills on time and at the request -- requested top line last year. that is equally important this year as our competitors have not been complacent. china's defense spending approaches that of the united states when we can take into account purchasing power in the -- and the portion of budget going to military pay and benefits. that, coupled with china's organized approach to steal foreign technology, has allowed china to modernize its missile space and cyber capabilities, as well as project power far beyond its borders. russia, for its part, continues to compete asymmetrically with the united states. they are modernizing and developing its own missile space and cyber capabilities. simultaneously, north korea's nuclear weapons and missiles remain a pressing concern. iran's missile and cyber threats in a line of aggression across
the middle east and beyond threaten u.s. national interest. and we know it. -- know that violent extremist organizations like al qaeda and isis continue to format instability in vulnerable areas. we have seen marked progress in operations as we work by, with and through an expensive network of allies and partners across the globe. in syria, the 79 members defeat isis coalition has liberated virtually all of the territories isis once held. as the u.s. drawdown continues, we will maintain a presence to prevent isis resurgence. as part of a whole of government approach, we fully support iraq's fight against terrorism, and we continue to enable the iraqi security forces progress in securing liberated areas, thwarting isis's attempts to create a catalan us time
insurgency -- clandestine insurgency. u.s. and coalition forces are training, advising, if assisting afghans forces to apply pressure on the taliban. we support the ongoing negotiations. the best window for peace there in 40 years. and continue to stymie terroristic threats to our homeland. defeating al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, and isis, remains the top u.s. national security interest in yemen and at the same time, we fully support you in efforts to bring all relevant parties of the civil war to the negotiating table. the $750 billion top line for the national defense enables dod to maintain irregular warfare as a core competency. you have prioritized modernization and readiness to compete, deter and win in any possible in fight of the future. the budget is critical for continued execution of our strategy and reflects difficult but necessary choices that align finite resources with our strategic priorities.
to highlight some of those choices, this is the largest research development training and evaluation budget in 70 years. the budget includes double-digit increases to investments in space and cyber. modernization of the nuclear triad and defense abilities and our largest shipbuilding request in 20 years, when adjusted for inflation. it also increases our total and strength -- end strength by roughly 7700 for service members and provides a 3.1% pay increase to our military, the largest in a decade. now, to the specifics. the top line slates seminary $18 billion $718 billion for the department of defense which includes $545 billion for base funding and $164 billion for the overseas contingency operations.
of the overseas contingencies operations funds, 66 billion will go to direct war and enduring requirements, and 98 billion will fund base requirements. to round up the numbers, 9.2 billion will fund emergency construction. that includes an estimated 2 billion to rebuild facilities damaged by hurricanes florence and michael. up to 3.6 billion to support military construction projects that will award in fiscal year 2020, instead of fiscal year 2019. so we can resource border barrier projects under emergency declaration this year. and 3.6 billion in case additional emergency funding is needed at the border. military construction on the border will not come at the expense of our people, our readiness, or our modernization. i caution that no adversary can be as damaging to our military
readiness as budget instability. we built this budget to implement the national defense strategy. i look forward to working with you to ensure predictability, on-time funding, and our requested top line so our military can remain the most lethal, adaptable, and resilient fighting force in the world. i close with the words of william jennings bryant, etched into the walls of our capital, so we may never forget their meaning. "our government conceived in freedom and purchased with blood can be preserved only by constant vigilance." senators, i appreciate the critical role congress plays to ensure our forefighters can succeed on the battlefields of today and tomorrow. and i thank our service members, their families, and all of those in the department of defense for maintaining a constant vigilance as they stand, always ready, to protect freedoms. >> thank you, secretary
shanahan. general dunford. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join secretary shanahan and undersecretary norquist here today. it remains my privilege to represent your soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. much of the discussion this morning is going to focus on the challenges we face. it is important that i begin by assuring you that our armed forces can deter a military attack, defend the homeland, and effectively respond should deterrents fell. -- fail. i believe we have a competitive advantage against any potential adversary to define as the ability to fight and at the place of our choosing but as members of the committee no, 17 years of continuous combat and physical instability have affected our readiness and eroded our competitive advantage. as highlighted china and russia , have capitalized on our destruction and restraints by investing in capabilities specifically designed to challenge our traditional
sources of strength. after careful study, the deployed capabilities intended to contest our freedom of movement across all domains and to assurer ability power. with the help of congress, starting 2017 we began to restore our competitive advantage. recent budgets have allowed us to build readiness and invest in capabilities while meeting our operational commitments, but i think we all know we cannot reverse decades of erosion in a few years. this year's budget would allow us to continue restoring our competitive advantage by improving readiness and developing capabilities to enhance lethality. it proposes investments in advanced capabilities across all domains, sea, air, land, space and cyberspace. this year's budget also sustains investments in our nuclear enterprise to ensure a safe, secure and effective strategic deterrent, the highest a priority of the department of defense. we have also taken steps to more effectively employ the force we have today and build the force we have tomorrow.
we have implemented fundamental changes our global force management processes to prioritize and allocate resources in accordance with the national defense strategy, while building readiness and the flexibility to respond to unforeseen contingencies. we have also refined our processes for developing and designing our future force, a joint concept driven, threatened formed approach which leverages a wide body of analytical work will allow us to evaluate and prioritize war fighting requirements. this also enables us to prepare emerging technologies within innovative operating concepts. i would like to thank the committee for all you have done to support our men and women in uniform and their families. together we have honored our , solid obligations to never send our sons into an unfair fight, and with your support, we never will. >> thank you, general. what we will do is have a round of five-minute questions, and we
are very well attended this morning, so i ask people to keep it within their time. to kick it off, we talked about our blueprint that we are using. i would like to ask each witness a question about this. secretary shanahan, you said that the department of defense would realign the resources and the budget to implement this program. in order to do that, can you quickly run over any of the programs, systems or missions , that have been reduced or accelerated to accommodate this? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would highlight in this year's budget 3 major structural changes in terms of being able , to accelerate. the first is space. the space force itself is intended to accelerate, dramatically, our capabilities to defend. second, missiles, probably the -- missiles.
probably the best characterization is our effort on hypersonic. and third, a significant investment in cyber capabilities. when we think about reductions, i think the army is the best illustration of that in their modernization plans as they look to make reductions across their portfolio to about 100 different programs. >> i appreciate that. general dunford, the similar question. the national defense strategy commission listed several capability gaps, basically china and russia, such as as long-range fire, additional air defense units and others that i mentioned in my statement. which of these capabilities, capability gaps do you think the 2020 budget addresses? >> chairman, thank you. the budget actually addresses all of the challenges you identified, and what i can assure you is that the national defense strategy really has been the basis for our prioritization
for capability developments, so we did careful analysis of china and russia in particular, the capabilities developed over the last couple of years, limited our ability to operate freely in space, cyberspace, land, sea and air. and the capabilities we have identified in this year's budget are designed to allow us to project power when necessary interest in the con of an emergent threat to china and russia. >> i appreciate that. i am concerned about one other area, and neither one of you is personally been responsible for this, but i am disturbed by the idea that we are going to be taking the uss truman out of the system, and i wonder how this is going to work in sheer numbers. we have a law that says we have to maintain 11 carriers and we would also look at this and realize that 10 with equal -- what is necessary to conduct a
major war, and how do we get to the number we are supposed to have if we don't follow through with the midlife of the truman? recognizing that would take up to i think 2024, but, nonetheless, it is going to take longer depending upon the multiple divide we are talking about, particularly of a vehicle that still doesn't work and carry the ordinance. so what is your thought about that? how are we going to, number one, comply with the law that we have? in fact, mr. lundquist, you are into these issues as well, so to not follow through with our original plans with the harry truman. anybody? >> why don't i lead off. first of all, i think the truman decision represents some of the strategic choices we made in this year's budget. it was a very difficult decision
for us. crit carriers represent now and in the future critical force structure for the navy. the truman decision was made in concert, and integrated decision with our two carrier by and we -- carrier by. let me walk you through the benefits of the decision and the potential offramp so we do not find ourselves in a difficult situation. so the first is that within this decision of the two carrier buy and to not purchase and not to refuel the truman, our lethality of carriers and capability increases with the new carriers. the second is, until mid 20s, we maintained the level of 11 carriers. the third is, and part of the calculus here was to maintain employment -- in fact, with this decision we grow employment in the industrial base. we needed to make sure the
shipyards maintain their employment, but also the supply chain. and the last is that the funds that we freed up for making these decisions are invested in the future force. the decision for two carriers saves $4 billion, not refilling the truman saves $3.4 billion. >> okay, we are going to run out of time and i will set an example of not allowing us to run out of time, but i am still not happy with the results of that, and my mental numbers do not agree with that, and i think it is a very important to have that brought up before wicker gets here. [laughter] >> senator reid? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. mr. secretary, on february 18, you sent a letter to secretary nielsen stating that you had, in your words, "not yet decided whether to use section 2808 is
necessary," the section on the emergency that would authorize access to funds. you asked for the information of the secretary to include a list of construction projects that would improve, again, your words, "effectiveness and efficiency of dod personal". have you received a response yet? >> no, i have not. i expect it this week. >> again, in the context of something that is supposed to be an emergency, this seems to be a casual sort of approach to the issue. but besides that, at this point, then, you do not know what project they are requesting and whether or not those projects would be appropriate? >> if the projects we received are the updates with regards to
2019heir appropriations, they are for the expenditure of forfeiture and treasury funds. >> those are all programs that are automatic and are already through. i am talking about the 2808 which would not only require the emergency declaration but a judgment of their military utility. mr. chairman and general dunford, you have the obligation to advise the secretary on the military utility if they are being used. what criteria do you intend to use? >> the criteria i intend to use as looking carefully at the mission that our soldiers, sailors and marines have been assigned, and we will look at how these projects support directly the mission of those individuals. >> thank you. and the secretary will make the ultimate decision but based upon your recommendation? >> i will be one of the inputs and i will military advice to the secretary in relationship
between the resources, the project, and the mission. >> if it comes to pass, then you will have to delay certain military construction projects that we have authorized and appropriated. do you have a list of those projects yet, mr. secretary? >> i do not have the final list of those projects. >> obviously, i think it would be important to all of us to understand which projects would be sacrificed, even in the short run. so i would encourage you to get that list. in the emergency request, there are $3.6 billion for essentially backfilling those projects, which have already been authorized and appropriated, which is i think an unusual way to fund a military construction project. then, there is an additional $3.6 million that has been set aside for the wall, competing with other potential military projects. that is emergency funding. do you think that is appropriate?
>> it was appropriate given the planning, we were putting the budget together, to form provision for the next year and i will ask secretary norquist to comment on how he came up with the planning. >> one of the things we wanted to be certain to do was not to disrupt future military projects. if 2008 extends, which it will, into 2019, we don't want that to disrupt other projects that we put in funding so it would be available and not be able to, in order to protect the other military construction projects. >> essentially, you are creating point,iations, at this to building a wall. -- wall, which is not an authorized or appropriate by the congress. at $3.6 million are extra funding.
it might be a backfill or circuitous one but is essentially for the wall, is that correct? >> it is in the request but it needs to be authorized and appropriated. absolutely, sir. >> in our process, we are authorizing and you are asking us to authorize funding for the wall? >> yes. >> thank you. just a quick question, i want to follow the guidelines, you mentioned $2 billion for hurricane reconstruction. the marine corps indicated to me as late as yesterday that it is about $3.7 billion. tyndall air force base is $5 -- is between $4 billion and $5 billion, so it would seem to me if you are trying to address the real needs of the department of defense that instead of using $3.6 billion or $7 billion for a wall, that could be used immediately for repairs at camp lejeune or even tyndall air force base. >> sir, what you have is -- yes, there are significant requirements for both of those two bases. one thing we are looking at is the military construction projects.
the planning and design means that some of them can be executed in 2020, so we have $2 billion for that. some will not be able to be executed until 2021 or later so we are trying to balance for that in address those. we are happy to work with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> general dunford, do you believe a no first use policy improves our ability to deter conflict, and would it be your best military advice to adopt such a policy? >> thank you, senator. i think the current policy is one that complicates an adversary's decision-making calculus, and i can envision circumstances where we would not want to remove that option from the president in the future, and i could certainly talk about that in a classified menu, but i absolutely believe
in the current policy as the right policy. >> thank you. as you know, those who favor reducing the nuclear forces often argue that a nonnuclear capability can be substituted for nuclear weapons without diminishing our ability to credibly hold targets at risk, deter adversaries, and assure our allies. a report released last september by the global zero group repeatedly makes this argument and claims that cyber weapons, in particular, can be substituted for nuclear weapons. do you think cyber operations, their effects and ability to deter hostile activity is comparable to nuclear weapons, or are these extremely different capabilities and is this idea of direct substitution unwise? >> senator, i don't believe cyber capabilities can be substituted for nuclear capabilities. i think we need to be very careful to maintain a safe, effective, and credible nuclear deterrent on its own. we, as you know, have looked at
this through more than 3 or 4 administrations in a row. we carefully looked at what does the nation need to do what i described in my opening statement as the most important mission in the department of defense, and that is to deter a nuclear war. we have concluded that the current construct of the triad with a robust nuclear control capability is the most effective way to deter nuclear war, and it is also the most effective way to raise the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons by any potential adversary. >> and you mentioned in order to maintain that safe deterrent, we must follow the advice of all previous administrations, both republican and democrat, all previous military leaders that we maintain that triad? >> yes, senator, and i have participated in two nuclear posture reviews since i have been in this assignment and been exposed to the widebody of analytic work behind those two nuclear posture reviews that came to the same conclusion in two different administrations
and it is very consistent with the military advice i provided on both occasions. >> thank you. moving to a different topic, late last year, general, you characterized the situation in afghanistan as a stalemate. in the time since, we have seen some indications that negotiations with the taliban are showing signs of progress. do you believe the south asia strategy is working, and what is your view of the current security situation? >> thanks, senator. first, i think we are all cautiously optimistic that there is, for the first time, serious inroads made into reconciliation. we just completed a round of negotiations with the taliban. how representative for that is backing washington, d.c., and i will have the opportunity to speak with him later today. i think we will see him tomorrow morning and we are encouraged that i can tell you be on behalf of secretary shannon and
everything we are doing, led by general miller, is supported by the investor as his efforts. on the ground, by and large, the general strategic situation has not changed, but general miller it has incorporated elements of the strategy to increase pressure on taliban leadership and we do believe some of that pressure has been contributed to the fact that the taliban are now at the peace table for the first time since the war began. >> what conditions on the ground, do you believe, are necessary if we are going to be able to see any kind of progress in discussions that we have with the taliban? can you be specific in this setting? >> first, we need to continue to provide enabling capability to the afghan forces. that has been in the form of train, advise and assist. we have leaders in the right place, assist afghans and provide combat enabling capability aviation, intelligence, logistics, support as well. most importantly, senator, on the ground, is a counterterrorism capability. remember, the reason we are in
afghanistan is to prevent attacks against the american people in the homeland, and so the combination of support to the afghans to allow them to put pressure on the taliban also creates the conditions for us to have an effective counterterrorism presence in south asia to secure the american people. >> thank you. i think it is important to consider conditions on the ground and always keep in mind what our goal and mission is. thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator fisher. >> senator shana hand -- shanahand? i'm sorry, shaheed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have been on this committee for about 8 years now. actually, that is right. st. patrick's day is coming up --i will be
thank you, gentlemen, for being here. secretary shanahan, i must say i was quite concerned this morning when i read the new york times story that the department of defense is pushing back against the environmental protection agency which is trying to set standards for chemicals and i will show you that article within the times and the headline says "pentagon wishes for weaker standards on chemicals contaminating drinking water." you and i first had a chance to talk about these chemicals and how they are affecting the former pease air force base in 2017, and i told you about the hundreds of people, children, who had been drinking water and those chemicals now have shown up and no one knows what the , long-term health impact of drinking that water is. there are 401 known military facilities in the united states that the pentagon has admitted have contamination. this committee worked two years ago to authorize the first ever health study on these chemicals.
i am just -- i am very concerned about the fact that the department of defense would be trying to reduce the standard that the epa is setting to try to ensure that drinking water is safe, not just for the civilians around our military installations, but for our members of the military. i must say, the air force has been very responsive in portsmouth under the previous and current secretary. they have come up, put in remediation efforts, and i think this health study that has been started is going to be critical in answering questions for people. but i don't understand how you and the department of defense could be trying to reduce the standards that effect drinking water for literally millions of people around the country. >> senator, i'm not familiar
with this article this morning, and you have my assurance that i will take a look at what the actual situation is in terms of the standards. i am accountable and responsible for the safety and security of our men and women. you have my assurance that we will continue to do that. i will look into this matter. i take these matters, personally, very, very seriously, just as we had talked before. i am the advocate to take care of those matters. so let me take that for the record, and i will follow-up with you directly to explain the situation and what we are doing to take responsibility. >> i appreciate that. can you confirm or deny whether dod has urged the lowering of standards that the epa is trying to put in place? >> i cannot speak to that specific. i will, very quickly, get an answer back to you.
>> i appreciate that. i think that is something that is important for the entire committee to know. as you know, installations installations across the country is effected and a lot of people, we don't yet really know what the long-term health impacts are so getting this answer is very important. can i ask, i am not sure who to direct question two, but general dunford, you said you would be weighing in on any projects or put on a list of any projects on the list to consider delaying because of the president's effort to put more money into a border wall. can you tell me what objective criteria you are looking at in trying to come up with those projects? gen. dunford: senator, the secretary gets input from the service secretaries and service chiefs. what i will do is talk about the
appropriateness of those projects and how they relate to the performance of our mission along the border. we get a wide variety of inputs and each of the service secretaries will share their assessment of the impact of this -- of those projects to the secretary. >> a number of this projects would not effect the border, would they? we have projects at the shipyards that are important to our national security that don't effect the border directly. gen. dunford: i am sorry, senator, if i conflated two issues. there is a list of projects in service that may be used to free money up for projects along the border. the service secretaries and chiefs will provide information on the impact of those services . as you point out, vases and installations as part of those projects would have been
executed. what i will do is assess the relationship of that infrastructure to the dod mission. >> senator cotton? sen. cotton: how many troops roughly do we have on the border today? we haveford: senator, approximately 4000 in title x status at approximately 2000 in a title 32 status. sen. cotton: how many do we have in the korean peninsula? gen. dunford: a total of 28,500 in korea. sen. cotton: they are all pretty close to the dmz, but we have a lot that are right up on the dmz, correct? gen. dunford: yes. sen. cotton: how many do we have in the baltics and poland , nations that border russia? gen. dunford: we have several hundred and of course the poland we have a constant rotational presence that can be up in the thousands. we have combat teens that teams
-- we have combat teams that rotate. i was there to visit them in december and we had about 3000 forces inside of poland. sen. cotton: so we have a lot of troops around the world on other countries' borders. does it the world on other -- does it cause you disquiet that we have troops on our own border? gen. dunford: it does not cause me disquiet that we have troops on the border. sen. cotton: thank you. let's turn to the budget. the budget has a very large request for the overseas contingency fund, i think it is 100 billion more now than what we spent this year. that is obviously a big patch to get around the budget control act of 2011. there are a lot of people on capitol hill that will not like that. let's think about it first from a military standpoint. general dunford, what does it mean for modernization if the opposition to such a large findeas contingency results in a one-year continuing resolution?
gen. dunford: senator, my understanding this year would be that we would not have a continuing resolution, that we would go back to bca levels. sen. cotton: let's say because of the dispute over the overseas contingencies fund, the congress can't reach a budget cap agreement and therefore we have to have a one year continuing resolution that suspends the caps. gen. dunford: one of the challenges we have had is the fact that we have not had a budget. last year we did, but the fact that we have routinely not had a budget at the beginning of the year has delayed new starts and has been incredibly inefficient in how we prioritize and allocate resources throughout the year. the three adjectives i use, and i think they are all important is predictable, sustainable, and adequate levels of funding. if we have the entire fiscal year we can be accountable and be the good stewards you want us to be. sen. cotton: is a dollar of spending in the overseas fund
equal to a dollar in the base budget? sec. shanahan: yes. sen. cotton: could you elaborate more? sec. shanahan: when i think about the top line and how we built the top line, it was a requirements-built budget, so every dollar in the budget is based off of derived requirement. how we package the money doesn't change how we built the budget. the color is in different to -- the color is indifferent to what we put the money towards. sen. cotton: if the congress could reach a budget cap deal and have it in the base budget, would it be better off? sec. shanahan: yes. sen. cotton: can you explain? sec. shanahan: i will ask david to comment on this but it is in the out years when the base budget gives us the predictability and stability that the chairman just spoke to. that not only gives us internally the stability to do our planning but also our
partners in the industrial base, their investment, planning, and sizing. they have confidence that that continuity of money will continue. sen. cotton: that is probably a question for the comptroller. can you just explain the efficiency of spending one dollar in the base budget versus one dollar in the out years. sec. norquist: in the regular year, they follow the same congressional oversight and it gets spent the same way there is a presentation difference. we have presented the budget so that which is historically oco is distinctly presented because we understand that in order to do analysis, we need comparison. when you go to the out years when people look at is, what numbers can we expect? it is easier to project and we have done that in the past. a different base when you get to to the point that all it is is contingency versus for base and others. it helps with planning. sen. cotton: i say the reason we lawin this bind is a
against which i have the 2011 budget control act. i hope we can get a final two-year cap deal. i do worry we may be headed in the direction of a four your continued resolution. i would hate to see that for our men and women in uniform on the front lines. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you. senator hirono: i thought senator blumenthal was here before me. i will defer to him first. >> ok, senator blumenthal. sen. blumenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, gentlemen, and thank you very much for your service. i appreciate your being here and your candid and forthright answers. president trump's budget has
been criticized in many ways and in my view, it gets a lot wrong, but it got very right the commitment to undersea warfare and building three submarines, virginia class attack submarines a year in fiscal 2020, and i want to thank you and your entire team for their commitment to that issue of paramount importance to our future navy and our national defense. it is an area where we have an asymmetric advantage that must be preserved. there are others that are also important -- cyber and air superiority and space for all the reasons you know, but i just want to highlight that area. i want to ask a question that is unrelated to the defense budget, but it is very much on the mind of many of us relating to the
boeing 737 max 8. i know it is not a topic of interest today before this proceeding, but it is a topic of interest to the work you have done in the past. i would like to know whether you have spoken about the boeing 737 max 8 to anyone in the administration in the department of transportation or in the white house. >> i have not spoken with anyone regarding the 737 max. sen. blumenthal: have you been briefed at all on any of the problems relating to it? >> no, sir, i have not. >> let me ask you, are you in -- sen. blumenthal: let me ask you, are you in favor of an investigation that would look into why these defects have
-- why these defects that caused crashes were not known earlier or were not acted upon? >> senator, i firmly believe we should let the regulators investigate the incidents. i would just say my heart goes out and my condolences to the families and employees involved in the lion air incident and the ethiopian airlines incident. sen. blumenthal: the independent recently asked the department of defense inspector general to investigate whether you had broken any ethics rules by promoting boeing while you served as deputy secretary of defense. do you support such an investigation? >> yes, i do.
sen. blumenthal: i welcome your support for that investigation. other government watchdog groups have look at looked at records indicating the department of defense has spent almost $140,000 in trump-branded properties in the first eight months of the trump presidency. more than a third of those payments were made at mar-a-lago. some overlapped with presidential trips, but others do not. all of the payments -- you may be familiar with the lawsuit that i and other members of congress have brought -- would violate that emoluments law potentially, which prevents the president from receiving money from the federal government or any other payment of benefit without the consent of congress. are you aware of those
expenditures by the department of defense? >> no, i am not. i will ask secretary norquist. sec. norquist: i am not aware of those. sen. blumenthal: can you give us in writing an accounting of those expenditures by the department of defense at trump-branded properties? >> i will take that for the record, senator. sen. blumenthal: thank you. as the acting secretary of the department of defense, i have been alarmed by reports that indicate a pattern of retaliation against some of the pentagon reporters and restricted press access to some top dod officials. are you aware of those restrictions, and do you think they are appropriate? >> i am not aware of any restrictions.
in fact, i think there is probably since i have assumed these responsibilities much more interaction and engagement with the press. sen. blumenthal: if you could, since my time has expired, if you could let me know of any restrictions that have been imposed, for the record, if you would take that question. thank you. >> senator sullivan. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. or, thank you, mr. chairman. a lot of irish mistakes going on. [laughter] maybe we are getting close to st. patrick's day or something. i want to thank you, all of you gentlemen for your service. undersecretary david norquist, i perdue will ask a , but i think audit that is really good work you are
doing. general dunford, i just want to thank you. i know there has been announcement of a new chairman, but certainly we view you as the chairman who has done an exceptional job for your entire career. i know you have a lot of work to do, but i want to shout out to your exceptional service to our nation. mr. secretary, i want to ask questions related to the president's recent visit to alaska. he was there coming back from north korea. billy mitchell, who is the the u.s. air force, in a hearing similar to this, prior to world war ii called alaska strategic place in the world. the most the president echoed billy mitchell's comments when he was in alaska visiting with our troops. he said, since the second world war, our intrepid servicemembers in alaska have proudly stood as the top cover for north america , a powerful warning to the world to never strike american
soil, you are a warning everyone knows about it and nobody wants to mess with. he went on to say, "next year, the 11th air force headquartered right here will receive the first of 54 brand new f-35 fighters, you are getting very special planes and a lot of them. that would make alaska the home to over 100 fighters. no place on the planet earth will have that much combat fighter power and it is because of our strategic location." the president then went on to talk about alaska's critical role in missile defense. we are also deploying more than 20 ground-based interceptors, which will strengthen our missile defense system. it is so important that our missile defense system is being rebuilt substantially and we will have the latest and greatest here very soon. that was the president two weeks ago in alaska. do you agree with the statements by the presidents, mr. secretary? >> i do.
sen. sullivan: you called north korea a pressing concern like the president indicated. do you believe the rapid deployment of advanced missile defense for america is critical to our readiness in defending against north korean missile attacks? sec. shanahan: extremely critical. sen. sullivan: how about the rapid appointment deployment of fighters defending our troops in korea because of alaska's strategic location within five hours? sen. sullivan: deployment and sustainment of them is vital. -- sec. shanahan: deployment and sustainment of them is vital. sen. sullivan: thank you. let me ask you on the issue of allies. do you agree that china and russia have been trying for years to split us from our traditional allies? nato, japan,: sen. sullivan: nato, japan,
korea. sec. shanahan: china in particular, but we see this constantly with russia and nato particularly in the balkans. sen. sullivan: chairman dunford, do you see that as a strategical goal of the chinese and russians to split us from our allies? gen. dunford: it has been a consistent pattern of behavior and more specifically to create doubt in the minds of our allies that we can lead our alliance commitments. sen. sullivan: i appreciate what the president has been trying to do, particularly getting our nato allies, but there have been press reports of a cost-plus 50% approach. do you know how much the koreans paid for the new camp humphreys? >> i do. less than $1 billion. sen. sullivan: so they paid $9.8 billion, a new facility costs 10.8 billion, correct? 93% of the u.s. army base. have you been to camp humphreys? >> no, i haven't.
sen. sullivan: you should go there. it is an outstanding facility. i'm sure you have been, general? gen. dunford: i have. 93%, on korean soil, paid for the koreans. do we really think and maybe this press report isn't true, cost plus are we driving our 50. allies away from us in the way that are probably cheering right now? >> senator, we don't do cost plus 50%. sen. sullivan: so those reports all over the press are incorrect? >> they are erroneous. sen. sullivan: we are not running a business or a charity. the important part is that people pay their fair share and payment comes in lots of different forms. it could be contributions like in afghanistan. at the end of the day, people need to carry their fair share and not everyone can contribute, but it is not about cost +50%.
>> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. -- senator hirono: the recently released missile defense review directed a study on operational analyzing of the pacific missile range facility . you and i discussed this. i have some significant concerns about what operationalizing the site would do to the ability to meet a testing mission which i assume you agree is important. >> absolutely, senator. sen. hirono: thank you. i will get to the question. as well as the impact of removing that testing capacity, briefly, could you tell us how operationalizing the site in hawaii would add to our ability to defend hawaii from missile threats, especially as it would
icbm and it is not set up to counter icbms. >> my understanding is that it is a study to assess taking the test assets and operationalizing them. as you well point out, the ground-based midcourse defense system that is resident in alaska defends hawaii. i believe the study will look at other threats that may be posed to hawaii and how there might be a layer to the defense. as you pointed out, the test range there is vital capability and capacity for developing our missile defense systems. >> i want to make sure my concerns are in the record. two weeks ago, before this
committee, the northern commander testified that the current situation at our southern border is to quote him, "not a military threat." do you agree that the situation at the southern border is not a military threat? sec. shanahan: are you referring to general shaughnessy's testimony? sen. hirono: yes. sec. shanahan: what i recall is that he said it is not a military threat. he said border security is national security. sen. hirono: i understand that, but he said specifically it is not a military threat. i am asking whether you agree with them that it is not a military threat. sec. shanahan: i agree. sen. hirono: general dunford? gen. dunford: i agree that it is a security challenge, not a military threat. sen. hirono: so you're testifying there are 6000 troops currently deployed at our southern border. can you tell us how long they will be there? the i would say 30 or 40% of
them would be departing in the next month or so when they complete some of their work and i believe we will draw down to between 3000 or 4000. sen. hirono: is that something the president is indicating to you or can he say i want you all to remain at the border? sec. shanahan: this was part of the tasking for the department of homeland security based on their request to us. sen. hirono: from the president? sec. shanahan: yes. sen. hirono: let me get on to a matter that is of great concern to a lot of us actually. secretary shanahan, in your response to senator inhofe's question about refueling the truman, you stated that growing the work in the shipyard is a priority and the move to not refuel the truman would save $3.4 billion over five years. how does cancelling three years of shipyard work grow the workforce there?
sec. shanahan: the workforce, when we look at what is in the shipyard, so the combination of submarines, new carriers and then maintenance, all that is done in the same shipyards. and that workforce moves from project to project. so when we look at the total employment, the actual total employment goes up over the period of time in which we're building the two carriers. sen. hirono: frankly, as i talk with some of the people from the shipyards, i'm not so sure that is the case. it will cost about $3.4 billion to refuel the truman, which, by the way, by not refueling, we're only getting about 50% of the truman's service life. so at the same time, there's $3.6 billion in the emergency fund, which you acknowledge is going to be set aside. you want us to authorize setting
that aside for the wall. so doesn't it make sense -- maybe i should ask this of general dunford, that we should use the money from the emergency funding that you're requesting us to set aside for the wall, for something, i.e. the refueling of the truman, that actually fits with the nds and what your commanders want? general dunford, would you like to respond? gen. dunford: senator, i would. i'm not trying to be evasive but i think my responsibility is to identify for the secretary the priorities within our top line. not to identify what the top line is and not to identify how the money within the total top line ought to be allocated. sen. hirono: >> well, i would say probably if you all had your druthers, if you could get money to refuel the truman, you would do so, wouldn't you? gen. dunford: again, if i look at it through the military dimension alone, that would be true. but i have to acknowledge that the secretary and the president have broader responsibilities than i do.
sen. hirono: yes. like building a vanity wall. thank you. >> senator perdue. senator perdue: mr. secretary shanahan, in 1990, congress passed a law that required the administration to produce an audit of the department of defense. i want to give you guys kudos for producing the first-ever audit of the department of defense, last year in november. thank you for that. can you give us an update on that? give us a little idea of what the department is learning from that audit. i know we don't have a clean audit on that yet but i'd like to get a brief update about what we're learning, what kind of opportunities we have for efficiencies and better use of capital in the military.
>> thank you, senator. first of all, the audit was to look at $2.7 trillion worth of assets. so this was the largest audit ever conducted, probably in the history of mankind. we were asked, could we ever do this? because it had never been done. we made the commitment to this committee that it would be accomplished. audits really aren't about doing the audits, it's finding the problems, as you pointed out. we specifically focused on identifying certain problems that are vital to operating the department. some of them are financial benefit as you described. but others are identifying cyber shortfalls. we use the audit to find efficiencies, vulnerabilities from cyber as well as where
there is noncompliance. the best part of the audit is we've identified those items and now we're incorporating all the corrective actions. we're building the muscle movement and the habits to continuously address those findings and make ourselves better. >> would you like to talk about the efficiencies? >> sure. i think one of the things you pointed out, before we started the audit, there was two misconceptions. one is it was going to be a paper exercise and the other was we'd discover pots of gold. you move past those to discover the tangible value. the first example is inventory. we discovered there's certain facilities with what they thought they had in inventory did not match what they had. if your responsibility is spare parts for airplanes, the accuracy of the inventory matters. so, for example, at hill air force base, uninstalled missile motors, they don't just check the quantity, they check the condition.
if you look at them, they're usable, so you wouldn't have needed to order more. other places, 14,000 munitions, 100% accounted for, not a single exception. what we learned is there's some places doing this quite well and there are others where we need to either help them fix their process or give them better attention. but the commanders in the field recognize the direct, correct connection to mission and readiness. i had expected a lot of pushback once the audit findings came in, that this was just paperwork, but they saw the tangible value. i think the accuracy of the data, adopting more business-like practices will be tremendously healthy. -- tremendously helpful for the department. sen. perdue: how long will it take us to get a clean audit? sec. norquist: i don't know how long. the department's opinion will be the last of the organizations. but i think over the next couple of years, you'll see either the working capital fund, and then you'll be able to differentiate between which of the organizations is missing progress and who needs an extra
hearing. sen. perdue: thank you. chairman dunford, today we have about 5,000 troops i think in iraq. is that correct? gen. dunford: that's correct, senator. sen. perdue: and so general thomas recently, before this committee, the combatant said, "ourf socom iraqi partners have embraced their responsibility in terms of defending their terrain." also, we hear about this potential vote in the parliament in iraq about asking u.s. forces to leave iraq. just this week, we had president rouhani visiting prime minister mahdi. a little bit about what assumptions we have in this budget with regard to our presence in iraq and how do you see our continuing role there? gen. dunford: senator, this budget includes an enduring
presence in iraq, slightly less than the forces on the ground right now. what's important is that we do that in partnership with the iraqi government. so as the iraqi government settles and is prepared to enter into conversation about what a reliable partnership will be, moving forward, then our secretary of state and secretary of defense will work out the exact numbers to meet the requirements that the iraqi security forces will still have to ensure the lasting defeat of collective focus.urse, is our >> thank you. >> thank you, senator perdue, senator king? sen. king: thank you. i'm somewhat saddened to have so much of this time taken up by matters of the wall. we've all been very supportive of the military but there are some questions i feel i have to ask. secretary shanahan, you testified earlier in answer to senator reid's question that you don't know which military
construction expenditures are going to be canceled in favor $2. 3 billion. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i hard to believe there's nona list. there's no information you can give us about which construction projects are on the chopping block? secretary shanahan: what i can tell you is what is not on the chopping block. sen. king: have you assured individual members that there are not projects in their state that are under consideration? sec. shanahan: no, i have not. i have had questions are as to whether projects -- this has been a blanket statement that has been made -- there are no projects in this fiscal year that will be canceled.
and anything associated with family housing or barracks. sen. king: wasn't the appropriation part of the larger appropriation that's been through this congress and the committee, didn't it list projects? secretary shanahan: no, it doesn't. >> the projects when we have the guidance from d.h.s. is the question. the secretary makes a decision. we look at those unobligated, meaning the funds haven't been awarded. >> but those are projects that have been identified. >> correct, the projects are individually identified by the congress and the committees, correct. sen. king: you're telling me the committee hasn't identified which of those projects are going to be canceled or defered in order to spend this $6.3 billion on the wall? >> we haven't. i don't know if the decision will be 6.3 billion.
sen. king: and you have not had conferrings with members of the senate to assure them about the project of members in their states? sec. shanahan: let me be clear. i have told members there are projects, and this is write large. there are no -- where it large. there are no properties scheduled in this fiscal year that will be canceled. that's the only information i've shared. sec. king: either projects are going to be canceled to find 6.3 or not. >> projects have up to five years to be awarded so if you receive funding for a project in 2018 or 2019, it midnight et awarded until 2021. >> are you saying that there are no identified projects in the appropriation for in year
that are going to be etched defunded or deferred because of this 3.? the 3. is coming from somewhere. >> there's a difference between in the 2019 appropriations bill versus properties that are scheduled to be awarded. meaning the construction would begin in 2019. those problems. have up until the year 2023 or so to be awarded and the reason we put the 6.3 billion in the request is so that money would be available -- sen. king: i know of projects in new england that were funded in this bill. can i be assured they're safe? they're not going to be deferred or canceled to find this 3.6? something is not computing here. the 3. is coming from somewhere and it's coming from projects that were appropriated by in congress and you won't tell me what they are.
>> assuming the secretary signs off, the 3.6 would, in fact, come from projects previously authorized and appropriated by congress. we would not tough those that dealt with family housing and military construction -- sen. king: i'm going to ask my question once more. if you spoken to any members of the senate to assure them that projects in their state are not going to be affected by this policy? >> no i have not, senator. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i'm very concerned about this. i don't think we're getting full information. i intend to follow up. >> thank you, mr. chair. i do want to follow up on them as we did have a conversation and there are four projects appropriated and you said those won't be impacted by this just to be clear?
>> that is correct. >> how does that square with what he just told me? >> i have some other questions to ask. i just wanted to clear that up. i wanted to get to a different opic in 2007 there was 6, 9 sexual assaults reported across our military. likely thousands not reported. these blue-on-blue crimes are not acceptable. many steps have been taken by the military over the last years and this body, over 100 legislative actions but it's not enough. there are thousands of our warriors in military readiness that have been harmed by these crimes. i believe they must be held accountable. however, something needs to change. insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
programs we need to look at i am fully fresh -- locked on like a missile on this target and i want to be working with you and the military was ises to take a fresh look at this. i've asked the secretary of the air force and the chief of staff to start with the summit of the air force but it's not just the air force, it's across our military services. so can i get your commitment that we're going to partner on this and take a fresh look and tackle this over the next 45 days together. which include responding to my questions. dial into what's working and not working across the spectrum of prevention and respect and prosecution. we can come up with some ideas, impact and intellectual my nating with the tank meeting with all the members there and solve this together. can i get your commitment? >> senator, you have my
commitment. >> thank you, sen. -- senator dunford? >> absolutely, start. >> thank you. i was on the korean peninsula less than a year ago visiting the troops and i will tell i am so proud of them and their ability to fight tonight and everything to make sure we were able to crank up the pressure with the deterrent capability to keep the pressure on north korea and are the negotiations and to thwart the threat they are. want to get some clarity on exercises. as we know, the military exercises every day but people rotate in and out every year and so large-scale exercises are critical for us to have that decision-making process for key leaders at the higher level. can you clarify we are wr we
are with the zhrigs making process on the pens la? >> yes, senator, the exercisers we have on the pens larks which is ongoing as we speak and the minister for south korea will come see me at the end of this month and we'll discuss progress and the findings of those exercises. but they were redesigned this year for three things -- support the peace process. the expanded responsibilities of the south koreans in terms of operational carom and to maintain foundational readyness. underlying all this is maintaining the readiness we need if we're called to fight tonight. we've sustained that readyness. >> can you say that with the adjustment -- i understand turning the volume down so it's not being so provocative but those higher level operational
exercises, the command post levels for new leaders is especially important. can you assure us that there will be no degradation in the readiness to fight tonight? >> i have had personal conversations with general abrams and i can aai assure you there will got knot be degradation, we will have the capability we need. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go back and get a little bit more clarification to some of the answers i've heard from senator king and senator ha ran -- ha ruano. i noticed in the budgets there is a line for $9.2 billion for emergency for fy-20. is that related to the emergency thrarings that the president has made? >> $7.2 billion of it is and $2
billion is for a hurricane. >> so you're asking congress to appropriate $ billion to deal with what the president has declared an emergency? i want to be clear about that. >> crk. >> the senate will be voting later today on a resolution of disapproval are thing to this emergency declaration. is it safe to say you would revise the request if a majority of the house and senate disapproves of the emergency declaration? >> i will stick to the budget that we've submitted. >> but if we don't approve an emergency declaration, why would you come and ask for us for the money? >> i would ask congress to get the right top line. >> so you would readvise it if necessary. >> i'll work with the committee and the congress to get the
right top line. >> thank you respond to the que request for assistance that d.h.s. sent a few weeks ago and perhaps provide some specifics. -- sprembingsspsh specifics. i also serve on the homeland committee. i think it would be helpful to know. >> which request for assistance is this? >> on the southern border. >> there's been a number of them. >> could you characterize what they've been asking for and your response? >> right, i'll -- ok. >> senator, i'll take that if you donlede don't mind. the most recent request requested our engineers to reinforce some of the infrastructure along the border and we also have soldiers manning cameras that allow customs and border protection to see what activity is ongoing around the border. those are the two primary tasks and that's in addition to the national guard sustain mission,
which provides rotary wing aircraft, lodgist i said reports and intelligence along the border. >> thank you. secretary shanahan, at your confirmation hearing, i asked you about what was previously known as the third offseptember. we had a further conversation about that in my office and i .ppreciate that your predecessor championed that and sought out ways to use technology to create and maintain an advantage over our competitors. now that you've been inside this department, i can ask this question now as an insider. what is your view on how technology is going to impact warfare and in particular, give me a sense of how you view the most disruptive technologies to some of our legacy weapons systems that are pretty much
ingrained in d.o.d. culture and also tend to be incredibly expensive but as we're thinking about this budget going forward, naked change dramatically. give me your sense of how that is reflected in in budget. >> absolutely and to bob worth's credit on the third offset, that was the underpinning for many of the concepts that we're requesting fudged for this year. so in terms of the four major disruptive exablingts, there's space, mifflets, signer and autonomy. so take, for example, mississippi in answering your question. low cost, cost-imposing and -- imposing and -- vs. very suspensi manned assets. same can be spoken for cyber, all the effects that you can create with cyber. when we think about the trade and cost in terms of being able
to deploy forces vs. effects, significant cost imposition. space, you know, we think about having unfettered access to the world. outer space provides us that environment. >> so when you're talking about something that is disrupt give autonomy, when you think about legacy systems of pilots and airplanes and aircraft carriers, things of that nature, all of these things we should be looking at? >> absolutely. when we think about the -- enge to find significantly less.
>> thank you, senator peters. senator blackman? >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you all for being with us today. mr. shanahan, i want to move a little bit of a different direction as we talk about bunt and priorities. i'm from tennessee. i spent 16 years in the house and represented a district that was home to fort campbell and many of the enlisted men and the 101st are there, 160th fifth division and have really developed a good working rhythm with those families and the unlisted and also, with command teams that have been there that have done such a terrific job. we have some of those that have
served at fort campbell that are members of our team so we ear a good bit from them and hear about their concerns and i in senator cotton in being concerned about the control act from 2011 with the sequester that was placed on our military. that has not served us well and my home is that we're going to be able to solve that situation and address some of the problems that it has brought forward. but one of the things i hear from especially our special operations guys is their desire to make certain that 5-g technologies are available to them. and that those networks are secure. and i appreciate that in your testimony you mentioned three cyber, riorities as hypersonics and space. kcocom ve had our
hearings and have talked some about the placement of these technologies so that we're fighting 21st century warfare and not just focused on toled today. one of the things i've heard a little bit of scuttlebutt about that causes me some concern is that maybe some of the fighter pilots from air force are not that excited about having a space force that would have had function there as air force. so i want to give you a couple of minutes to talk about space force, how you see it standing up, how you expect to deploy it, how you intend to protect the funding for that so that we are looking forward as well as ending to today. >> thank you, senator. with two minutes, i'll go as
quickly as i can. >> good. >> i'll summarize it this way. our nation, our $19 trillion economy and our military, we're carrying too much risk given the vulnerability we have in space now that space is a contested do main. the space force represents our -- the ability to accelerate our response to that threat environment. it gives us three items in order to reduce that risk. the first is the assets that are in space were never designed to be resilient and deal with the threats that exist today. it's a bit like you can't pick your parents. we need to design new capability and put it up in orbit as quickly as responsible -- possible. space force recommends a space force agency to do development and tapping into commercial space technology. save cost, save time.
the second is stand up to space command so that we can have dedicated focus to provide the rules of engagement, authorities and the tools to defend our assets and the third is bring together and train, make space a dedicated profession where we can provide n qadry of proimbles the right training so they have the ability of a career -- >> well done on the summary. now give me 15 seconds on competitiveness with china. >> i think we've been ignoring the problem too long. >> well done. yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to our witnesses for being here. so the administration has submitted a defense budget request for $ 50 billion for next year. that is a pretty big number even by the department's own
standings. iners the budget rules govern how much money is available for defense spending is set at $5 6 billion, which is still a huge sum but you're requesting $174 billion more than the amount that is allowed by law. $165 billion for the overseas contingency operations, oco, and another $9 billion for emergency funds for the wall. now, some of the things if the -- in the d.o.d. bunt request seem to me to point in the right direction. more investments in research, for example, and we need to have a much larger conversation about whether these budget caps make sense and how defense and nondefense priority should stack up but right now i just want to dig into how you got your numbers so all of the non-defense budget experts out there can understand the tricks the administration is using to juche skyrocketing defense
spending. secretary shanahan, the department proo poses to get around the bunt rules that by requesting that $165 become extra dollars in the oco account. that amount is not counted towards sasmtoirp budget caps is that correct? ok, let's dig in a bit on cbs oco. has the cost to fight the war in iraq and afghanistan began to increase in early 2000, congress had to pass emergency supplement appropriations every year. in 2009 president obama established oco so they could set aside funds for this and other related operationings. balls those funds are toward emergencies is, they don't count in the overall defense spending this year ears oco question -- request is or 169% increase from last year. did the cost of supporting our
overseas operations suddenly increase by 140% last year? >> senator, they did not. >> in last time oco account was even close to the amount you propose for next year was in 2010 when we had approximately iran and troops in another 150 in iraq. today we have a number largely unchanged from last year. since last year has the department deployed a large number of troops to fight a war some place other than iraq, syria or afghanistan. >> no, we have not. >> ok, so the actual cost of supporting troops overseas did not increase by 140% and we haven't launched a war some place else triggering that kind of emergency and yet you're
asking for $140 billion in " emergency overseas operations." you're requesting funding in oco to fund activities that have nothing to do with the reasons that oco was established, is that correct? >> what we've done this year is we're taken our base budget from last year for the chairman's blueprint, grown our budget 3% in real growth. >> ok, you can just answer my question and that is, you're requesting funding in oco to fund activities that have nothing to do with the reason that oco was established, is that right? >> senator, we have it in two groups. one is traditional oco and the other is clearly labeled oco for base and that's the distinction. >> you can call it whatever you want. with you know why oco was
established. are you asking for in increase for the reasons that oco was established? it's an easy question. secretary shanahan? sec. shanahan: we're asking or a $70 billion tomline and asking for an increase. >> you're asking for an increase in oco for purposes that oco was not established. your own said so yesterday. they said you're asking for at least $98 billion for things that have nothing to do with operation contention si. i'm not sure why you can't say that. what we're really talking about is the establishment of a slush fund to hyped what was happening with defense spending and get it out from underneath the statutory caps. i think it's time to stop this business of more, josh moore for the military and establishing a slush fund like this and saying oh, because we put it in two different accounts somehow changes the
fact. it's just not true and we need to be honest with the-mile-an-hour people about how much we're spending here. >> we have provided in our jutchings books 100% transparency. there is no just fund. we can tie it back to the national defense strategy and what we need to defend america. holley.or >> thank you for being here. i'm looking forward to seeing the senate justification books here next week. i'm anticipating it will include an increase for the fort in missouri, my home statement. these are professional soldiers who train and respond to the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield for the five threats called out in the national defense strategy having a chemical reps wes capability. we all the map save lives on the battlefield so i'm very
proud of the work they do and looking forward to the department's continuing support for their important mission. let me shift and ask about our challenge in emerging technologies, signer and space and spectacularly china's investment in those areas and our eroding advantage. i was struck, mr. secretary, by a comment that you make in your written testimony. you say some u.s. companies have voiced ethical qualms about working with d.o.d. to advance technologies, often continuing to work with china. what are we talking about here? >> i think we're talking about google and their support to china and their lack of support for the department of dense. >> so google has refuse told work with the department of defense. actually was under contract with the department of defense? sec. shanahan: they haven't refused.
they've just said they're not going to continue to do business with the department of defense on certain contract. >> but they are doing business with china and a way that benefits our chinese competitors? sec. shanahan: correct. >> they for about that. >> this is up such an important issue for our country. the depution to have -- fusion of commercial business with military is significant. $5 trillion of their economy is state-owned enterprises so the technology that is developed in the civil word would -- world transfers to the military world. it's a direct pipeline. not only is there a transfer, ere's also systemic theft of u.s. technology that facilitates even faster development of emerging technology.
>> so you're telling me that google, an american company, supposedly, is refusing to work with the department of defense but is doing work with china in china in a way that at least indirectly benefits the chinese government is that correct? sec. shanahan: i haven't heard the word "refuse" but there's a lack of willingness to support d.o.d. programs. >> general, you're nodding your healed head. do you want to weigh in on this? >> i've been very public on this issue as well. is, look,described it we're the good guys. the values that we represent and is system that we represent the one that will allow and has allowed you to thrive. and that's the way i've it.acterized so i was just nodding that -- what the secretary was articulating is the general sense of all of us as leaders.
we watch with great concern when work in china,rs knowing there is that indirect benefit. frankly, indirect may be not a full characterization of the way it really is. it's more of a direct benefit to the chinese military. >> i just want to underscore this for the record so that we perfectly, 100% anar here, that google, american company based in this country, supposedly an american doing work in china that directly or indirectly benefits the chinese government increased peer competition with this country. we are in a struggle with the chinese government, over whether or not they're going to become a globall and maybe hegemon with values very different from ours, certainly do not favor freedom in the world and we have an american company that does not our defenseork with department, which is one thing, but they're happy to help the chinese, at least the chinese government, that is, the chinese
military, at least indirectly? i think that's extraordinary. tell us what, from your perspective, we need to do to maintain our competitive advantage on a.i. and these emerging technologies. we need to see, going forward? >> two things. to continue to invest in this year's -- and this year's budget doubles our investment in artificial intelligence. then the string that you're on, the talent is in this country. we need to use the talent in this country. talent in this country needs to support our great power competition. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator, senator hawley. duckworth? >> thank you, mr. chairman. like to follow'd up from p on the questions from mcsally. i think there's no doubt we'll continue to see tensions on the korean peninsula after the latest breakdown between the
ands between our president president kim. we know our great friends, the and japan, korea have a much more tense relationship with each other. for example, there were about them sharing meal plans with one another. workto you plan to do to on bridging that gap? >> thank you for that question, senator. bridged at --e ellis.ifferent there's -- three different levels. a relationship level. i have relationships with the defense minister of japan as of korea.e republic it's important that i play a role in keeping the two there.es exercises that we'll do together, technology that we'll develop together, particularly area of missile defense, a sizeable know, investment by the government of
to put aegis ashore as say,as develop other, i'll defensive capabilities in the situationvent of an escalating on the peninsula. >> so you had answered senator saying that there would not be any degradation of our readiness as it pertains to military exercises. but are you changing the nature exercises to, for example, simply being table top exercises or just computer opposed to how they've been conducted in the past? mysenator, if you don't mind taking that question, the way i would describe it, we have changed. want to be clear. we have changed the method of training to focus on the mission essential tasks that each of the levels of command needs to be proficient in. what we haven't changed is the outcome of the readiness to fight. of our large scale
exercises are done now with postation, command exercise and so forth. but what's really important to highlight is that at the battalion and squadron level, there's been no changes to training and the ability of our women on the peninsula to train in the integration of combined arms. adjustments, large scale exercises. what we've done, very quickly -- highlight.ry to we've shifted from certifying our readiness based on the exercise to a much more complex system that general and the admiral have developed, which identify all the mission essential tasks for of command in making sure that we have a proven method of developing problem si. thing i -- proficiency. they have any -- we're executing their plan. comeknow that they can right back to the secretary and i and we will work with the koreans to make adjustments. i can assure you, from a military perspective, i am quite
confident in our 2019 training and confident that we'll deliver the level of readiness historically accomplished in large scale exercises. >> so you're saying that for brigade and below or battalion and below, there's no change as far as the leaders that see happening? >> that is correct. that's an important point, senator. that'soth brigade -- where the changes are? >> that's where the changes are. in some cases, it's dialing down of the exercises. as you know, those exercises had two purposes. one was deterrence. proficiency. i'm confident that our exercise ladder,does deliver the proficiency. >> have those exercises taken ofo account the role logistics in sustaining any type of a fight that we would have to engage in? focus on what's happening on the peninsula but sustaining that fight long-term need,tting what we resources there, is a real
challenge at the pacific, as many people -- i don't think how vast thee pacific koatiopacific ocean is. we did what year, we call a korea readiness review. we played out the first 60 days of the korean conflict to include the detailed logistics planning that was necessary to support operations for the next 60 days. say, we learned a lot during that exercise. but our exercises absolutely include the logistics factors associated with our ability to conduct operations. >> thank you. our national defense strategy outlines a shift and primary focus on combating extremism. as acting secretary, what's you plan to do in areas perhaps less obviously impacted by either of these example, south afri-com. ofthey are critical in terms defeating isis, dealing with
regional threats. as theirman, in his role integrated global campaign thener, we make sure that risk in those areas and the manage areequired to properly delivered, both the and afri-com. >> thank you. >> senator kramer. you.ank thank you to all of you for your service and for your candor today. fischer talked about and asked about nuclear modernization. i wanted to follow up on that. so i'm going to try to combine as quickly as i can, because i think there are some similarities. i'll start with you, secretary shanahan. of the critics of nuclear modernization imply or state that we can't afford that. that it's unaffordable, that in to choose in essence between nuclear or conventional modization.
yet as i look at the budget forward,lly and going i see, for the most part, a costsg of modernization for the nuclear force, under 2029.n year can we afford not to do it? i mean, it seems to me that a pretty efficient use of deterrence dollars. just like to hear you elaborate a little bit on whether we can afford it. >> i'll ask david to talk about the afforability. but as our competitors are building up their nuclear capabilities, this is setting aside budget -- as our competitors are building up orir nuclear capability modernizing, we should not unilaterally disarm. to start there. in terms of timing of the budget, maybe you could speak to that. is about 6.5%. when you realize that in normal increasece, 3%, that for the amount of peace and
stability that that deterrent what is us against probably the most catastrophe threat we can face, i think is a and sound approach and something that you'd want to be very careful about changing, because of the stability that it provides globally and for the the american people. >> then let's move to space, because i think i have a similar of question as relates to affordablability of it. it's easy to see why some who has a particular system within force might feel a threat about competing for limited dollars. shanahan, i think you've referenced, at least to some degree, and i'd like to you elaborate, on the efficiencies that can be found. clearly we need to probably ramp up some of our capabilities pointed outu earlier, you know. we need -- we can't pick our -- the resiliency isn't what it
needs to be. could speake you to, and maybe this would be a good one for the comptroller as efficiencies that will be found in the process of creating a space force as a sixth branch. the efficiency side, and i've had conversations with senator reed on this congress areany in experts in this area, we can't build a bureaucracy. the spaceg up to force, we have a chance to build it from the bottom up. opportunity to build it correctly. the biggest effort needs to be at retiring the risk. we're too vulnerable. it's a little bit like the nuclear conversation. i actually think it's gonna cost lotsss, i mean, i've had of arguments about whether that's true or not. i think at the end of the day -- we hear quite a bit is this
is change versus the status quo. fundamental structural change. but in that structural change, get after reducing our vulnerability and i really believe, at the end of the day, capability and more money in terms of we won't spend as much. a little bit to the realigning of existing space programs as part of that efficiency, if that makes sense. >> absolutely. about standing up a new service, this is a very small service. to, you think about 15 know, 18,000 people. so it's really not about a large group being consolidated. this is really talking about, you consolidate development efforts within the department? so how do we take what's being done? the army is going to undertake a brand-new modernization program. we combine that with work in the air force, navy, and then integrate it into all the combatant commands? this is really about doing it at
a d.o.d. level. these are once in a generation opportunities. since we must address the we'reted environment, and going to make significant changes, why not do it at an for theed level department instead of, you know, in each service? were as your answers efficient as i expect the space force to be. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. the minority leader had a and has a scheduling problem. so let's go ahead and recognize if and we'll get to the rest that's acceptable. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. debateing to clarify the that senator king nich initiated at risk.jects i'm going to take the really dangerous path for a social try to break it down into simple numbers, physically dealing with the engineering and an numbers
person. and bear with me. equals the authorized, last five years. universe. y equals the unobligated projects, after september 30 of this year. x minus y with z equals those are at risk of being captured. with some limited exceptions. no public housing, et cetera. know what that z is right now. you have the list. correct? you have the ability to create the list? i understande sure what z is. let me look at my friend here. >> ok. >> ok. z is -- go ahead. >> we know what that universe of projects is. >> if the question is, what is the universe of either unobligated projects or unobligated projects after a
certain date, those are things generated, yes. >> exactly. and those projects, with the exceptions you've mentioned, others,ousing and some are all subject to being taken wall.o fund this they might not all be taken, but they are the projects at risk. correct? the pool. >> i would like that list today, mr. secretary. >> sure. >> thank you very much. so we'll be waiting. my fingers. and we'll have that list, so everyone will know what project worry about going forward. >> ok. >> is that it? thehank you for clarification. >> that's a deal? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator heinrich. >> can i assume that there are appropriatedly f.y. 19 projects that received military construction funding that are going to be on that list? ok. >> because five-year monies,
yes. >> i can't tell you, mr. chairman, how inappropriate i think that is. congress has the power of the purse. this is wrong. this is abusive. and we should do something about it. all of us. because i guarantee you, if you it will happen, under the next president and the next president and you won't how this money gets spent. acting secretary, how much do pfaf?ow about >> well, i understand the nature of the chemical, so when we talk about it being a fire retardant, extensively,d over militarily and commercially, and being in theit water supply. chance to you had a read the article in the new york thes this morning with headline pentagon pushes for
weaker standards on chemicals contaminating drinking water? >> i haven't had a chance to read the paper. >> i would ask that you read that. hope it's highly inaccurate. the second clause, in the first says the pentagon is pushing the trump administration to adopt a weaker standard for ground water pollution. are you aware of any conversations going on in the would push for a standard that was not set by the science?lable >> right. i'm not aware of any shared with, and i senator shaheen that i would follow up with her also on this after i have a chance to investigate. i'll do the same with you. >> i would deeply appreciate that. the right way to do this is to science.e >> right. >> the right way to do this is not to set a standard based on limit liability. >> right. >> i know that there is -- we're gonna have a big price tag attached to this. there is no question about that.
but we're also gonna have a very cost associated with this. and i'll just give you one example. the farm was closed -- forced to close its doors in new mexico after 25 years as a local business. thisonths, because of contamination, they had to dump milk0 to 15,000 gallons of per day. that's enough to give a carton lunch to 240,000 kids. thisis one example of how is impacting the communities aboutave been enthusiast hosting our air force and other military establishments. going to need to get in front of this. and i don't think it is -- it has received adequate attention from the pentagon. so i look forward to working with you on that. front end ofthe
this, and there's gonna be a lot gowork that's gonna have to into trying to make this right for these communities. i very much agree that our competitors are rapidly fielding the spacelities in domain and that we need to move with a greater sense of urgency. i welcome the increased prioritization the department has put on this area, and you're focused on that. in terms of r&d, one of the things i want to make sure we're reorganizing the existing pieces or reinventing the wheel. the spacee capabilities office, the space directorate, the advanced systems directorate and many others, all play a critical role in researching, developing and fielding our nation's space systems. just urge you, as you look at that, and urge secretary dr. kennedy,
dr. griffin, all to fully existing r&d assets stand up sda, so that we're not losing a few years of the wholetion to make system work better. and if you have any thoughts on that, i'd love to hear it. >> no. when i think of the space i don'tent agency, what want it to be is a reorganization. number one element of the space development agency that we of iso take advantage large-scale systems engineering. put together a national team so that we can do this at scale? there is incredible technology in the air force. talent. lack for that is not our issue. we don't lack for money. that's required to be able to do this quickly, so that we don't have to do it times, is really
corps were in agreement with this decision to delay funding of the lha nine ellen pd 31. senator, what i recall in the development of the plan, it was a sequencing, not a requirement issue. general, in terms of providing availability. senator, the issue, when they looked at all of the money that was available to the navy and a look at the shipbuilding plan, they prioritize other platforms within this program over those two amphibious ships and they moved those amphibious ships outside the program, without adjusting the requirements. -- theretirements there requirement is there. but, the part about the efficiency of and -- a building them and the most cost effective youefficient manner, would care to comment on that?
would it make sense to do it in the most efficient manner? >> it would. >> what has been proposed is not necessarily that, is it? >> i can't speak to the specifics. i can't speak to the specifics with regard to what the difference would be in the cost of the ship or the efficiency within the program as opposed to outside the program. i can't talk to that, but we can get back to you on that specific question. >> thank you very much. thank you, senator. senator manchin, i believe he was here. senator manchin? >> they give us your chairman, thank you all. sometimes we get sort changed here and with two different meetings and i'm having an energy meeting now. i want to thank you all so much. secretary shanahan, stayed on our national guard facilities in college, contamination do not have access to environment the restoration dollars like active duty basis do.
senator gillibrand had a situation. i think you're familiar with both of those. nationalion would be, guard units use the same firefighting found that the use.e components the training is often the same and it makes no sense for the national guard to not have access to these dollars. would you be supportive of this amendment this year if we could be access to them? >> yes. sen. machin: you been brought up to speed on that. >> not totally up to speed,-- sen. machin: we would love to bring you up to speed, because it would be very helpful. it has been detrimental to the community. the president's budget request is something i want to go over, a combination of emergency funds as well as others give us $1.86 billion. you already touched on this. what we are looking at is a holistic approach. of how we are able to secure our border and really, the immigration challenges we have.
,o you all know how many of the maybe you have this, in terms of the daca children involved in the military echo do you have any idea? that would be helpless to us if we could find out how many of these young people are participating in defending our country that are asking to be to be available to be a citizen of our country. it would be quite appropriate for us to be able to know that. anything with me, when senator mccain was here, was the audit. you might have touched on this in my question might have been asked if there's something on the audit that you begin me an update on where we are and what your tensions are and how we can get a complete audit of the department of defense would be very helpful. putenator, i've always have -- happy to give an update on the audit. we started the second and we
started the first your audit. we collected over three of thousand findings. we have corrective action plans that services are developing. areas ourular inventory, information technology and real property. those services will be executing those. the audits of party started. they come right back and begin the next year. they will be testing the progress on those. we will do twice a year updates to the committee staff and we expect the reports to be completed and delivered to us on the second year audit on the bender 15th. -- november 15. sen. machin: the other thing i need to know, and whoever would be responsible for it, would be the procurements we handled and the changes we made in procuring all of the different types of antidotes and jokes have been made about how we buy things and what we pay for things and things of that sort. i would like to be able to go back to the citizens of west virginia and say we are testing them properly.
they have been given total support from the military. we want to make sure they are using the resources the most prudent way. >> we would be happy to put share,r--to be able to here is how we been saving money and here are plans to save and more. -- even more. sen. manchin: to the question is on the f-15 ask. can you explain more about that to me? the experts have identified and is i was thewhat know that the air force doesn't about a future threat environment? >> let me address that. my responsibility in point together the budget is to make sure we identify what the threats and campaigns that we need to structure development and enforced design. the services, the joint staff, andthe cost assessment performance evaluation organization have been doing the
analysis. i've asked the chairman on what the recommendation is in terms of the mix of tactical aircraft. >> senator, i spoke at length with the chief of staff of the air force and others on this issue. i will give it a framework. the primary aircraft of the future for the aircraft -- the air force is the f-35. they are not walking back on that. as they looked over the next several years, they had two problems. one, capability, represented by the fifth-generation aircraft, the f-35. and a capacity issue, both numbers of aircraft and the amount of ordinances that can be carried by those aircraft. they had the f-15c, which was 2027.out in the 27 -- the best solution was to go the , to back fillx the f-15. we will eventually get to an entire f-35 program.
but right now, this mix of aircraft has been determined to be the best mix of aircraft. not walking off the fifth generation, but in the near term, we need a culmination of a fourth and fifth generation to generate capacity. i would add that the f-15x is slightly less expensive than the f-35. it is more than 50% cheaper to operate over time and has twice as many hours in terms of how long it lasts. sen. manchin: thank you. , mr. chairman and the witnesses way testimony and service. i'm here because secretary asper asked me to a company to fort bell choir to visit with military houses -- families about housing issues. i did a visit on north fork -- norfolk military base. i'm stunned after talking to these families. physical condition of their units, mold, water damage, shoddy construction, poor,
repairs. the lack of responsiveness, that they can't do response from the housing companies, that they are told when they go to the chain of command, we don't do this anymore, we don't have responsibility. that when they do get the response, the quality of the repair work done by the maintenance connected with the companies or contractors that come up with our atrocious. what he really heard about today was the number of people getting sick. family'szations to my being forced to move out of units for significant amounts of being repairede so they can be habitable. carbon monoxide, co2, monitors going off. people being told it is fine and you can move back in but not being told what was wrong that was causing there to be co2. and mother girls, just told me in the last hour, 45 days of school best last year. one quarter of the school year. because of respiratory problems caused by mold in the unit.
i know you're focused on this, but i have to say, as a father of a marine, as someone who is in a state that is heavily military, it was absolutely depressing that physical conditions and, we have got to have both housing companies that will improve and a military that will fix. i've been pointing out nobody and listed to be a tenant of housing, they have a visit to be a sailor or an air meant, so we need to focus on the emergency issue. secretary shanahan, my reading of title 10, section 2808 is that the president can continue to use not obligated dollars for the duration of the emergency. having declared an emergency, that, congress butts unless there is emergency, we are putting a spigot into the budget for this budget year until the emergency is declared.
is that your understanding? >> my understanding is that as long as there is a declaration of there is an emergency -- an authority that goes along with that. >> i want to make it plain to everyone. we are voting on an emergency declaration that, until this president says there is not an emergency, it is a spigot cap into the milk on budget. only 2019ow not funds, but 2020 funds, 2021, future funds to be pulled out of themilcon budget at the presidents did -- president's discretion. a letter on figure a 15th asking for information about milcon projects that could be affected by the president's emergency declaration. my understanding was the committee staff has been repeatedly in contact with your office on the same thing. i understand that you committed to senator reid that you will get him that list today. is that correct? >> that is correct.
>> i feel completely sandbagged. the service secretary have had that list. they've had that list. the service secretaries have been willing to share the list of their projects. you will send it to us today after the vote on the emergency declaration? members of the senate are entitled to know from where moneys will be pulled. the fact that you come in today and say you will now give it to us after the vote this afternoon? your service secretaries and achieves have had these lists and when we asked them to send them to the committee, they said, we cannot without the permission of the second -- secd esk, so with a only available in the last half-hour? -- were they only available in the last half-hour? >> i think the situation is being misrepresented. there has not been a deliberate
attempt to withhold any information to this committee. >> let me state this to you. the staff has been reaching out to the service secretaries and saying, send us the list of unobligated milcon projects. they have been told they cannot do that. it has to come to the osd. -- through the osd. now you're going to produce that we have a vote at 1:45. this information is highly relevant to the senators were voting on this declaration. the question is, should a president be able to declare a nonmilitary emergency --that's what the military has testified--and then ransacked the pentagon budget for $6.1 billion. i think were entitled to know where the money might come from, especially since you just said, this is a multi-your declaration that opens up a spigot into the milcon budget. i don't think you giving us that list today after the vote, what we have been asking for it for a month is a good-faith response of the request of this committee.
tell me if i miss her presented what is going on. >> throughout this process, at the emergency declaration, and i will have to say, this is not something we do every day. from the very start, we have worked to be 100% transparent with congress. 100%. >> i agree you don't do an emergency declaration every day, but every day you have a list of unobligated milcon projects, don't you? >> we've always had a list. that is how we keep books. it's not like we don't have a list of projects. >> why wouldn't your services share those with the committee after continuing request from kaine,mittee? >> senator your time is long expired. under the passion you feel. we are adjourned. >> chairman, i had a couple of follow-up questions. >> i know you did. >> are you adjourned -- are we adjourned? >> i have to say this about senator king. i say this in front of--they are
gone now. of all of the members, democrat and republican, you are the one who has been the most responsible. you have been to every single meeting, no one else can say that. would be a it violation of what we will do, if you want to have -- if you want to withdraw that just long enough for you to do one question-- only because it is you. got it? [laughter] >> nope. >> one comment, and one question. the comment, i like him that mr. norquest for the work is done. i failed to get -- to do that before. working to the audit process is a herculean task. you've embarked on it well and i truly couple met you on that. -- couple met you on that. i qualify that by the invention base,e phrase oco for
that's like rabbit for bicycle. those things are consistent. -- are not consistent. my question, based on all of this, i'm confused. attempt the pentagon is the only building in america you could drive straight toward and it keeps getting further away. i feel a little bit like that today. 2019 your testimony that military construction projects that were authorized and appropriated for our off the table or are they only off the table if they are obligated before september 30? fairly straightforward question. mr. norquest, perhaps you can answer. >> i turned it off. looking onat we are and prioritizing is contracts that award later. if there is a project in the 2019 bill that has not been
conference call today that she would reject an offer for a classified briefing for congressional leaders on the findings of special counsel robert mueller's report on russian involvement in the 2016 election. the speaker said she believes everything and the report should be unclassified. the associated press reports that attorney general william barr will not release any information today about the special counsel's final report. on this morning's washington journal, we talked with a reporter about what to expect from the justice department. >> on the phone with us this morning is karen tumulty, an opinion writer for the washington post. karen, good morning. karen: good morning. now that the know mueller report has been sent to attorney general william barr? three things for sure. we know it is finally done. we know that