tv Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan Testifies on 2020 Budget Request CSPAN May 12, 2019 2:25pm-3:34pm EDT
thank you. >> the previous day, mr. shanahan was on capitol hill with the joint chief chairman to testify on the pentagon's 2020 budget. here is some of their testimony, beginning with the lead democrat, senator jack reed, asking them about u.s. policy toward iran. thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, on sunday evening, the national security advisor announced u.s. is deploying a strike group and bomber task force to send response to a number of indications involving iran. the threats were significant enough for secretary pompeo to cancel a meeting with prime minister merkel and go to iraq. it took the department or than two days to share any information with the
congressional defense committees. i sit on both. i think that is unacceptable. this is a serious situation requiring a response, should be informed. why were we not informed in a timely manner? when will we receive a detailed briefing on what is happening? you the i can give evolution of the course of events. we always give timely information. that is a responsibility we have. chairman dunford has some time with you this afternoon. i would imagine he can give you a detailed update. let me give you a characterization of the events. thursday morning, we were working in venezuela with the government. of thisved indications very incredible intelligence on friday afternoon, understanding
the sources and to get the teams turning on what does it mean and how may we respond? chairman dunford called me and said that north korea was now shooting rockets and missiles. saturday, the chairman and i went through the intelligence with general mckenzie from centcom. it was sunday afternoon he came back and said, here is what we are recommending. i need authority to proceed. i coordinated with the state department and mst. it was sunday night before any information was put together. in an ideal situation, we would give you an update. on monday, this is wednesday. we should be more timely. to let you know
that our focus was to deter. we saw the intelligence. we sent some messages on friday. to make sure it was clear to iran that we recognize the threat. asked secretary for on sunday, it would have made its way to the gulf. what i asked was to accelerate the movement of the lincoln and the bomber task force so there would be no ambiguity on our preparedness to respond against any threat to our peoples. that is why we worked hard to do that. we did not want to be in a position to respond. we wanted to make sure we could take as much action over the weekend to declare that. i understand your point on the reporting piece. >> let me follow up with another question. before easter, i traveled to iraq and afghanistan.
i had the opportunity to meet with the president of afghanistan. saw several local leaders. all of them suggested that the designation of the irgc is a terrorist group was provocative and destabilizing. that is for the record. let me ask you, are you aware of any evidence that the irgc or any other iranian group is associated -- is an associated force with al qaeda? associated force being a key provision? you have any evidence of the? -- do you have any evidence of that? could do it ine a closed session. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. it is great to see secretary shanahan.
we appreciate your leadership. it is always good to hear you, talk about how we can be a more lethal, effective fighting machine. over the past six months, our have dedicated a significant amount of resources to hurricane recovery. touring thatmp is facility. if congress does not pass it soon, how does it affect us?
immediate evacuation and then they have to assess the property to try to do the repairs. they want to take care of the folks who have been displaced. these were not originally programmed for that purpose. in congress provided the support for the airittee force and marine corps that allowed them to continue those operations because there's only a limited amount he can take from other accounts. us would allow them, particularly as we deal with facility and maintenance, which is the biggest acquirement. as you look out over the next few years they're going to have to start doing rebuilding. so there is $2 billion in our request in 2020 for the military construction to support that, and there will be some that follows. that additional support prevents from from disrupting training,
deleg the repair and maintenance of the existing facilities which they'd have to do in terms of re aligning the funds. we greatly appreciate that support. >> but generally supplementals come through in a short period of time. this is not coming through. what's happening now? what's going to be the effect if we don't get this done soon? >> what they end up door is stopping the repair and maintenance of other facilities across the country and look at potential training that would have to be affected at year end. >> are we at that point now. >> i believe we are. i believe the air force has implemented some of those controls even now. >> like many states arkansas has been hit hard by suicide. service members, veterans, it's a top priority of all of us at the committee. i assume it's the top priority at the dod. as acting secretary of defense how are you working together with secretary wilke to spread
the suicide presentation task force and do you know any updateds for us? >> as for the task force, i don't have any specific updates for the fantastic force itself. the integration of the department that we transition people between the dod, and the va is critical. that's a high-priority area for secretary wilke and ourselves. the collaboration is vital. but also the work we do in the department. in a second i will ask chairman dunford just to provide a perspective of what's changed over his career because i think he's got some unique insights. but in the department, we've fundamentally deployed forward more mental health professionals we also know that these issues aren't just about mental health. we also know these issues are not just about mental health but it is about being able to get support for when people have relationship problems, or financial issues.
so we've really expanded our -- how we address suicide more broadly than just simply mental health. chairman? >> senator, when i first really worked in this issue institutionally, i was assistant in the marine corps in 2010. at the time, we had a very stove piped approach to delivering mental healthcare. i think there's probably two things i think are promising. -- promising developments. the first is the multi- disciplinary approach to healthcare. and now when an individual seeks help it's not a point to point. they see the psychiatrist, that doesn't workers they see the psychologist, that doesn't workers social worker, that's doesn't work there's an approach with where an individual is managed by a team that has the appropriate skills to deal with that individual's problem. the other challenge we had was i think a misinterpretation of privacy associated with medicare -- medical care in a sense that
we didn't have the kind of sharing of information across korean teams, chaplains, medical professionals so that when we have an individual who needed help, we could identify that individual, and take proactive action. and i think those two things are among the promising initiatives. but i don't think any of us would say we are complacent where we are with mental health as a whole or specifically with the scourge of suicide. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> senator shots. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'll start with general dunford, in a want talk about one. guam. general miller and i had a good exchange in the subcommittee committee. the basic question is some of the assumptions that went into the guam realignment were based on lift and the availability of the training areas. and that is not currently in evidence. and i'm wondering whether the
department is considering re evaluating the plan, understanding that we have a n iron-clad commitment to the government of japan to follow through on our promise. but we don't have an iron-clad commitment to do it stupidly. and the purpose of having marines forward is to have them ready to fight tonight but they have to wait for lift from san diego, or honolulu, then it defeats the purpose and starts to look like an illogical plan, i'd like you to comment on that. >> probably just by coincidence the secretary and i had a meeting today at 1600 on this issue, and there's really 3 main areas, and i think general mill er has talked about it. the aviation, laydown, and there are challenges with the training in three of those areas. we do have things to discuss with the secretary today. so as we move forward, as you say, the -- we have, i make one key assumption, it will be
decades as we implement the dpri and we want to make sure we do it right. we'll talk to the secretary about those two issues today. your characterization for the members is fair. two key assumptions, these go back to 2008-2009. one was when we moved significant forces down to guam we would have training areas for the infantry forces that would be there. we haven't developed the access to the training areas as fast as we want. and give the challenges we have in the pacific mobility remains a challenge, and we've gotta look at increase in the capacity of the mobility in the area. but i can assure you it has the attention of the secretary and i , and secretary spencer, and secretary navy has had a number of conversations with the secretary as well. >> can i just make one comment? >> really evolved out of the national defense strategy with the focus on china. and we'revery cognizant of the decisions we're making in terms of construction.
because it will last 30-50 years. so the timing isn't coincidental , we just recognize now before we go make these investments in construction, let's finalize on what's the most effective use of these resources. >> absolutely let's stay in the pacific. admiral davis' plans on the endopacific, maintains access to the micronesia, the marshals, what are we doing to help state an interior extend the agreements that expire in 2023? >> i'm not -- current -- i'll take for the record in terms of what we're doing there. the value of -- the marshal islands, are immensely important as we develop our missile defense capabilities. working with admiral davidson, just like the previous question you had, what is our thinking around where we want to put sensors, and as you know the importance of these contribution
s to their gdp is very significant. >> right, and but, state has to get on this because 2023 is coming up, and obviously the chinese are doing their influence campaign, which has to do as much with geopolitics and an advancement strategy as anything else. so i will take that for the record. but next question. back to tyndall. the air force goes through a strategic basing process, and what we're hearing, and i don't know that it's true, but what we're hearing is that there is a plan afoot to change tyndall from an f-22 base to an f-35 base, and my question is, a, is that true, and b, if so, is this going through the regular order within the department of defense , and within the department of the air force? is this sort of flowing through the regular strategic basing
process because just to be totally blunt, what we are hearing is that this is more of a political process that is being fed from the white house, down through the department, and that makes it more difficult for us to find our enthusiasm to fund this. and i'll add one last thing. the base was flattened, there is another base 50 miles away. this is, according to the department, the ninth most vulnerable base to severe weather. and now at least, apparently, because of a political commitment we're looking at , spending billions of dollars to rebuild an air force base 50 miles away from another air force base, both of which are vulnerable to severe weather. so can you reassure us this is being done on a level? >> i'll reassure you on the level, in terms of rebuilding tyndall. >> what does that mean? i'm asking whether -- i'm asking whether this is going through the strategic basing process, and the regular order or is this
coming from the white house? >> on the f-35, i'll have to go back and look. this is a new development to me in terms of a basing decision on the f-22's versus the f-35. i do know we want to preserve our presence in florida because of the value of the test range where we conduct the flying missions. >> and you don't think you could fly from the base, 50 miles away if you use that test range? >> i'll get with doctor wilson and understand how she made that basing decision. >> okay, i'll take that for the record, and i'll take that as you're not sure whether this is being done through the regular order or not. >> i just want to validate how dr. wilson made that decision. >> thank you. >> senator collins. sen. collins: thank you mr. chairman. general, region first thank you for your many decades of dedicate service to our country. general, despite the administration's diplomatic
efforts with north korea, we still appear to be far apart in reaching an agreement on denuclearization. in march, it was announced that the pentagon was canceling two additional large-scale military exercises, that with south korea that were expected to be held this spring. i know there are smaller scale exercises that are continuing to take place. but this cancellation concerns me. do you believe that these small er training exercises are adequate to maintain the read iness of our troops and allies, especially as tensions remain what north korea's recent short-range missile test this past weekend?
>> i'll start by saying that i had absolutely confident that the training program we have in place right now will allow us to do what we talk about in the united states forces korea, which is fight the night, and i speak for admiral davis, and we did revise the training program on the peninsula. and we used to conduct large- large-scale exercises for two reasons. one, very high profile to deter north korea, and the others to maintain proficiency and conduct training. we have found other ways to do the training. we've gone through each and every mission-essential task, and combined forces in korea and put together a new program that's focused on the mission - essential tasks and a smaller profile in terms of deterrence to support the diplomatic track. i will tell you i am completely confident right now that the program we have in place between exercise and training will allow us to maintain proficiency at the right levels. sen. collins: let me turn to a different issue. many of us, in light of the air force's testimony last year were
surprised to see funding for f- 15ex's in the budget. that seemed contradictory to what the air force said that it needs. are you concerned that allocating funds to fourth generation fighters, the f-15ex 's will prevent the air force from buying a sufficient nothing number of f-35a's neat to get to 50% fifth generation fleet in time. -- in time to meet the threats from russia and china? >> great question senator. and this is an issue i looked at pretty hard. there were a number of variables that went into those decisions. so i'll walk you through those and answer your question about the f-35 ramp specifically. first, how much money we're going to spend in tactical aviation. second, how many platforms we needed to have. capacity of the total fleet. third was how much ordinance of what type we had to carry.
and then, the f-15c, which was not going to make it past the mid-2020's, and in our competitive area of study, so this was a joint study. this wasn't a programmatic decision. this supported the air force's decision we looked at a mix of 4 th and 5th generation of aircraft from 2025-2035, to be the right mix of aircraft because of the way the f15-ex could compliment the 5th generation fighter so we felt like a 4th/5th generation mix would allow us to meet the war plan requirements. and we'll still be flying the f-35's as fast as we can. sen. collins: secretary shanahan, last weekend 700 rockets were fired by militant groups from gaza into israel which demonstrates the continued importance of the united states and israel working together to
deploy a multi-tiered missile defense system. we have put year after year with the support of virtually a lot of this committee under the leadership of our chairman. significant resources behind programs such as iron dome, arrow, david sling. do you see opportunities to increase our missile defense cooperation with israel? investments,those arrow in particular -- the iron dome, i think we are going to buy two batteries of iron dome. defensetactical missile . the capability they have been has to deploy and mature broader use them just in israel. think the collaborative work between missile defense agency and the israeli defense forces
has enormous benefit in the future and i would continue to invest in that capability. sen. collins: benefits both countries. thank you mr. chairman. i have additional questions i would like to submit for the record. >> take you, senator. senator feinstein. sen. feinstein: thank you very much, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i would like to talk a little bit about the nuclear provisions in the budget. as you know, the new start treaty limits of both russia and the united states to 1550 deployed launchers. it's my understanding that both nations have met the treaty in february, 2018 as required by the agreement. a cbo report in february estimate that the united states
will spend 494 billion on nuclear weapons from fy 19 through fy 28. that's an increase of $94 billion or 23% from a cbo's previous estimate of 400 billion which was published in january of 2017. now the president's budget contains 10 million to finish production of low yield variants of a ballistic launch and in the 19 reappropriated 65 million for the program. the budget also includes 5 million to study the development of a new cruise missile. the nuclear modernization continues and the request includes 2.2 billion for the
navy program to build 12 columbia class ballistic missile submarines and the air force is seeking 3 billion to continue raiderpment of the b 21 rate o and 713 million for the long-range program. and it goes on and on. we are at our limits under the treaty. my understanding is the president has an interest of beginning some negotiations with china and russia. my question is where are we going with the nuclear program ? the money is so increased now that what they project to me is that there is a new interest in going beyond the new start treaty level. i'd like to ask if you would be willing to engage in conversation on the subject. i'm from the generation of the
daisy, if you remember, at the end of world war ii all of this happened and all of the fears and some concern that we go back to the kind of nuclear development that becomes easier and easier to use. >> chairman, i will take team this. maybe i can answer your question in three segments. arms control is vital. expires in february of 2021 and we need to continue to make progress on it. the provisions allow for an extension up to five years so there's a backstop if you will if we don't make the progress of that february 2021 timeline. the treaty does not address new
capabilities. so when we look at some of the weapons russia is developing in its modernization program we still have to address those. more broadly, we need to deal with arms control and where we put those treaties in place there wasn't a china making a significant investment in nuclear weapons. the unfortunate situation is the life of our existing nuclear triad is becoming obsolete with end of life and without the certainty of some of the treaties, now is the time that we have to be making investments to do the modernization. so when you look at the nuclear capabilities of russia and with the chinese are doing now isn't the time to unilaterally disarm.
sen. feinstein: i don't mean to interrupt you but we are , constrained at that number and applying it and that will be the case in 2021 as i understand that. >> i understand your concerns and i would say number one, the capabilities that we are fielding and the doctrine we have is to produce the probability for these of nuclear weapons. with had three views across the two administrations and the consistent findings in those recommendations and by and large with exception of the low yield missile you mentioned has been consistency across all three. you mention the 1550, but there is also 2500 nonstrategic weapons that the russians maintain as well.
when we look at the doctrine and capability i won't take too much time that we see scenarios where they believe they may potentially be able to use the small and strategic nuclear weapons in europe and the united states in the position where we only have an opportunity to respond in a strategic nuclear weapons or not respond at all so it's designed to make sure they are convinced is no circumstance under which the use of nuclear weapons could result in a strategic advantage for them. sen. feinstein: so, how does that justify this increase in spending, the 2.2 billion for the navy program, the ballistic missile submarines and the air fore 3 billion 718 million the long-range and effeminate
and the minuteman three. what you're doing is developing more low-class options area >> -- options. >> we are developing a low-you -- low-yield option to ensure we have deterrence across the spectrum of to put the cost into context again we are implementing the results at the peak of the most important mission wishes to deter the warhich is to deter nuclear and that the peak will be about 6% will be about 6% of the total obligation authority and no question we should seek to drive the cost down as well as we possibly can. but in context with the most important mission having a safe credible nuclear deterrent is what we seek to do. sen. feinstein: just so i understand this you are in essence saying you were going
for this large expenditure that's an increase of $94 billion over the cbo's player prior 10-year estimate of $400 billion, and those are the numbers you are going to follow ? it is going to that kind of increase? i'm not able to talk to the cbo's numbers. the percentage just a few days and accurate number and i would be happy to take for the record the baseline and what they are basing their projections on but i can assure you this program is the one that has been been supported by the nuclear posture and we shouldow, have started this decades ago the arduino find ourselves with literally the description of modernization where all three legs of the triad capability have to be modernized at the same time.
sen. feinstein: thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. isn't it vital that we continue to invest in our nuclear mission in order to continue to make sure we modernize it and in fact the two are russia and china as -- and in fact deter russia and china as they continue to invest in their nuclear capabilities? is file as youn see russia modernizing and china , now is not the time to disarm. >> i couldn't agree more. that is the effort the department has underway right now to make sure we have a safe , reliable, and a credible deterrent into the future. >> and that means the nuclear triad? important element is the command and
control capability as well. >> do you feel we are undertaking that modernization plan adequately to detour major adversaries like china and russia that are making big investments in their capabilities. >> our initiatives are completely informed in the review that us is what it would the use of nuclear weapons by an adversary and obviously russia and china as you highlighted are the significant adversaries we face, but not the only. >> i fully agree with that. the nuclear triad has proven effective over seven decades. this is about modernization more than it is about delivering the new capabilities are changing -- or changing our doctrine. >> so the reality is we become less secure if we don't make these investments to update the nuclear systems. >> yes, senator. >> along with senator leahy and the montgomery bell that would -- montgomery g.i. bill parity act that would allow members in reserve and guard to utilize
educational benefits under the g.i. bill as well as the tuition assistance program which active duty members can now do. i would ask for your support on that legislation. >> both are committed to supporting that. >> we will review the language and i'm happy to. >> we found a huge factor in recruiting in fact these high-tech people they people we needed some of the missions and retaining them, incredibly important. general dunford, in regard to the aggressive posture of russia and chinese activities in the arctic, clearly we need to more. do we have sufficient arctic ands in the
, i'm talking about things like the air force base and the mission with potential to cover in the arctic -- are we making the investment we need and is that the right kind of investment to make sure we are covering article? >> in candor, i have to tell you that i don't think any combatant commander would tell you today they have sufficient intelligence surveillance reconnaissance. we are probably meeting on a day-to-day asus the recommendations i made the secretary is between 30 to 40% -- 30% to 40% of the combatant commanders need so there's a strong demand signal and what we do for the secretary is how to best allocate the isr we have today and we make continued investments in the future. one of the reasons we are invested more in space as it will be a significant enhancement to the overall reconnaissance capability.
>> mr. secretary. >> we will never have enough isr given the current capabilities. the chairman made mention of this but i will make it even , more broadly. space will enable unbelievable amount of observation so by 2025 , these are estimates, commercially, and this is where we need to tap into the commercial innovation there will , be persistent surveillance of the globe by 2025. and how we view this will completely change as we leverage space and its capabilities. >> final question is for counter capability. we have 900 miles of border we have thety and air force base with isr, but we
have customs and border protection of flying both manned and unmanned aircraft. what about countering the anti-efforts. we just passed legislation in terms of your efforts to counter the activity. >> we've spent considerable time in the northern command because when we think about this emerging threat and i do think , of these as something that's low-cost and easy to manipulate , we need to develop the capabilities and the rules because quite frankly the airspace is shared by so many different authorities, so it is as much about the roles that operate in space and the technologies to defeat them it's a high priority for the department. we've deployed a lot of capabilities in terms of evolving the ability to detect
and feet, we are progressing as a department. now i think it becomes how do we work with the faa and share the airspace to defeat this emerging threat. >> and dhs, and both battlefield and homeland. >> absolutely. >> senator baldwin. sen. baldwin: thank you mr. chairman. secretary shanahan, president of trump stated in the national security strategy that a healthy defense industrial base is a critical element of national security and that the industrial base is dependent on the ability of the nation's workforce and industries to surge at a time of need. additionally, the department of defense issued an industrial base report last fall which expressed some concerns and i quote currently the industrial base faces an unprecedented set of challenges declined of critical markets and suppliers,
unintended consequences of u.s. government acquisition behavior, aggressive industrial policies of competitor nations and of the loss of vital skills in the domestic workforce do you agree -- workforce. do you agree with these statements and concerns? >> i do sen. baldwin: i also believe a solid industrial defense base should be a national priority and from both an economic and security perspective i think we , can no longer afford to be dependent upon the suppliers for -- foreign suppliers for critical defense components. however as we have been having , our subcommittee hearings , the services have testified in support of budgets and acquisition plans that perhaps gives a short riff to the focus on supporting a healthy u.s.
workforce as a national security priority. i know from my own wisconsin experience that these workers are patriotic americans who believe that their work in the industrial base is a service to their country. so, mr. secretary, can you commit to working with me to support policies, strategies and solutions that both strengthen the industrial base and national security and particularly those that support american workers? >> i am happy to do that. maybe i can comment on the report that you referred to. there is a classified annex to the report that we put forth. in a classified annex, we identified the risks and as you highlighted, some of them are capacity of its overseas that we need to move onshore in december -- onshore, and some have identified where we have only a single where we have to find
another source and succumbed -- and we also found companies underinvested that didn't have the investment capital to replace old infrastructure. that classified annex -- we identified the most significant risk and then we put money against those items to address some of those shortfalls. i recognize the importance of our workforce and i would be happy to work with you. sen. baldwin: thank you for pointing out the annex. i will look forward to an opportunity to review that in more detail and continue to work together. general dunford, is it accurate to say the mission of the 5200 servicemembers in iraq is5200 is servicemembers in iraq is 5200 to train and work with iraqi forces in the counter isys mission?
general dunford: the most important thing we are doing is conducting counterterrorism and protecting the american people but part of our mission in doing that is to enhance the capabilities to consolidate the gains made as we cleared isys -- isis over the past two and a half years. >> are you aware of any evidence that would make iran or the ir gc and associated force of al qaeda? >> we probably couldn't talk about that in this venue. >> i will try another question. secretary pompeo went to iraq to discuss the new threat stream from iran. it seemed to me, at least at first glance to be a completely , separate bucket of threats sis counterterrorism threat that the current military mission is addressing under the
2001 aumf. say anything about this new threat from iran and can you put it in the same bucket, if you will, is this what the 2001 would cover? general dunford i don't view it as being the same as isis, but the posture in the region has been too detoured iran going back to so when secretary pompeo 1979. raised the visibility of the threat streams we have seen really in testified -- intensified last week what we were attempting to do both with the movement of force elements the secretary approved in the public messaging was too detoured any potential action as a whole. this topic iran and
dunford,rgc, general we consulted prior to the administration designated the irgc as a terrorist organization? general dunford: i had an opportunity to provide military advice. >> did you agree with the designation? >> because it is military advice, if i could buy that and i would be happy to put maybe not in an open menu. >> what risk do you see the response -- the reciprocal response by iran posing two u.s. -- posing two u.s. service members? >> we are watching it very closely and that is what we started to see last week and we are trying to mitigate that with a deterrent posture as well as messaging. >> thank you. what would the effect beyond
back intary if we went the administration? >> i think it would be devastating. >> do you agree with that, general dunford? general dunford: yes, i do. >> it seems like the world is still a dangerous place. >> i certainly do. >> let's talk about syria. the syrian stabilization force, how is that coming? general dunford it's coming : along well in terms of training we have sufficient u.s. and coalition forces right now to perform that mission and the state department has taken the lead on developing governance in those areas that have been cleared of isis as well. >> i think you have a great plan. if general dunford and others ask you to help, please say yes. europe was ravaged by isis attacks so it's your site also.
-- fight also. i'm hoping our european allies will invest in a stabilization force not only for serious but further protection and ours. president trump said in september 2018 the president of syria must not recklessly attack russians and iranians fully -- would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this human tragedy , hundreds of thousands of people could be called. don't let that happen. do you agree that should still be our policy? >> it is still the policy and i think you probably know secretary pompeo is meeting with foreign minister lavrov twice in period of seven days and that will be part of his message. >> guadalcanal are you concerned about the increased military activity ?
>> we have in recent weeks seen increased activity. presidente the appreciates what is being done in afghanistan. secretary, do you agree that the reason we have troops in iraq is to protect the american homeland from the radical islamic? >> i agree with that. >> do you agree that isys is -- isis is getting larger not smaller in afghanistan and? >> i do. >> do you agree that a platform is needed? >> it's [inaudible] >> it's in our national security interest as a platform do you agree with him never to a peaceful resolution on topic and denies the tablet and safe even? >> i believe pakistan plays an important role. >> do you agree with that general dunford? general dunford: i do, senator. libya, is that the policy it the policy of the united states and libya to support a peaceful resolution not a military solution? >> correct.
>> are we picking one side over ? >> no? we still support the recognized government >> we ? 's support a diplomatic solution. >> i would recommend someone call the minister to let him know we are not taking sides. do you agree that that would be smart? that there's been confusion? >> communication is vital. >> we are almost done. iran -- if they restart their nuclear program, reprocessing would you consider that a threat , to the united states? >> we look at iran and to see four threats that exist in certainly an armed renren will be a threat to the united state along with use of proxies and cyber threat and maritime.
>> do you agree secretary? i think we should consider that hostile act and put all options on the table. when we send american troops to iraq and afghanistan to protect our country and allies from the , do we owe it to them to protect them from all threats? >> we do. >> is it appropriate for a lawful force to protect itself? >> that is consistent. s have designsian on attacking the troops they are there to protect against the rise of radical islam like isis we would have the body to defend , ourselves if necessary. >> they would have the ability to defend themselves. >> in case the iranians are listening they attack american , forces in iraq and syria and any other place at their own peril?
>> our forces have the ability to respond immediately and they don't need to come back to washington to ask her mission. >> and you will make sure they are defended? >> we will make sure they are defended. >> thank you both. >> you are just in time. thank you. i apologize. i know you've all been here for a while and i just wanted a chance to ask you a couple of questions. mr. secretary, thank you for meeting with me yesterday. i wanted to ask about the military sexual assault issue we chatted a little bit about that . the result is disturbing to me and the survey found more than 6% of women service members have been sexually assaulted. when you include the men, that translates to about 20,500 service members that have been assaulted and i've long pushed the department to do more and
advocated for additional funding, new programs including legislation to create the special victims counsel program. four years, we've heard from the department that the services have this under control, everybody's doing the right thing but i can't sit here today , and continue to read the report and to say that i have confidence in the department's ability to put an end to this abhorrent behavior. so i want to ask how you are going to address this problem and what the military is going to do. we keep hearing from everyone and you said it yesterday that leadership and all of this, but it is not working. >> first of all, thank you for the time yesterday. i did a little homework between our meeting and i want to talk about that homework just so i can put some context or ize and talk
about the actions we are taking and also thank you for asking the question. i think it is important that we talk about what's working because there's many things working and we look back at the implementation there are things that have improved and done things that are not working so i can talk about what's not working and what we are focused on to address that. to ourre two aspects focus. one is on the largest population, the problem, and also the system itself. maybe i just talk about the report. 20,500 we talk about the assaults, that is an estimate. that is not what is reported. reported iswhat was the number of sexual assault 4002 of those.
the department does a survey and that survey is to really get after the hidden side of this. is the actual number of cases not capturing everything that is happening? so there is a survey that goes , noto all of the members all but a very significant population of the 2.1 million people. and that, they develop a prevalence rate and it's a factor they apply to the number of cases reported. they took that factor and applied it to the 4002. the in how they derived 20,000. the 20,000, the biggest population that experienced the growth is women between 17 and 24. that's where we simply want to -- said we wanted to drive the numbers and as we focus on. what we know about the population and these incidents
is that it's peer on peer. 85% of the victims knew the accuser and two thirds involved alcohol. also for us as a department, the climate and environment, that's where we need to be concentrated. when we look at the system to evaluate the report of the 4002 cases about 29% of those were , not within our jurisdiction so if we look at how many needed and disposed of in 2018, there were something to the orders of a little bit more than where 2800. there was sufficient evidence , we took action 100% of the time against the accused. over half of those were court-martials and the other or -- and the other half for other
types of judicial action. we know we need to continue to improve the system itself so the ability it is to collect evidence or resources, accountability of commanders or potential retaliation that's also part of , the focus. >> i'm not here to post numbers and nobody is. i would just say these reports are relevant over years and there is a an increase in numbers rather than a decrease and the military has been focusing on this for a long time. so whatever has been happening isn't working, and i began to think we need to put controls on oversight of the department because we just can't accept this and as i said yesterday you don't want your daughter going into the military if a high percent of women are victims of sexual assault. something is not working, slang deep concern and will continue
to follow this as i know a , number of members will. >> we will work with you. we don't accept the results and know we have to do better. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you both for your service to the country. the review finds near the nations like china and russia are the top national security priority. this committee will need to find a way to pay for a huge increase in spending to replace the branches including the strategic forces. since 2001, we have spent trillions on the war in iraq and afghanistan. one analysis found found a cost over $5 trillion more than
for every american taxpayer. $23,000those five are wars have put us in a huge budget hole . during this time china and , russia have been watching the capabilities and working to meet or exceed our comparative advantage. do you still agree that those competitors are our biggest national security threat? a simple yes or no answer. >> yes. >> general dunford? general dunford: yes. >> while some in the administration are talking about two new additional conflicts in -- referring to iran and venezuela, the u.s. is still involved in afghanistan 17 years later. the president has said great nations do not fight endless wars. that is his quote. senator paul and i introduced
legislation to honor those that fought and to bring our troops home. do you anticipate u.s. forces coming home from afghanistan anytime soon or are we looking at an indefinite situation and how would you do you explain the current policy and conditions for u.s. withdrawal to the american people in a clear and simple way? >> the current policy remains the south asia strategy. our best chance for peace coming peace, this is probably the best in 40 years taking place right now the policy is to fight and talk we are fighting the -- and talk them into reproduction. we've been doing this for a long, long time. i think we are making progress. >> i think the numbers are that
they control half the country right now. the critical population areas they don't control. i want to change territory with them. i think the areas we have the presence is of greater value and importance to the afghan people. >> if i could address this. i don't think anybody would want to withdraw forces from afghanistan or the broad middle east more than me. i will share with you the advice that i have provided now to two presidents. we've significantly reduced the commitment to afghanistan. when i commanded in afghanistan, we had 100,000 americans and another 30,000 nato forces and fear down to 15,000 americans -- and we are down to 15,000 americans and 7,000 nato forces and it's my judgment based on the french today we need to continue to put pressure on those terrorist groups or they will pose a threat to the united states. i know it's frustrating to you and the american people trust to be there such a long period of
time, but it's my judgment right now the conditions for the complete withdrawal are not there. the conditions to continue to decrease our presence in the region as we have an increased the responsibility of, in this case the afghan forces to , provide security for themselves, i think we can expect that to happen and i would echo the current negotiations. it is the first time in many, many years when we've had some opportunity to pursue a peaceful resolution to the war in afghanistan. at the end of the day, i don't believe there is a military solution and we will need to maintain a presence as long as the insurgency continues in afghanistan. >> mr. shanahan, you recently said, and i quote here, we really need to get back to our primary missions and continue to generate readiness". your statement echoes the
general of the marine corps when he warned that a series of "unplanned and unbudgeted tasks that included to plummet to the border, where there is no emergency constituted and unacceptable risk to marine corps combat readiness and solvency." that itu both agree would be better for military readiness and defense budgeting to keep the troops and funds out of the highly charged political controversy about border security and immigration policy? >> let me just stress my quote. it was, working with chairman dunford, we want to enable dhs to be able to manage their situation so that we don't need to provide continuing support." lesseneral mmo that said -- unless certain funds are provided, you would have to back it himself and his much as
listen to run not around deployment to the border. it wasn't having any impact on him. we do need to solve the situation at the border. it's a humanitarian issue and it's also a security issue. the sooner we address that, the better off we will be. >> the politically charged in mind that you speak about, with had and met historical in supporting civil authorities and in the department of homeland security, specifically, it goes back many years. we would want that capacity that we backfill to be smaller than it is right now. dsh had some legitimate shortfalls. have visited not the border and the department of homeland security does not have the capacity to do jan job -- to do their job.
everything our men and women are doing is legal. they have had the proper training and equipment and they have very clear instructions about what they are doing. i will continue to make sure that is the case. >> from the border perspective i , i don't feel mexico is our enemy. i think the asylum seeking migrants, larger from central american countries, i don't think they pose a serious national security threat. we do have a humanitarian threat we should be focusing on, and come to the table to talk about that. i think that you all should be focused on the national security many, andhich we have there are some other than a talking in a leash you are doing that today, about innocent other wars. that is where i am coming from.
i appreciate your testimony today and thank you for your service. >> just for the record, tell us again what in your judgment what would happen in afghanistan if we made a precipitous withdrawal withdrawal? >> there's about 20 groups in the region i would describe as violent extremist groups. >> handful of those groups have clearly demonstrated to be intent to attack the homeland and citizens and i believe that the counterterrorism efforts that are put into those groups over the last years have prevented another 9/11. difficult to prove it from the time i spent in afghanistan-a -- afghanistan, i have been a commander there and i am confident. if you want to think about this in terms of term insurance once you stop paying the premium, you no longer have insurance and what we are doing in afghanistan to date in my judgment is a commensurate level to the threat.
>> thank you for your apparent. we also know that i along with others are going to submit additional written questions for you and i hope you will respond to them within 30 days. the subcommittee will reconvene in a closed session next wednesday, may 15 at 10:00 a.m. to receive testimony from u.s. intelligence community. the committee is recessed. thank you. which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> you can watch all of this hearing on our website, sees and.org. on the home page, type "defense budget" in the video library window. we also have house and senate floor speeches on the 2020 pentagon budget. c-span networks have coverage of the confirmation hearings, the senate armed services committee has not announced a hearing date. here is a look at what is live monday on the c-span networks.
the-span, a discussion on pending court cases around the country concerning opioid use. democratic presidential candidate and former vice president joe biden campaigns in new hampshire, and a discussion on the process for decommissioning nuclear power plants in the united states. on c-span two, a look at the army's recently published two-volume history on the u.s. army and the iraq war. the, the secretaries of army and air force outline their priorities for those military branches. the senate gavels and at 3:00 p.m. eastern to continue work on judicial nominations. >> the c-span bus is stopping at middle and high schools across the country to meet and award the winners of our studentcam video competition. recently in colorado springs, colorado with our cable partner comcast, where we met with worse price high school west winners from william j palmer high school. >> for us, it did not take long
in our research to find all of the disparities in voting rights, especially with native americans living on reservations. that one was kind of a shock to me, considering that we have in coexisting for a very, very long time and they still struggle with voting rights and gerrymandering as well seems like such an outdated thing, but it still exist and it is still a problem, so those are some things that we just wanted to focus on. all the winning entries from this year's contest, go to studentcam.org. next, a portion of the hearing on border security held by senate judiciary subcommittees. senator johnh cornyn, the subcommittee chair, urging witnesses to review what is happening at the border.
what congress needs to do. i'm not talking about what president trump needs to do or what anyone else needs to do, i am asking you, tell us what congress needs to do. in order to give you the tools you need in order to do your job. i will recognize your first for your opening statement. -- >> thank you, and good afternoon. i could not be prouder to be here today representing the men and women of the border patrol. i joined the border patrol nearly 25 years ago because of my strong belief in our border security mission. i could