tv Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan Testifies on 2020 Budget Request CSPAN May 8, 2019 9:31pm-11:18pm EDT
testified on presiden on presids 202presidents trumps2020 budgete senate appropriations subcommittee. top leaders addressed the border operations, cybersecurity and of the administration's u.s. space force proposal. this runs one hour and 45 minutes. the committee will come to order. today the we have the acting secretary defense and general i
will forgo an opening statement i know we have already held you up some today. following the chair man's example. opening statements will be made part of the record. proceed as you wish. >> distinguished members of the committee thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of the president's budget request for fiscal year 2020. i'm joined by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the financial officer mr. norquist. let's begin by recognizing for his more than four decades of service this morning likely marks his last congressional
testimony before his retirement. on behalf of the entire department of defense, thank you for your gifted and selfless leadership the nation is safer because of your unwavering dedication and it's been a privilege to serve alongside you and it's been a privilege and honor to serve alongside all the men and women of the department of defense it was a pleasure to craft the national defense strategy that laid the foundation for modernizing the joint force for the era of great power competition. i oversee the continued execution of the strategy switches the undisputed driver of today's budget request. it was extremely helpful for the public to receive authorization and appropriate bills on time and at the request of topline
last year the defense appropriations have been in a debate the beginning of the fiscal year the strategies did last year is the same strategy we are asking you to fund this year. 750 billion-dollar topline to maintain irregular warfare as a core competency to prioritize the modernization and readiness to compete, deter and defend in the high-end fight of the future the budget is critical for the execution of the strategy and reflects difficult but necessary decisions that align finite resources and priorities. the budget includes a double-digit increase to the investments in both space and
cyber. modernization of the missile defense capabilities and the largest request in 20 years when adjusted for inflation it also increases the end strength by 7700 service members and provides 3.1% pay increase the largest of the decade now to the specifics, th, but topline placa hundred $18 billion for the department of defense and the total of the budget includes 545 billion for the base funding of 164 billion for overseas contingency operations. and 98 billion for the base requirements. to round up the numbers come in, 9.2 billion well-funded emergency construction including support for the hurricane recovery and border barrier efforts and i must note the
department appreciates the support for hurricane recovery thank you for proving the reprogramming to help start the recovery efforts. the hurricane supplemental for the remaining 1.8 billion the critical facilities restoration modernization and sustainment maintenance and equipment replacement needs for fy 19 as well as the budget requested 3 billiorequest of3 billion in y construction operation maintenance to continue the recovery efforts in fy 20. in the years passe past for the sequestration budget stability there is no question today the adversaries are not relenting. we cannot implement the sequestration levels and it will not only holds the progress and rebuild the readiness for the
future and investing the critical capabilities like ai and directed energy. we outpace our competitors. the continuing resolution would also hamstrings the department. we cannot start new initiatives including increased investment in cyber, nuclear modernization missile defense i just mention mentioned. we built the budget to implement the strategy and i look forward to working with you for predictable funding so the military can remain the most lethal adoptable bristling and fighting force in the world. i appreciate the role congress place to ensure the battlefield of today, tomorrow and i think the service members, families and those in the department of defense for maintaining constant vigilance as they stand ready to protect the freedoms.
distinguished because of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join secretary shanahan and norquist i remain honored to represent the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines for much of the discussion is going to focus on the challenges we face and i assure you we can declare the nuclear attack, defend the homeland, meet need for the alle commitment and respond i believe we have a competitive advantage against any adversary for the ability as the time and place of our choosing but as members than 17 years of continuous combat eroded the competitive advantage and the secretary went through the details so i will forgo that and let the rest of my remarks be entered into the record and i will look forward to your questions.
it's been about a year since the department of defense received its first request from the department of homeland security and is the border humanitarian conditions have evolved over the past several mom we've received multiple additional requests to include support from construction and a physical barrier and additional support from the national guard is my understanding there've been seven requests at least so far. secretary shanahan, would you tell us here and they give us an update on the status of the operations of the border as well as provide your best judgment of how much support you could provide without negatively affecting other missions?
>> let me start with characterizing the supports of the border in three areas. a second being the request for assistance that you described and defen then the capabilitiest we intended to enable them to the present of homeland security in terms of the border barrier itself, the department has a responsibility to build the barrier and we now have on contract sufficient funds to build about 256 miles of barrier. over the course to give you a sense of 256 miles and that represents the dhs funds from 17 and 18 as well as federal treasury forfeiture funds as well as reprogramming.
the next six months it is about 63 additional new miles of full-time online so about half a mile a day will be produced. as you described about a year ago, we received the first request and as of this morning we have 4,364 troops on the border as a member of the guard and active. the primary role is to bring the monitoring and detection and we have a broad set of missions to the aviation support as the whole host of those we more broadly answer the question in terms of readiness, we've seen no degradation to readiness in
fact in some cases it is enhanced to readiness because be the troops get to perform certain functions. then the chairman and i and maybe they would ask fishermen to describe how we are supporting the dhs. we have a history in the department of doing border control and we've supplemented with leadership so we can address how to more effectively control the southwest border. maybe you can provide a little commentary. >> we have offered to put together an interagency planning theme. although the commitment to the parker hasn't impacted the preparedness of the other missions at this point, what we want to do is get into a more predictable mode of the requirements for security has
and do better integrating it across the government so we provided a number of players to the department of homeland security so we can lay out the next couple of years based on the assumptions of the numbers that will be found at the border based on the capacity of homeland security and the growth and obviously based on the support they need from the rest of the government so if it will help to do is have in fairly short order image for predictable pension plan for the next couple of years. it could be a long haul this year. i have a number of questions i will set it for the record
before we move on dealing with hypersonic missile investments. concerning the technological edge we cannot send it to anybody if we do we do it in our own way do you agree with that and the space development agency we will get into this. other than that i want to recognize senator durbin. >> thank you for being here. let me join general dunford thank you for your many years of service to the country. we just received last week a supplemental funding request of the money to pay for the last year involvement of the
department of defense in the southwest border mission. it's very clear that it is going to continue into the next fiscal year so why is there nothing in the president's budget request to continue funding this mission? >> this was the essence of the comment. we need a formalized plan and i will be working with the appropriate resources to sustain the appropriate levels of effort. >> there's a statement made by the department of defense and others in terms of where we draw the line saying this isn't a military responsibility, this is a law enforcement immigration internal security responsibili
responsibility. what assurance can you give us with this age-old line of demarcation we do not provide law enforcement never have and never will. the role is to support dhs. >> that could be asked specifically i understand that they visited eight department of defense installations looking for the sites in my home state of illinois in this relationship between hhs and the department of defense, where do things stand with their request for the military housing? >> they've made requests to provide housing. if there's something that's identified that we agree to support, we would prepare and then handed the keys over to
hhs. >> whewhen will that decision be made as to when it is provided? >> i would ask david norquist to answer that question. >> last week many of us participated in a briefing on the threads in space and we certainly have incredible capabilities and there's no doubt we need to protect them however it's not clear how the proposal would improve the effectiveness of the 15,000 space professionals who are currently on the job. to establish a space force bureaucracy within the air force were separate would it be a better use of the dollars to invest the funding into two satellites, rockets and approaches >> the $2 billion in my view is
overstated. the tracks from the real value of the space force fundamental proposition that the space force is given the change in the environment but it's now contested as the status quo sufficient cover to significant changes one is to provide the commanding authority when it comes to protecting the economy and defense assets as a fundamental change in mission of the resource that and then secondarily the new capability that is a burden by the.
the. we react after something negative has occurred. i think that we are on the front end of helping to ensure that a sustained competitive advantage the path of the capability development and the doctrine in space has a better chance to give us the kind of focus i believe that we need and i've watched this now the last couple of years i've been on my own journey. i had been convinced based on the competitive advantage and what i see to be the future. we have an organization that has the focus with one of only five
domains. at the risk of spoiling your plans to publish a book i'm going to ask after 40 years of service in the military at the highest levels of leadership, what is i it in part it an partu would point to as the most significant development with significant challenge that we face? >> there's no danger that won't be returned i can assure you that, but i was around as a commander in the vietnam days so when people talk about the hollow force, it was an active duty in 1981 and what we have is an imbalance between the people and equipment and i've lived through now the development of the force that we have today. i give them a lot of credit for rebuilding the first and the
single biggest change i saw was a coveted change in the people that we have on active duty from 1980s, 1990s through today and the men and women we have today in terms of their intellect and their fitness and commitment is the most important thing we have and i think we all know that, but i walk away having had the blessing reaffirmed over the last couple of years. my condolences for that aspect i do want to pay tribute to use and express gratitude on behalf of all for your lifelong service to the country. you and i met for the very first time at the oval office and the reagan defense firm i remember
it well and i'm pleased to be there to get acquainted with you. i want to ask my question if i have time for more than one i want to at least ask my first one to the secretary. according to an october gao report, the department of defense, and i'm quoting, faces daunting challenges in protecting the system from the cyber threats when it almost a year ago to discuss the topic. cyber vulnerabilities in weapon systems and relying on the fact is we rely on less than a dozen across the services that are nsa certified to conduct threat analysis of the systems. much of what we discussed recommending the capacity and retention must be increased for
other assessment activities. however to staff, train and equip them to emulate the advanced cyber threats and as you know baseball increases in the capacity and the construct doesn't appear to program the resources. >> in the ranges and tools for the community would there be the scholarship program like the national science foundation to create cyber warrior pipeline through the universities to direct and employ scholarship to the surface? >> i would support all those efforts.
they are so talented and such high demand so anything we can do to generate capacity is extremely critical. these red teams. shoot if you will into different installations and conduct these attacks so we can assess the vulnerabilities. we've taken a risk based approach to identify what are the most critical risks and how do we mitigate those as a complement to the red tape's? tape's? >> your comment allows me to highlight the national guard's role and i would indicate in the national guard unit if they read the cyber team.
you have men and women serving in careers outside the guard then devote their time and energy inside a guard and allows them to have experiences that augments the opportunity for the active military to attract and maintain those individuals. >> in the area of cyber there's a tremendous number of people working in the industry and it's also a source of innovation. i want to raise one more topic i assume i'm still within my five minutes. the concerned with examining his the one in cyber vulnerability is found who is responsible for the mitigation? what says this is what we are going to do and is responsible for the outcome.
>> as you can imagine in the department, to put it in perspective gets 3 million endpoints. there'there is not a singular organization that has responsibility. it's going to become a zero trust and we assume it is always under attack and we are changing the procedure for anyone on the network to authenticate all those devices because just relying on someone to police it doesn't give us the comprehensive coverage that we need. >> thank you very much acting
secretary shanahan and general dunford, i know that this is your last appearance here and i thank you and intend to speak on the floor of the senate praising you but i won't do that here because i don't want to embarrass you in front of everybody. i think you've been in example of what it should be and how people in uniform should be. i'm proud my youngest son wore the same uniform with all the stars on the shoulder. acting secretary shanahan, i have serious concerns with the border falls into the declaration.
they've voted for other projects that would support the service members and families of military missions around the world. i don't think they've should be canceling things such as schools and medical clinics and to fund the proposal if the department decides to cancel projects that we have given funding for so that they can go to the wall i support those a second time around. we have to make choices here all
the time in order for the project and then it turns out the department of defense spent it even though they requested it's going to go to the full. i'm not going to vote for additional funds to replace the projects, so when will congress be informed, if any will be canceled? .. i just in the next few days this week. and that will give him the basis of the information that the
secretary would need to make a decision. >> i ask this question, when we ask for example, folks from camp lejeune, who had enormous damage , the money to repair it. i use that as one example. i've been to camp lejeune. my son trained there at camp lejeune. i have seen the definition there devastation there. can you tell us our men and women and their families are not going to be adversely affected by these canceled projects. so for example, housing that has mold and permanent damage. >> those aren't funded throughout the military construction account. those are ones that their contract is responsible for meeting the standards and the services have processes in place to hold them to the standards.
>> what about readiness. will anything be deattracting from the readiness. >> with regard to readiness, the focus of the process is to ensure if we have to identify projects to become sources we look at ones that don't start till later. as you pointed out there's a request pending for them to back fill it. >> that's where you may have some problems. you funded it once and you're going to take it away. it's going to be hard to see them compete with other projects later on the money may well not be there. general dunford, acting secretary shanahan, in my office yesterday, we talked about my trip to vietnam, which i think is successful. we had eight republican and democrat senators who joined. who saw firsthand security corporation values. the air base, the remediation projects which i've discussed with you, and mr. shanahan, your
predecessor. i realize it's an open hearing, but can you discuss the strategic value of increased security cooperation with the government of vietnam? >> general -- >> thanks, i'd start by telling you in our national military strategy whether we looked at our source of strength, we said it was a network of allies and partners that we had since world war ii. when we look at the pacific and talk about a free and open endo pacific, our strategy there, you'd have to consider vietnam as a critical partner in assur ing a free endopacific, and what we seek in the pacific is of course, a group of like-mind ed nations that will collectively act to ensure that we maintain international law, open access to the global commons, and legal way of addressing territorial disputes. so i think vietnam in those areas is indicated a shared
interest in the free and open endopacific. so i think vietnam is very important in that regard. >> sending our aircraft carrier must have sent quite a signal through that part of the world. >> senator i think what it sent was a signal of the relationship between the united states and vietnam, but more importantly, again, it was a physical man test festation of the agreement with us on how we ought to address that free and open endo pacific. >> and of course the u.s. is helping to clean that up, it was a strong feeling from the vietnamese that's a strong indication from us. thank you mr. chair. >> thank you. >> thank you chairman. back to another space force question. and it may not be in this budget yet. but on the national reconnaissance organization, a
shared entity between intel and defense, that largely has been run, i think, as an intel entity but with full defense access. i would have some concern about the unique character of that organization changing, and wonder from either general dunford, or secretary what's the thought process on the national reconnaissance organization? >> senator, the integration in terms of the information and the data that we would share is to me the most vital piece that we have to protect. so, as we continue to invest in new capability, assume, for today, that the organizations remain separate. the ability to share and pass information timely, and effectively is what the space force really works to address.
and so, when betty sapp was there, and now sue gordon, form ally or informally, on a technical basis we've remained aligned. we don't know how organizationally things will evolve in the future. but it's so important we build the pipes, if you will, so that there is real -- no realilate latency in delay how we share information. because in the future where artificial intelligence is so critical, it's getting the data to the algorithms, so building that network is where i think the space force is staying aligned is so important. >> well i think those are obviously the right goals. i think there is a uniqueness here. i don't know general dunford if there are any title 10, title 50 issues that get more confused if it goes under a new entity, either the space force, or any of the defense unique components , but that would be one of the concerns i would have as well. >> yes, sir, i think one of the
reasons we left this to a later discussion is for the very reason you talk about. first of all, you could start with congress. the oversight committee is a different and the funding streams are different. when you talk about title 50 money, and the funding streams that go to nro. i would emphasize, secretary, i would think about it, we have built an integrated operation center. we have shared operations and support, and i think i share the view of the secretary that whatever we do, we just need to achieve that end-state. that's what's most important. >> and i believe that's what you're both saying. thinking careful about this if the goal we want to achieve is to be sure we continue to have ongoing forward movement in what we have now would be important. i'm left to vote just as senator moran was asking his questions about cyber.
and i don't want to be too re dundant but i have two questions about cyber. one is the authorization for cyber offense, relatively new. about maybe a year ago, maybe a little more. maybe almost two. but relatively new, and anything you want to say about that? and anything that this budget does that impacts your ability to recruit our cyber personnel, would be interesting to me. >> maybe the first question that you had, the authorities are extremely important, because we need the deterrence. building thicker counsel walls and higher castle walls is not the way to survive with this new cyber threat. and the threat continues to grow so having a deterrent effect is important. that's why the offensive authorities are critical. >> and you now have those? >> we do.
>> right. >> and cyber warriors, how hard are they to find, and what are we doing to find them? >> well i was going to say this budget has a double-digit increase in terms of resources to cyber.com. and i've spent a good amount of time with the general not how we generate more cyber wars. that's really a jewel that's been created there, nsa, and cybercom, retention comes from how you treat your people, and he's really a supreme leader in that regard. the budget i think reflects a prudent investment in the capabilities that we're going to need in the future in terms of encryption, and quantum. and as this threat continues to evolve, it is just like space. an area where we need to make the right investments for the technologies that won't mature
for another 5-7 years. >> thank you, thank you chairman >> senator senator reid. mr. secretary, on sunday evening the national security adviser announced the u.s. is deploying a carrier strike group, and a bomber defense to a number of troubling -- involve iran. the threats were apparently significant enough not only to surge additional military capabilities in the renal but for secretary pompeo to cancel a meeting with prime minister merkel and go to iraq. but it took the department two days to share any information with the congressional defense committees and i sit on both. frankly i think that's un acceptable. if it is this serious situation requiring a response of this nature we should be informed. so why were we not informed in a detailed and timely manner, and when we will we receive a detailed presumably classified
briefing on what's happening? >> maybe i can give you just a evolution of the course of events, and then we always give your timely information. so i think that's a responsibility we have here. and chairman dunford i believe has time with you this afternoon i would imagine he can give you a detailed update. but just let me give you a characterization of the events. thursday morning we were working in venezuela with the whole of government. we received indications of this very, very credible intelligence on friday afternoon we went to work understanding the sources, and to get the teams turning on what does it mean, and how might we respond, and i went for a run , and then chairman dunford called me up and said north korea was now shooting rockets and missiles. saturday, chairman and i went
through the intelligence with general mckenzie, from sent p.m. com and it was -- sunday afternoon that you came back and said here's what we're recommend ing. i need authority to proceed. i then coordinated with state department and msc. so it was really sunday night before any real information was put together. so, an ideal situation we would give you an updated date on monday, and i guess on wednesday we should be more timely. chairman, any -- >> senator reid the reporting not widthsing. the focus over the weekend was to deter. -- we saw the intelligence. and so we sent messages on friday. to make sure that it was clear to iran that we recognized the threat and we responded to the
threat. and what i asked the secretary for on sunday, eventually the lincoln would have made its way to the gulf. what i asked really was to accelerate the movement of the lincoln and the bomber task force so that there would be no ambiguity about our preparedness to respond to any threat against our people, or our partners in the region, and that's why we work pretty hard to do that. what we didn't want to do was be in a position to respond. we wanted to make sure we took enough action over the weekend to deter that. but i understand your point on the reporting piece. >> let me, mr. secretary, follow-up with another question. before easter i traveled to iraq , and afghanistan. and had the opportunity to meet with the president of afghanistan, and in iraq i saw many local leaders. the prime minister ask and the president. they all designated the rrj have designation as a terrorist group
was provocative and de stabilizing. so that is the record. but let me ask you, are you aware of any evidence that the r rgc or any other iranian group are is a associated force of al qaeda. an associated force being a key provision of the amf? do you have any evidence of that? if you don't want to answer in open session that's quite all right. >> i think if we could do it in a private environment. >> i understand. thank you. >> senator boseman. >> thank you mr. chairman, and thank you all for being here. it's great to see you secretary shanahan we appreciate your leadership, and general dunford it's always good to hear you come and talk about how we can be a more lethal effective fight ing machine. over the past six months our services have dedicated to a significant amount of resources, the hurricane recovery.
our military installations, president trump has attended today that facility. i'm going to be traveling to camp lejeune in north carolina to inspect the damage there. our military bases are still waiting on disaster relief from congress as our service members continue to operate in poor conditions. can you give us an update on the impact of the aid you have received so far, if any, and what more is still needed. and, then following up on that, if congress doesn't pass the disaster aid package soon, how will that affect our ratings, which again is the name of the game. >> so as the services respond to a hurricane. there's immediate evacuation, then they have to assess the property trying to do the repairs they can do. they want to take care of all the goings that have been dis placed. all of these consumed resources that were not originally programmed for that purpose.
when congress provided the support, when the committee paid for support for the programming for both the air force and marine corp. that allowed them to continue the operations because there's only a limited amount they can take for from the other accounts. the supplemental that the congress is considering would be a very significant step forward in looking them particularly as we're dealing with facilities suscontainment, repair, and maintenance which is this year's biggest requirement. 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 20 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. >> 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. is 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. and second to last 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. it's 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. and 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 in a sense that we didn't have the kind of sharing of information across command 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 which they were 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, and i want to talk about gom. 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 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's 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're very cognizant of the decisions we're making in terms of construction. because the 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 a. admiral davis's plans on the endopacific, maintains access to the micronesia, the marshals, what are we doing to help state and interior extend the agreements that expire in 2023? >> i'm not -- current -- i'll take 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 of a geo-politics 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 want to validate date how dr. wilson made that decision. >> thank you. >> senator 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- 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 missile 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. >> 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. to meet the threat 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-x could compliment the 5th generation fighter so we felt like a 4th/5th generation mix would be meet the requirements. and we'll still be flying the f- 35's as fast as we can. >> secretary shanahan, last weekend 700 rockets were fired by militant groups from gaza into israel which demonstrate 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,
>> senator 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 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 ballistic missile submarines and the air force is seeking 3 billion to continue development of the p. 21 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 dc 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. >> maybe i can answer your question in three segments. the treaty ex-players in february 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 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 sought 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 wife of the 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. >> i don't mean to interrupt you but we are constrained at that number and playing it and eventually the case as i understand it.
>> i understand your concerns and i would say number one, the capabilities and the doctrine we have is to produce the probability for the use and we dif we dothat informed by russis been that we have had the nuclear' 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. there is also 2,500 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. >> so, how does that justify this increase in spending, the 2.2 billion for the navy program, the ballistic missile submarines into the air force 3,713,000,000 for the long-range and effeminate and three. what you're doing is developing more low class options. >> a 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 whie nuclear war 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 reliable and credible nuclear deterrent is what we seek to do. >> 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 ten year estimate of the 400 billion, and those are the numbers you are going to follow
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 has been supported by the nuclear posture review is free e nro and the modernization of the enterprise we should have started this decades ago and we now find ourselves with the description of the modernization where all three legs of the triad capability have to be modernized at the same time. >> 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 they continue to invest in their nuclear capabilities? >> if it is vital as you see russia modernizing and china now is not the time to disarm. >> that is the effort the department has underway right now to make sure we have a safe reliable and credible deterrent into the future. candidate needs a nuclear triad and an 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 making big investments in their capabilities. >> they are completely informed in the review that u is what it
would take to did for the use by an adversary and obviously russia and china as you highlighted are the significant adversaries we face, but not the only. >> i agree it's proven effective over seven decades. this is about modernization more than it is about delivering the new capabilities are changing the doctrine. >> we become less secure if we don't make these investments to update the systems. >> yes. >> along with senator leahy and the montgomery bell that would allow members in reserve and guard to utilize educational benefits under the bill as well as the tuition assistance program which active duty members can now do it i would ask for your support on that legislation.
>> so far committed to supporting that. we found a huge factor in recruiting in fact these high-tech peopl people they peoe of the missions and retaining them, incredibly important. in regard to the aggressive posture of russia in chinese activities clearly we need to do more. do we have sufficient capabilities and i'm talking about things like the air force base and the mission with potential to cover are we making the investment we need and is that the right kind of investment?
>> i don't think any combatant commander would call you today they have sufficient intelligence surveillance reconnaissance. we are probably meeting on a daily basis the recommendations i made the secretary is between 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 and does the amazing we continue investments in the future. one of the reasons we are interested more in space as it will be a significant enhancement to the overall reconnaissance capability. >> mr. secretary. >> will never have enough given the current capabilities. the chair man made mention of this but i will make it even
more bluntly space will enable unbelievable amount of observation so by 2025 is our estimate commercially this is where we need to tap into the commercial innovation there will be persistent surveillance of the globe by 2025 and somehow we view this will completely change as we leverage space and its capabilities. >> final question then is for the counter capability agai agae anniversary of 900 miles of border responsibility and not only with isr but customs and border protection playing both manned and unmanned aircraft. what about the effort 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 of 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 said it's 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 developing the ability to detect and defeat the are progressing as a department and now i think it becomes how do we work with the faa and share the airspace to defeat this emerging threat. >> and battlefield and homeland.
>> absolutely. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary shanahan, president of trump stated in the national security strategy but 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 skills in the domestic
workforce do you agree with these statements and concerns? >> i do >> i also believe a solid industrial defense base should be a national priority and from both an economic and security ay perspective, i think we can no longer afford to be dependent upon the suppliers for critical defense components. however as we have been having our subcommittee hearings 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 they are patriotic americans who believe that their work in the industrial base is a service to
their country so 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? >> maybe i can comment on the report that you referred to. 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 that identified where we have only a single where we have to find another source and succumbed companies underinvested that didn't have the investment capital to replace old infrastructure. that classified annex that
identified the most significant risk and then we put money against those items to address some of those shortfalls. i recognize the importance of rf the workforce and i would be happy to work with you. >> 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. is it accurate to say the mission of the 5200 servicemembers in iraq i5200 sed work with iraqi forces in the counter isys mission? >> 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 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 debate could discuss a new threat stream from iran and it seems to me at least at first glance to be a completely separate thread from the isys threat and counter terrorism threat that the current military mission is addressing under the 2001 au mf. do you see anything about this new threat stream and whether you would view it in the same bucket if you will is the 2001
would cover? >> i don't view it as being the same as isys, but the posture in the region has been too detoured iran going back to 1979 so when secretary pompeo raised the visibility of the threats 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. >> were you consulted prior to the administration terrorist organization? >> i had an opportunity to
provide military advice. >> did you agree with the designation? >> i would be happy to provide about but maybe not in an open venue. >> with risks do you see the reciprocal response 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 be on the military if we went back in the administration? >> i think it would be devastating. >> it seems like the world is still a dangerous place.
>> let's talk about syria. stabilization force, how is that coming? >> it's coming along well in terms of training we have sufficient u.s. 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 as well. >> i think you have a great pl plan. europe was ravaged by isys attacks so it's your site 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 making a great 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 the policy? >> it is still the policy and i think you probably know secretary pompeo is meeting with the foreign minister laugh off twice in period of seven days and that will be part of his message. are you concerned about the increased military activity by a solid? >> we have in recent weeks seen increased activity. >> i hope the president 12 and i appreciate 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. >> do you agree that isys 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 genital? >> i do, senator. >> on libya is that the policy f the united states and libya to support a peaceful resolution not a military solution? >> correct. >> are we picking one side over the other and we stil they stilt the recognized government cracks >> we support a diplomatic solution. >> i would recommend someone called to minister to let him
know we are not taking sides. dido you agree that that would e smart? that there's been confusion? >> communication is vital. >> we are almost done. >> if they restart their nuclear program reprocessing would you consider that a threat to the united states? >> we look at iran and to see the threats that exist certainly it would be a threats to the united states along with the use of proxies. >> do you agree secretary? >> i think we should consider that hostile and put all options on the table. when we send american troops to
iraq and afghanistan to protect our country and allies from the rise duty owed to them to protect them from all threats? is it appropriate for the force to defend itself against all threats general? >> that is consistent. >> if they have designs on attacking the troops they are there to protect against the rise of radical islam like isys we would have the body to defend ourselves if necessary. >> they would have the ability to defend themselves. >> in case they are listening they attack american forces in iraq and syria and any other place at their own peril? >> they don't need to come back to washington to ask permission. >> we will make sure they are defended. senator murray you're just in
time. >> thank you. i apologize. just want the chance to ask a couple of questions thank you for meeting with me yesterday. i'i did ask about the military sexual assault issue we chatted a little bit about that yesterday but the result is disturbing to me and the survey found more than 6% of women service members have been sexually assaulted. when you include a man, 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. for 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 behavior so i want to ask how you are going to address this problem and what the military is going to do. you said yesterday leadership and office, but it's 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 to put some context to talk about the actions we are taking and also thank you for asking the question because 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. there's two aspects to the foc focus. one is on the population of the problem and then also maybe i just talk about the report. we talk about the 20,000 benefits and estimate, that's not what is reported so what was reported is the number of sexual us with cases there were 4,002 of those that with the department says a survey and that is to really get after the hidden side of this, the actual number of cases don't capture everything that is happening so
as a survey that goes out to all the members and then they evaluate a significant population. develop a prevalence rate and it's a factor they apply to the number of cases reported since he toosothey took that ano the 4,002 that's how they derived the 20,000 in the 20,000, the biggest population that experienced the growth is women between 17 and 24 and that's where we simply want to drive the numbers that's what we focus on. what we know about the population and these incidents is that it's pure on peer. 85% of the victims knew the accuser and two thirds .-full-stop 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 4,000 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 280 2800 where there was sufficient evidence they took action 100% of the time against the accused. over half of those were court-martials and the other or other judicial action. we know we need to continue to improve the system itself so what are it's the ability 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 that i would just say these reports are relevant over years and there is an increase in numbers 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 of 100% of the women are victims of sexual assault and something isn't working so i'm deeply concerned and will continue to follow this as i know a number of members will. >> we don't accept the results and know we have to do better.
>> 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 that will need to find a way to pay for a digit increase in spending to replace the branches including the strategic forces. since 2001 we spent trillions on the war in iraq and afghanistan. one analysis foun found a cost r $5 trillion more than 23,000 for every american taxpayer. those 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 are the biggest national security threat a simple yes or no answer. you mac yes. >> while some in the administration are talking about two new additional conflicts in iraq and venezuela that u.s. is still involved in afghanistan 17 years later. the president said great nations do not fight endless wars. center pausenator paul and i ind legislation to honor those that fought and to bring our troops home. do you anticipate the forces coming home from afghanistan anytime soon or are we looking at an indefinite situation and
how would yo do you explain thet 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 into this is probably the best in 40 years taking place right now the policy is to fight and talk we are fighting the template and. 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. i want to change territory with them i think the areas we have the presence is of greater value and presence to the afghan
people. >> 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've played down to two presidents. we've significantly reduced the commitment to afghanistan. when i commanded the over 100,000 americans and another 30,000 nato forces and fear 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 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 withdrawal are not there and the conditions continue to decrease our presence in the region as we have and to increase 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 is the first time in many years when we've had some opportunity to pursue a peaceful resolution and at the end of today 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. >> you recently said and i quote we need to get back to the primary missions and continue to generate readiness. the statement echoes the general of the marine corps when he warned a series of unplanned and unbudgeted tasks that included deployment to the border where there is no emergency constituted an unacceptable risk
to marine corps combat readiness and solvency with you both agree that it would be better for the military readiness and defense budgeting to keep the troops and funds out of the highly charged political controversy about border security and immigration policy? >> working with chairman dunford, we want to enable dhs to be able to manage the situation so that we don't need to provide continuing support. general miller wrote a memo that said certain funds provided to him this message was around hurricanes, not 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 environment that you speak about he said a histori have a historn supporting civil authorities and in the department specifically it goes back many years and would want that capacity to be smaller than it is right now. they've had some legitimate shortfalls and we've both visited the border in the very clear to me right now the department doesn't have the capacity to do their job. i can assure you for things number one everything our men and women are doing on the border is legal and number two they have the proper training and equipment and clear instructions and i will continue to make sure that that is the case.
>> from the border perspective i don't feel mexico is our enemy. i think the asylum seeking migrantthese asylum seekingmigrl american countries pose 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, but i think that you all should be focused on the national security threats which we have many and there are some out there that are getting us into other wars comes up with why i'm coming to appreciate her 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 withdraw
withdrawal. >> there's about 20 groups in the region i would describe as violent extremist groups. a handful of folks have clearly demonstrated to be intended to attack citizens and i believe that the pressure put on the groups over the last years has prevented another 9/11. difficult to prove it from the time i spent in afghanistan-a commander there and i'm 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. [inaudible] i along with others are going to submit additional questions and
and a government supported service called pbs in 1979 a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea what the viewers decide all on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see bringing unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people poweof peoplepower in 40 years e landscape has clearly changed. there is no monolithic media broadcasting given away, youtube stores arstars are a thing thats big ideas are more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span and its nonpartisan coverage is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider on television and online, c-span is her unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind.