Skip to main content

tv   Politics and Public Policy Today  CSPAN  October 12, 2016 11:00am-1:01pm EDT

11:00 am
and even though we are leaving the european union, we are not leaving europe. we will not walk away from our allies but we'll seek to reinvigorate old friendships. we will not abandon our neighbors. but we'll scan the horizon for new opportunities. we are not leaving behind our past. but instead, we are preparing for our future. so conference, the british people have spoken. let us embrace the opportunity that brexit provides. let us go forward together and let us build a bright future for our great country. thank you. coming next is my good friend
11:01 am
and leader of the european conservative and reformist group in the european parliament, syed kamall. thank you. >> thank you. can i thank ashley for a really good speech. he's always been a really good colleague and a great warm-up act. i agree that it's wonderful to see a conservative party that's so united, so focused on what needs to be done and so energized to deliver a better future for britain. and once labor are preoccupied with the future of their party, we conservatives are focused on the future of our country. in the referendum in june, the british people spoke. and we have a responsibility to
11:02 am
listen. you know, it's sad when i heard mr. kinnick saying that labor will never again be in power in his lifetime. i felt sorry for him. i did. after all, steve kinnick is only in his 40s. and while the labor party despairs over the lack of leadership, our conservative prime minister shows she is strong, able and preparing to take on the challenges of brexit head on. our conservative prime minister has a respected and dare i say a tough reputation in brussels from her time as home secretary. our conservative prime minister is seen as a fearsome negotiator who is always prepared. there is no one better to guide this country on the journey ahead of us.
11:03 am
a journey that may not always be a smooth one. for the feeling in brussels after the referendum result was shock. sometimes anger. often sadness. but this discontent with the eu reaches far beyond our shores. and that's a lesson i'm sure our friends in countries across the eu will want to heed. i am proud to lead the ecr group with 74 meps from 18 different eu countries. who work every day to ensure that their voters get a better deal. by creating a europe that does less but does it better. and when our group is set up, the eu federalists predicted that we would fail. yet only five years later, we became one of the three main fiscal groups in the european
11:04 am
government from five eu countries. it was a rise unprecedented in the history of the european parliament. and why was that? because we listened to our voters. outside the walls of the european parliament and outside the walls of the european commission, the calls for change and reform grow louder. yet inside the walls of these institutions the message does not always get through. the eu needs economic competence, not crisis. the eu needs to cooperate to help genuine refugees, not an open doors policy for all. the eu needs less bureaucracy, not regulations that hold back the spirit of free enterprise and job creation. and the ecr group with or without the british conservatives will continue that fight and will continue to go from strength to strength. we want to see a good deal for
11:05 am
britain. we want to see a good deal for the eu. we want to see a good deal that works for everyone. and in years to come, britain may no longer be reluctant, but it's in the interests for us to be good neighbors. neighbors who realize that just because we don't share their vision of european anthems and flags doesn't mean that we can't work together to make the world a better place, to sell more products, and to create more jobs. this should not be a brexit where we are punished for making our own democratic decision as a nation. but neither should it be a brexit which cuts off our own nose to spite our face. this should be a brexit in everyone's interests to create a britain and an eu brimming with opportunities for everyone.
11:06 am
so while the facebook status between the eu and the uk may have changed from it's complicated to in a different sort of a relationship, i know that we will come out the other side single and ready to mingle. i believe that in years to come, we will look back and see brexit as that moment. the moment that britain called time on an ambiguous relationship with the eu, but both became willing partners. a britain that not only survived, but a great britain that thrived. thank you.
11:07 am
>> conference, good afternoon. well, it's certainly been quite a year. i know that many of you have spent the last 12 months campaigning hard, both for our party and in many cases in the referendum. and for the first time, friends and colleagues were on different sides of the vote. but regardless of whether you campaigned to remain or leave, there is one thing that we can all agree on. and that's that only a conservative government will deliver for britain and give leadership to the rest of the world. the british public have made their choice and now it's our job to make it happen. and that's exactly what we are doing. our party has come together that's delivering for ordinary working people.
11:08 am
much has changed in the past year, but much is also the same. we have a conservative prime minister who offers credible, proven leadership, a united party and a strong cabinet team. we have a strong economy with low unemployment. business is expanding and taxes are cut. and in case you missed it, we still have a leader of the opposition who is presiding over divided and competent party that is capable of taking up the responsibilities of government. this conference is a significant moment for our country. now, britain is a proud country. which others look to for inspiration and leadership. we help to abolish the slave trade. we let the forces of freedom against tyrants and dictators in
11:09 am
europe from napoleon to hitter and we showed people in eastern europe the hand of friendship. britain has been a strong force for good in the world and we are a country that takes our responsibilities seriously. and when the world faces its biggest challenges it looks to us to show the strong leadership needed to overcome them. as a member of the u.n. security council, a nato member that spends 2% of gdp on defense, a leader in the commonwealth and as a nation that is meeting its international commitments to 0.7% for aid, we can and we'll play an active part in making our world a more peaceful and prosperous place. so it's an honor to stand here today as your conservative secretary of state for international development and it is a huge privilege to lead such a hard working team in james walton and baron -- our excellent ppss, kelly cullhearst
11:10 am
and amanda saloway. and i'm honored to follow in the footsteps of great conservative linda talker, andrew mitchell, justin greenly. now in recent weeks i have seen the incredible life saving work that our aid is around the world. whether it's the support of the 60 million people to access clean water and sanitation or helping 11 million people getting an education or immunizing 76 million children, our aid budget is transforming lives on an amazing schedule. last year, we helped 5 million affected by crises to get access to blankets, tents and clean water. this is something that everyone in britain can be proud of. the conference when lives are at
11:11 am
stake, we must constantly strive to make our efforts more effective. let's face up to the fact that not all of the global aid system is as effective as britain's approach. when ebola struck west africa in 2014 the world health organization was too slow to raise the alarm and it fell to the united kingdom, the u.s. and others to grip the situation. to be blunt, lives were lost as a result of this slow response. conference, i will use britain's leading position to reform and improve the way that the world does development. to challenge change and reform, the global aid system, so that it is ready for the challenges of the 21st century. and a reform is about being relevant for today and for the future. and this is why i will follow the money the people and the outcomes. following the money, because as margaret thatcher famously said, there's no such thing as public
11:12 am
money. it is taxpayers money and when we open up the budgets and let people see where the money is going we can help to root out corruption and ensure that the resources reach the most vulnerable. following the people because when we invest in people, in human capital and focus on things like nutrition and family planning we can amplify the age emphatically. when we link our payments to results on the ground we create an aid system that really works for the world's poorest. following the money, the people and the outcomes means asking more from all of those that receive our aid. last month i announced new support for the global fund to fight aids, tb and malaria, that will save millions of lives in the year ahead, i linked this funding to a newly created performance agreement. for the first time, this sets out in black and white the clear requirements for the global fund
11:13 am
to use our money more cost effectively. more transparently and with a proper focus on results and impact. we are sending a clear message to the international aid community if we can demand more from one of the world's best performing institutions we're certainly going to demand much, much more from everyone else too. and where our program's not delivering the outcomes we expect, we will stop them and ensure that your money supports programs that are working. now just as conservatives are reforming or removing inefficiency from white hall and local government we must do so for aid. every pound that does not end up where it should cannot be spend on life saving drugs, on education for the world's poorest, help for victims of violence or vital funding for
11:14 am
infrastructure. that is why reform, transparency and accountability are top of my agenda. now as conservatives we can be proud of our impact of our values around the world. providing people with an opportunity to make the most of their talents and fulfill their potential is exactly what motivates us. we pride ourselves in removing the barriers that people face when finding employment, owning their own home and achieving their dreams. and just as we celebrate our record on creating jobs, prosperity and growth in this country, we should be proud of the support we give to changing lives and creating opportunities in countries that are far less fortunate than ours. and in the last 30 years, we have seen the biggest reduction in human misery and suffering in history. technology, innovation and science have played a key role. and so has well-spent aid which
11:15 am
has helped to lower malaria death rates. but this huge progress is powered by economic growth and free trade. and our conservative values have played a key role in this. by empowering people, letting people trade and exchange with each other, by building democratic institutions by tearing down the barriers to trade and to enterprise. we have unleashed the economic growth that has liberated billions of people from the shackles of extreme poverty. i can promise you that this party will continue to champion growth, trade and investment as the surest route to make poverty history. so it's being a conservative isn't just about economics. it's also about moral courage and leadership. building upon that great tradition of social reformers
11:16 am
like william wilberforce. that's why i'm supporting the leadership on the issue of modern slavery and continuing the leadership on women and girls by expanding access to family planning for millions of women and that's why i'll put children at the development of the efforts. investment in the next generation, ensuring they have the nutrition and working to protect them from child labor and exploitation. if we invest in human capital, we can help to transform the future of entire societies. in lebanon, i recently met children who are in danger of trafficking or being forced to work. who are at risk of violence and exploitation by armed groups. it is children like these that we must never abandon. britain will continue to stand
11:17 am
up for universal humanitarian values. even as we see those values flattened in places like syria as aid workers are killed for trying to help innocent people. conference, this government is on the side of ordinary working people. their taxes pay for the aid budget and it is right that the aid budget works for them. and that means building a safer world for us all. and using the immense goodwill created by our aid budget around the world to help strike the right deals for british people abroad. if we stand back and abandon countries that suffer from poverty, from weak institutions, not only to the people in those countries suffer, not only do those countries become vulnerable to insecurity and terrorism, but the problems that they have come closer to our shores. conflicts in syria and south sudan, will only hurt the people who live there. they destabilize the rest of the world and create opportunities
11:18 am
for terrorists and people smugglers to inflict more misery and more suffering and put pressures on this country too. that is why it is in our national interest to invest in those areas in the world and in alleviating poverty and suffering and to support stability and security in countries where people are threatened and vulnerable. as our prime minister made clear at the united nations last month, our aid budget has a huge role to play in creating the jobs and opportunities that give people in the world's poorest countries an alternative the risk in the journey to europe. now, just think for a moment if we weren't leading the world in our humanitarian assistance to syria, how many more people would already have made that risky, perilous journey across the mediterranean and how many more people would have died at the hands of the people smugglers? we're using both humanitarian support and financing for
11:19 am
economic development to build hope for millions more people affected by conflict and poverty and in doing so, we are reducing the pressures for mass migration. conference, that aid working in the national interest. 35 years ago, margaret thatcher said, we want to help as much as we can. and we should help in ways which are mutually beneficial to both developing and developed countries. we all depend on one another for our prosperity. conference, that is as true today as it was in 1981. and i'm proud that our aid program is a crucial part of britain's soft power around the world. and when people in refugee camps or remote communities see the
11:20 am
union jack on our supplies, they know they have a friend and ally in britain. conference, today i want to talk about a specific example of how we can use our aid to champion our national interests. the presence in afghanistan over the past decade has helped to prevent it from becoming a base for terrorists that would threaten the streets of britain. we have improved the lives of ordinary afghans with millions more girls in schools, better health care and greater prosperity. but huge challenges remain, not least in the continuing threat from the taliban. and when things get difficult, we need to remain strong and constant. not just by supporting the afghan security forces to protect their people, but by supporting the economy and the
11:21 am
state of afghanistan. today, i can announce that we will commit up to 750 million pounds to afghanistan, between 2017 and 2020, from the aid budget to promote stability and ensure that their government continues to function. the money will be spent on health and education, particularly for women and girls. we will help to protect the internally displaced people who have fled their homes from persecution. and we will help to clear the deadly land mines. reducing the human suffering, brought about years of conflict, and letting children go back to school and people get back to their daily lives. and crucially, our support will help build a viable, long term state in the face of taliban aggression. we are making this commitment
11:22 am
because it will make us is offer and will demonstrate that the international community will not walk away from afghanistan. by making this clear commitment, we are keeping the uk safe. and we are helping to do justice to the sacrifices made by our brave armed forces. conference, it is also in our interest to support developing countries, to grow stronger and more prosperous. as we look to redefine or place in the world following the eu referendum we need to establish new trade and economic links. countries who we are providing aid too today will be the market nation we can trade with tomorrow. access to the markets of developed countries can provide vital opportunities for the world's poorest people, to work their way out of poverty. we want to deliver for the working people in britain and
11:23 am
for the world's poorest across the globe too. finally, conference, i want to be absolutely clear. just as labor have all the wrong ideas for helping people in this country, they have the wrong ideas for helping people in other countries too. people underestimate the risks that they pose and let's not forget they are in their own words an international socialist party. they are deeply committed to an ideology that has failed again and again. an ideology that's hurt the poorest people in the world the most, and an ideology inspired left wing economic policies that held back growth and stopped countries from developing. even today, in places like venezuela, we can see the disastrous effects of this philosophy.
11:24 am
we see images of malnourished children who cannot get essential supplies because of man-made economic crisis. these are the government that the leader of the opposition has heaped praise on. conference, just as jeremy corbyn has nothing to offer this country, he has nothing to offer the rest of the world. looks at our two parties and two leaders who do we want running the country? theresa may that's putting the interests of ordinary working people before those of a privileged few. who is changing, championing, a bold, competent role, driven by clear, conservative values that
11:25 am
are creating prosperity at home and abroad. and who is using our development policies to deliver value for money and greater security for working people. all the divided, discredited labor party led by jeremy corbyn who would weaken britain on the world stage and pursue failed policies that would hurt the poorest the most. conference, the answer is clear. only with theresa may and the conservatives can we seize the opportunities of brexit and build a better country for working people. and a better world for us all. thank you. thank you.
11:26 am
>> conference, i have now been asked to introduce someone who i know you'll all be looking forward to hearing. i last heard him speak about three weeks ago at a dinner in york. he had spent the morning in italy. the afternoon in armon before coming to us in york. the constitution and stamina demonstrated then will i expect be needed in the coming months and years. it gives me therefore great pleasure to introduce as your last speaker for today to our new foreign secretary, boris johnson.
11:27 am
>> thank you very much. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you, jerry. thanks, everybody. thank you very much, jerry. well, i have been going around to the conference -- the other day i was at the u.n. general assembly in new york. and i was talking to the foreign minister of another country. and i won't say which ones since i must preserve my reputation for diplomacy, but let's just say that they have an economy about the size of australia. they're getting smaller, alas. plenty of snow. nuclear missiles. oligarchs. leaders who strips to the waist. you get the picture.
11:28 am
after a few tense exchanges, my counterpart gave a sigh and said that any difficulties in our relationship were all britain's fault. it was you guys who imposed democracy on us in 1990. he said. i was a bit startled by this. i said, hang on, sergei -- sorry. aren't you in favor of democracy and i asked for a show of hands in the room. all those in favor of democracy, please show. you would have thought this was a bit like asking maria von trapp whether she was in favor of rain drops on roses and whiskers on cats and i'm proud to they the entire uk side of the room raised their hands as one to show that democracy was indeed one of our favorite things.
11:29 am
but much to my amazement, our opposite number kept their hands on the table and gave us what we diplomats call the hairy eyeball. and of course, it was in a bit of fun. i was winding them up. it was a sense of which my question was semi-satirical. but the exchange was also deeply serious and revealing about the way in which the world has changed or perhaps the way in which it has failed to change. since that moment of exhilaration in 1990, when the berlin wall came down and the soviet union was coming to the end, and some of us -- i was certainly one, really believed that we had come to a moment of ideological resolution. and that after seven frozen decades, of communist totalitarian rule, the gulags,
11:30 am
all those forgotten by those who are still singing lenin's red flag last week at the labor party conference. we genuinely thought we were seeing the final triumph of that conglomerate of western liberal values that unite the people in this room. not just free markets. but all the things that we then believed in that brief shining moment at the end of the cold war with the essential concomitants of human rights, independent judiciary, equalities of race and gender and sexual orientation. the eternal and unalienable right of the media to make fun of politicians. we assumed -- and write poems about them. we assumed -- we assumed that this political freedom, social freedom went hand in hand with economic freedom.
11:31 am
like buying ice cream snickers bar, only the free market can produce something as ingenious as the snickers bar around a copy of private eye, free speech unknown in many parts of the world, in a two for one deal. like two sides of liberties, golden coin. and yet i have to tell you, that both sides of that coin of freedom have been tarnished over the last two decades. and we must be humble and realistic enough to accept that in many eyes the notion that we could endlessly expand the realm of liberal democracy was badly damaged alas by the invasion of iraq in 2003 and symmetrically our free market, anglo-saxon
11:32 am
capitalism was damaged by the crash of 2008 and the global suspicion of bankers. we have taken those twin blows like punches to the midriff. i think we have been winded and sometimes lacking in confidence in those ideals. and if you look at the course of events in the last ten years, then i'm afraid you can make the case that it is partly as a result of that lack of western self-confidence, political, military, economic, that in some material ways the world has got less safe, more dangerous and more worrying. after a long post-war period in which the world was getting broadly more peaceful the number of deaths in conflict have risen from 49,000 in 2010 to 167,000 last year. the global number of roughs is
11:33 am
up by 30%. up to 46 million last year. much of that crisis in refugees can be attributed to the war in syria. it is part of a wider arc of instability that sweeps across from iraq to libya. this matters profoundly to our country because it is the continuing savagery of the sad regime, against the people of aleppo. and the complicity of the russians, in committing what are patently war crimes. bombing hospitals when they know they are hospitals and nothing but hospitals. that is making it impossible for peace negotiations to resume. and it is prolonging a migration crisis that last year overwhelmed europe's ability to cope. and when the violent extremism erupted across the face of the
11:34 am
middle east we are inevitably seeing the contagion spreading to germany, france, belgium and of course here in our country as well. and if that threat to travel continues to have a palpable, chilling effect on tourism, perhaps even on trade, then for a great trading nation like britain that's a deep concern. then there's an even more pernicious phenomenal, stemming however unfairly from the disastrous events in iraq. 245 is the -- that is the temptation of governments to take this instability and insecurity which we cannot deny and use it as an excuse to move away from democracy. across africa. you can see for the first time in decades that governments are gradually becoming more
11:35 am
authoritarian. the number of african countries rated free or partly free has fallen from 44 to 29 in the last ten years. there are four african presidents who are currently rewriting their national constitutions to tighten their grip on power. and without going into details, since you all know them, i'm afraid there are plenty of countries large and small, where the idea of multiparty representative democracy in which we believe is obstinately failing to catch on. i think that is because there is also a view that has gained ground over the last few years that fukiyama was wrong. you know who i mean by fukiyama, yeah, a wind of history. there's a few gaining ground
11:36 am
that he was wrong and there's no re realsy metry tri and that you can have it without social freedom. there's a view in many parts of the world that the only way to ensure prosperity and stability is to suppress freedom. to crack down on pesky ngos and civil society and liquidate irritating journalists and compromise independent judges and generally to deprecate the western liberal consensus about how a society should be ordered. so if i have one message for you this afternoon, it is that this ill liberal analysis is deeply and dangerously wrong. and these social political freedoms as well as economic freedoms are not jous -- not just -- they're not imicable to
11:37 am
prosperities, ideological opponents would say they're essential for sustained growth and i can prove that point. you know, i'll make reference to the difficulties of other countries, i think that would be wrong. and undiplomatic. i'm going to prove that point by simply asking you to look by contrast at the society we live in. a 21st century britain that incarnates that symmetry. why we have more tech wizards in london than any other place in europe, is it because we politicians decided to embark on a soviet-style program of training people to do tech? i'd like to say it -- i invented it, nothing to do with me at all. i had no idea what it was. it all started -- it was because london acquired a deserved reputation as being the greatest
11:38 am
city on earth. a great jiving metropolitan melting pot, nothing to do to damage the interest of others and provided you obeyed the law you could make of your life pretty much what you wanted and that's why we lead in all the creative and culture sectors. that's why we have the best universities on earth. british university, oxford just named the best in the world again. because the best minds from across the world are meeting in some of the best pubs and bars and nightclubs. that's certainly true, the best cultural life anywhere on the planet. they're like sub atomic particles producing those flashes of innovation, of innovation. that are essential for long term economic success. it will not surprise you to know that britain is ranked amongst the top three innovative places in the world. america's number four by the
11:39 am
way. china -- china, i promised i wouldn't be competitive, but china is 25. the entire top ten innovative societies in the world are free market, liberal democracies. and it's because we have both those values at once together in this country. symmetrically that we are still according to the oedc the fastest growing economy in europe with all with the record unemployment and fantastic achievements of this government. it is this new dynamic government led by theresa may that is working not just to ensure that this country's success is felt by the few, but felt by absolutely everybody. and i think we should have no
11:40 am
shame or embarrassment in championing those ideals and the symmetry in our thought around the world. and in this era of dithering and dub aation, the message of global britain is that we should stick up for democracy and human rights as much as for free markets. my friends, i know this will not appease absolutely -- might appease everybody, i'm going to try anyway, i think that vote -- i think that vote on june the 23rd, i think that was a vote for economic and political freedom. and freedom for this country. and it was a liberation. over the last couple of months, i'm proud to say i have sat in all kinds of meetings.
11:41 am
vast, rum thattive feasts, washed down with the finest wines known to man and on one occasion, a splendid breakfast that seemed to stretch from 8:00 to 11:00. i have enjoyed all of them, every course, and i made friends, i made alliances. i have struck up all sorts of relationships. had wonderful conversations in the various euro creoles that i attempted to speak. but i have to tell you -- i have to tell you a lingering gloomer on paupers here in the audience that never once have i felt in all of my conversations in the european council that this country would be in any way disadvantaged by extricating from the eu treaty. on the contrary, i think there are many ways where we'll be liberated. liberated.
11:42 am
to be more active, more active, more visible, more energetic than ever before. because we are not leaving europe. we may be leaving the eu, we are not leaving europe. we will remain committed to all kinds of european cooperation as an intergovernmental level, whether it's maintaining sanctions against russia, what's going on in the ukraine or sending our navy to help the italians with the migrant crisis in the central mediterranean. but we also will be able to speak up in our own distinctive voice. leading the world as we now are in imposing a ban on ivory and helping to save the elephants. helping to save -- in a way that the disunited eu, the disunited eu they can't come one a position because some of them are slightly kowtowing to the big ivory importers, what
11:43 am
they're unable to do. the eu is actually trying to veto the ivory ban in spite of having a president called donald tusk, ladies and gentlemen. yes, which i think you'll agree is a -- it's an error. all -- all relaunching the cause of global -- as theresa just said in her terrific speech right now, relaunching the cause of global free trade. it's been stalled since the failure of the doha round. i can't -- a few more positive forces in the global economy. the world's fifth biggest economy. taking back control. taking back control. not just of our democracy. taking back control of our borders and of our tariff schedules, in geneva so that we can galvanize free trade, break the logjam and become the new global champions and do free trade deals around the world
11:44 am
that will continue the process of lifting billions of people out of poverty. that is why the world needs global britain. and our values more than ever. a cap painer -- a campaigner. a campaigner for what we believe in. a catalyst for change and reform and economic and political freedom. in a world that is losing confidence in those values. of course there are some people who say we are too small, too feeble, too geopolitically reduced to have that kind of influence and i think of the problematically labor party and they want to keep our nuclear submarines sending them to sea without any nukes aboard so the whole nation is turned into a negotiate if ied -- glorified
11:45 am
milita milita military capon firing blanks. i'm not going to pretend -- i'm not going to pretend this country is not something it's not. i go to the office so vast you can accommodate three squash courts, so dripping with gilt bling it looks like something out of the kardashians. i sit at the desk of george nathaniel kerrson and this was once of the nerve center of an empire seven times the size of the roman empire. without going into the map room, i can't help remembering that this country over the last two centuries has directed the invasional conquest of 178 countries. that is most of the members of the u.n. which is obviously not a point i
11:46 am
majored on in the new york general assembly. and i didn't -- i didn't because those days are gone forever. those days are gone forever. it is a profoundly good thing that they are gone. yet it would be fatal mistake to underestimate what this country is doing or what it can do. because in spite of iraq, it is simply not the case that every military intervention has been a disaster. look at what we did in se year -- sierra leone and together with a coalition of other european countries of the kind we'll continue to be involved in in the future, british ships took them on. with all of the courage and decisiveness of the 19th century
11:47 am
forbears. before the anti-pirate campaign, the pirates had cost the world economy about $7 billion a year. when britain stepped in the attacks stopped altogether. in fact, i'm glad to say that since 2012, there have been more hollywood films about somali pirates starring tom hanks than this have been pirate attacks. in fact, there have been five films and no pirate attacks. so that's global britain 5, pirates 0. of course we don't -- we don't want to wield our hard power and we think an age before we do. but when we give our armed services clear and achievable missions they can be remarkably effective. with 2% of our gdp spent on defense, we will be the leading
11:48 am
military player in western europe for the foreseeable future. and -- our hard part is is dwarfed by a pessimism when we unbundled the british empire that's of course our soft power. the vast, subtle, pervasive extension of british influence around the world that goes with having the language that was invented an perfected in this country of ours. now has more speakers than any other language on earth. after the creeks and the inlets of all the continents of the world go the gentle gun boats of british soft power. skippered by the likes of jeremy clarkson. prophet more honored abroad than alas in his own country or jk
11:49 am
raouling who is looked at as an idol, and i think -- i think the -- i think the beebe is the single greatest ambassador for our culture and for our values and it was sergei lavrov himself who said he not only watched our version of "war and peace" but thought it was very well done. that from the kremlin i think was praise. if you want final proof of our irresistible soft power, this country not only codified or invented every sport known to humanity, but this year it was our athletes from a country that can boast less than 1% of the world's population that became second in the olympic and the paralympic games.
11:50 am
i hope all of our friends in beijing -- i hope all of our friends in beijing draw on. to wind up, my friends, it is true as i have said that the world is not as safe or healthy as it should be. in 2016 we are worringa worryin afflicted by war and crime and the painful refusal too accept what you and i might see as common sense. that free markets and free society go together. but in case you are remotely tended to despair i urge you not to look at the problems but look at the successes that these free institutions have helped to engender. for all its differences life
11:51 am
expectancy in africa has risen. in 2002 average ethiopian -- 16 years ago the average ethiopian lived 47. it's 64 and climbing. in zambia the increase is from 44 to 60. in 1990, 37% of the world's population lived in poverty and that is -- absolute poverty. that's down to only 9.6% today and i think we with our commitment to .7% of our gdp going to development aid can take a large share of the credit for that achievement and i pay tribute to what is being done. 300 million pounds a year to ethiopia alone. it's our duty to do it. but above all it is our economic ideas, our believes in freedom, our values that continue to lift the world out of poverty and
11:52 am
that's got to be our continued ambition. it's been an extraordinary experience for me to be foreign secretary for the last few months and together with my fantastic team of ministerial colleagues, sir alan duncan for europe and the americas the commonwealth and the u.n., tobias elwood for africa and the middle east. mr. shermer for asia and the pacif pacific. we've made hundreds of trips. cats kratding the world in a stupefying accumulation of air miles [ laughter ] seriously. and i have confirmed to myself by primary observation that we have in our foreign office, foreign and commonwealth office we have the finest diplomatic service in the world. [ applause ]
11:53 am
covering more countries than the french with only 70% of their budget, by the way, just a point the treasury might note [ laughter ] and i'm giving nothing away when i say we have the most superb intelligence agencies in the world. [ applause ] when i make a speech in a foreign city, i look around the heaving room with room and i become aware of a phenomenon i think people of this country are barely aware of and that is that of the brits now alive and born in this country fully 1- in 10 s living pay broad. the size of scotland, bigger. no country according to the world bank has a diaspora. no other country is such a formidable exporter of human
11:54 am
talent. business people, lurz, teachers, prospectors, adventurers, poet, painters, whiskey seller, french nicker sellers, by the way, which we sell in ever-growing quantities to france and will continue to do when we strike a deal in a europe that works for everyone. l no other country is turned sod tangibly physically outwards and into the world and what these five million brits take with them is not just the knowledge of english or the cast of "the archers" or which kind of game has a position called off or things i wouldn't want to be interrogated myself, they taken a instinctive set of values and whether they are retired teachers working as monitors in
11:55 am
the ukrainian war zone, the kind i met a couple of weeks ago, or met police officers training their counterparts in the parts of syria held by the moderate opposition. i find that these brits are respected and admired in sometimes unexpected ways but ordinary people around the world. and in an age of anxiety and uncertainty it's surely more obvious than ever that our values are needed. and though we can never be complacent, i think we never take our position for granted, i think winston churchill was absolutely right, he was bound to come up, why not now? [ laughter ] i think winston churchill was absolutely right when he said that the empires of the future will be empires of the mind and in expressing our values abroad
11:56 am
i believe that global britain is a soft power superpower. and i think we can be immensely proud of what we're achieving and what we will go on to achieve in the years ahead. thank you very much, indeed. [ applause ] thank you. here's a look at c-span's upcoming coverage of state race debates. live tonight, a utah senate debate between incumbent republican mike lee seeking a second term and democrat misty snow, one of the first two transgender women to win a major
11:57 am
nomination in a federal election. hosted by the utah debate commission, it's live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and the c-span radio app. and tomorrow a debate for the eighth district of pennsylvania. incumbent republican congressman michael fitzpatrick is retiring from congress, but his brother brian is running for that seat. brian fitzpatrick will meet democratic state representative tomorrow at 12:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. and later, north carolina republican richard burr seeking a third term in the u.s. senate will face democrat debra ross, a former north carolina state representative. live coverage starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and the c-span radio app. and on friday, former wisconsin democratic senator russ feingold is seeking to win back the seat he lost to republican ron johnson in 2010. the two meet friday at 8:00 p.m. east american a debate live on c-span. and with senate minority leader
11:58 am
harry reid's retirement nevada has an open senate seat this year. republican congressman joe heck is running against former nevada attorney general, democrat catherine cortez masto. the two candidates debate at 10:00 p.m. eastern live on c-span as well as the c-span radio app. this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3. saturday evening at 6:00 eastern, historian chris mickowski on the battle of spotsylvania courthouse which pitted ulysses s. grant versus robert e. lee. >> the armies fought for a couple days, dime stalemates and grant moved left and south. they've been here in spotsylvania for a couple days, they fought to a stalemate and now he is reports of federalists moving left and south. what do you think that puts in lee's mind? i'm being flanked again.
11:59 am
then at 8:00, duke university professor gunther peck talks about america's cold war immigration policy toward refugees. >> they redefine refugees as fundamentally not just political refugees but as anti-communists who are kind of prototypical americans as they fight communist oppression abroad and that we have an obligation to let them in because they're anti-communist. >> and sunday afternoon at 4:30, bop dole and nancy kassebaum, both former republican senators from kansas during the 1970s through '90s talk about their years in congress. >> but i can tell you when bob was leader and i worked under -- we worked -- we were in the senate 18 years together but bob was leader for six of those yea yea years. >> when? >> when i was there. >> oh, well i thought i was leader after i left. [ laughter ] but i saw you both work with your committee chairman and you
12:00 pm
made sure you were working together and i think that is what we need to instill again. >> at 6:30 on road to the white house rewind, the 1984 presidential debate between president ronald reagan and former vice president walter mondale. >> we were warned that explosives were on their way and they weren't taken. the terrorists have won each time. the president told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. he didn't. >> we are not going to simply kill some people to say, oh, look, we got even. we want to know when we retaliate that we're retaliating with those responsible for the terrorist acts and terrorist acts are such that our own united states capital in washington has been bombed twice. for our complete schedule, go to cspan.org. >> now leaders of the army,
12:01 pm
navy, marines and air force testify before the senate arms services committee on budgetary concerns and how sequestration could impact staffing, training, equipment and the readiness of the armed forces. all agree a budgeting approach would be better for the operations and the ability to keep the country safe and secure. [ indistinct conversation ]
12:02 pm
good morning, senate arm services committee meets to receive testimony on the long-term budgetary challenges facing our military. i would like to welcome our witnesses, the chief of staff of the army, general millie, chief of naval operations admiral richardson, commandant of the marine corps general neller and the chief of staff of the air for force, general goldfine. far too often washington is governed by crisis and stopgap deals like continuing resolutions, omnibus spending bills and episodic budget agreements that are a poor substitute for actually doing our jobs. it's become partisan gridlock, political bringsmanship and back room dealing. is it any wonder why americans say they're losing trust in government? through it all we lose sight of
12:03 pm
the fact that the dysfunction of washington has very real consequences for the thousands of americans serving in uniform and sacrificing on our behalf all around the nation and the world from afghanistan to iraq and syria, from the heart of europe to the seas of asia our troops are doing everything we ask of them but we must ask ourselves, are we doing everything we can for them? are we serving them with a similar degree of courage in the performance of our duties? the answer i say with profound sadness is we are not. we are not. over many years across presidents and congressional majorities of both parties, washington has overseen a steady explosion of our national debt. this is just a fact. but five years ago, rather than confronting the real driver of our ballooning debt, which is the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending, we look the other way. we fail to make a tough choice and necessary reforms and the
12:04 pm
result because the budget control act which imposed arbitrary cabs on discretionary spending, including defense spending, for a decade. and when we failed to fix the real problem, we doubled down on these reckless cuts with mindless sequestration. in short, we lied to the american people. the budget control act and sequestration have done nothing to fix our national debt. this is just mathematics, and what's worse, the people who have punished -- we have punished for our failure are none other than the men and women of our armed services and many other important agencies. the world has only grown more dangerous over the past five years but the resources available to our military has continued to decline. this year's defense budget is more than $150 billion less than fiscal 2011. rising threats and declining budgets have led to shrinking military forces that are
12:05 pm
struggling to sustain higher operational tempo with aging equipment and depleted readiness. and doing so at the expense of modernizing to deal with the treats of tomorrow. our present crisis of military readiness is not just a matter of training. it's also a capacity problem. our army, navy, air force and marine corps are too small to train for and meet our growing operational requirements against threats while simultaneously have enough spare capacity to prepare for full spectrum warfare against high end threats. as it is, our services are cannibalizing themselves just to keep up with the current pace of deployments as recent media reports about the air force and marine corps aviation have made clear and the result is that our fighting forces becoming effectively hollow against great power competitors. if all of this is not bad
12:06 pm
enough, there's this. we're only halfway through the budget control act. there are five more years of arbitrary defense spending cutting. it's true that last year's bipartisan budget act provided by some much-needed relief but this two-year deal is coming to an end and when it does those arbitrary caps will remain in place through the next president's entire first term, the department of defense and many of us in the congress believe this would devastate our national defense yet we are fooling ourselves and deceiving the american people about the true cost of fixing the problem. just consider -- the department's current five-year defense plan is $100 billion in total above the spending cap set by the budget control act. in addition, roughly $30 billion of annual spending for base defense requirements is buried in the budget account for emergency operations.
12:07 pm
requirements that will remain for our military even if our present operations immediately ended -- which, of course, they won't. what this means is that over the next five years our nation must come up with 250 kbld just to pay for our current defense strategy and our current programs of record. $250 billion. just to do what we are planning to do right now, which i think many of us would agree is insufficient to meet our present, let alone our future challenges. a quarter of a trillion dollars that is -- that is the real hidden cost above our budget caps that we must come up with over the next five years. put simply, we have no plan as yet to pay for what our department of defense is doing right now even as most of us agree that what we are doing at present is not sufficient for what we really need.
12:08 pm
and those needs are great indeed -- from maintaining the capability and capacity to wage a generational fight against radical islamic terrorism to rebuilding a ready and modernized force to deter and, if necessary, defeat high-end threats, to modernizing our nuclear deterrent, to investing in the next generation capabilities that will preserve our military technological advantage and ensure our troops never find themselves in a fair fight. the bottom line is this. from the budget control act caps to the so-called oco account to the modernization bow wave that is coming, we are lying to ourselves and the american people about the true cost of defending the nation. the result is that our military's ability to deter conflict is weakening and should we find ourselves in conflict it
12:09 pm
is becoming increasingly likely our nation will deploy young americans into battle without sufficient training or equipment to fight a war that will take longer, be larger, cost more and ultimately claim more american lives than it otherwise would have. and if that comes to pass, who will be responsible? who is to blame for the increasing risk to the lives of the men and women who volunteer to serve and defend our nation? . the answer is clear -- we are. the president and the congress, democrats and republicans, all of us, with budget debates looming ahead, the question now is whether we'll find the courage we've lack for five long years, the courage to put aside politics, to chart a better course, to adopt a defense budget worthy of the service and sacrifice of those who volunteer to put themselves in harm's way on our behalf. i'm committed to doing
12:10 pm
everything i can as chairman of this committee to establishing this task. i know my colleagues on this committee are, too, and despite the odds i am ever hopeful that together we still can. senator reid? >> well, thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me join you in welcoming the members of the panel and thank them for their outstanding service to the nation and ask them to convey our thanks to the men and women who serve so proudly in uniform for the united states. thank you. the focus of today's hearing is the long-term budget challenges confronting our military services. for 15 years our armed forces have been in continuous military operations while our men and women in uniform have performed their duties superbly doing all we've asked them to do and more the intense operational tempo has had an impact on our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marine, training and equipment. on top of that, the services have had to grapple with constraint budgets as the chairman has pointed out. military leaders before us today
12:11 pm
have an important task. as they plan their budget's fiscal year 2018 and beyond, they must anticipate emerging threats for the future and how our military will address and ultimately defeat those threats. as we are reminded on a daily basis, our country is facing many complicated and rapidly evolving challenges is that don't offer easy or quick solutions. for example, we have seen our near peer competitors learn from our past successes and make advancements of their own, particularly in the areas of precision and long-range strike, anti-access/area denial, space and cyber. as a result, the department of defense has embarked on a third offset strategy to address the state erosion of u.s. technological superiority and recapture our qualitative advantage over our adversaries. i welcome our witnesses' thoughts on how their respective services plan to confront these critical issues in the context of these difficult budgetary issues. in addition to anticipating planning future threats, our witnesses must ensure targeted
12:12 pm
investments are made to rebuild readiness levels, modernize the force and maintain the well-being of our troops. over the course of this year, the committee has repeatedly heard testimony on these issues and i hope witness cans provide the committee on the updates on progress they have made. defense budgets should be based on our long-term military strategy which requires the department to focus at least five years into the future. last year congress passed the 2015 bipartisan budget act that established discretionary funding level spefs spending for fiscal year 2016 and 2017. while the bba provided by the budget stability in the near term, there is no strategy for fiscal 2018 and beyond. therefore, without another agreement that provides relief from sequestration, the military service will be forced to it? a fiscal year 2018 budget that adheres to the sequestration budget cap and would undermine the investors readiness and modernization and other aspects
12:13 pm
of military force. not only is the issue of one budgets but it's one of the certainty of knowing that you have budget levels not just for a year but for at least five years. that's another aspect we have to come to grips with. i will welcome the witnesses' thoughts and suggestions as we move forward. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> general milley? >> thank you, chairman mccain, appreciate that and ranking member reed and other distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our army. and thank you for your consistent support and commitment to army soldiers, civilians and families. a ready army, as you know, is manned, trained, equipped and well led as the foundation of the joint force in order to deter and, if deterrence fails, to fight and defeat a wide range of state and non-state actors today, tomorrow, and deep into the future. although there's many challenges as i outline below, the most
12:14 pm
important of which is consistent, sustained and predictable funding over time. i still want to be clear. the united states army is america's combat force of decision and we are more capable, better trained, better equipped, better led and more lethal than any other ground force in the world today. we are highly valued by our allies and we're feared by our enemies. and the enemies know full well we can destroy them, we can destroy any enemy, we can destroy them anywhere and we can destroy them any time. but having said that, our challenge today is to sustain the counterterrorist and counterinsurgency capabilities that we have developed to a high degree of proficiency over the last 15 consecutive years of war for many years in the future. prediction of which is unknown. and simultaneously rebuild our
12:15 pm
capability in ground combat against higher-end near-peer great power threats. the army prioritizes readiness in this ndaa because the global security environment is uncertain and complex and i anticipate we will have to continue to priority readiness for many years to come. while we cannot forecast precisely when and whether the next contingency will arise, it is my professional military view that if any contingency happens, it will likely require a significant commitment of u.s. army forces on the ground. the army is currently committed to winning our fight against radical terrorists and enduring conflict in other parts of the global. currently, the army provides 52% of all the global combat and commander demand for military forces and we provide 69% of all the emerging combat and commander demand and currently
12:16 pm
we have 187,000 soldiers committed in 140 different countries globally conducting the nation's business. to sustain current operations at that rate and to mitigate the risks of deploying an unready force into future combat operations, the army will prioritize and fully fund readiness over end strength modernization and infrastructure. in other words, we are mortgaging future readiness for current readiness. we request the resources to fully man and equip our combat formations and conduct realistic combined arms combat training at both home station and our combat training centers. we request continued support for modernization in five key capability areas that we determined are lagging -- aviation, command-and-control networks, integrated air and missile defense, combat vehicles, and emerging threat
12:17 pm
programs. our near-term innovation efforts are focused on developing overmatch in mobility, lethality, mission command, and force protection with specific emphasis on the following systems -- long-range precision fires, missile defense, directed energy weapons, ground vehicles, vertical lift, cyber, electronic warfare, robotics, networks, and active protective system for both ground and air. and we ask your continued support for our soldiers and families to recruit, retain the high level and high quality of soldiers of character and competence that you have come to expect from the united states army. with your support through sustained long-term, balanced, predictable resources the army will fund readiness at sufficient levels to meet current demands, build readiness for contingencies and invest in the readiness of our future force. thank you, senators, for the opportunity to testify and i
12:18 pm
look forward to your questions. >> admiral richardson? >> good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member reed, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and thank you for your sustained support to our navy and our nation. i've been traveling around a fair amount recently to put eyes on to our navy around the world and as you know the problems they face are getting more complex by the day. but your naval team is working hard and our sailors, marines and civilians are simply astounding in their skill and dedication, we must focus on them with everything we do to respect their mission and their dedication. i can describe our current challenges in terms of a triple whammy. the first whammy is, as we've said, the continued high demand for our forces, our naval forces. we just marked the 15th anniversary of 9/11 and the past
12:19 pm
15 years of high up tempo in support of the wars has put tremendous wear and tear on our ships and aircraft. it's also taken a toll on the sail soors that take those platforms out to sea, on the skilled navy civilians that build and repair them and on our family members. the second whammy is budget uncertainty. eight years of continuing resolutions, including a year of sequestration have driven additional cost and time into just about everything that we do. the services are essentially operating in three fiscal quarters per year now. nobody schedules anything important in the first quarter. the disruptions that this uncertainty imposes translates to risks to our navy and our nation, the third whammy is the resource levels and budget control and bipartisan budget acts funding levels require us to prioritize achieving full readiness only for deploying
12:20 pm
units. these are ready for full spectrum operations, but we are compromising the readiness of those ships and aircraft that we will have to surge to achieve victory in a large conflict and we have also curtailed our modernization in a number of areas critical to staying ahead of our potential adversaries. one more related point, and mr. chairman this highlights a point you brought up. your navy thrives on long-term stability and when putting together shipbuilding plans it's necessary to think in terms of decades and while i know we're mostly here to talk about the current challenges, i feel i must say i was struck by the recent congressional budget office report updating their long-term budget and economic outlook. in it they predict that within the decade discretionary spending, which includes defense, will drop to the lowest levels in more than 50 years, it
12:21 pm
makes crystal clear that it is vital that we all dive in and get to work on this problem now for the security of our country. in terms of a solution, we must work as partners. on one hand, we must work to set sufficient resource levels and restore stability to the budgeting process, and on the other hand, we must ensure, i must ensure, that every dollar that the american taxpayer gives the navy is spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. i'm committed to meeting my responsibilities here and partnering with you as we go forward. together with our sister services, your navy is here to protect our great nations. your sailors and civilians continue to do everything that is being asked of them even as demands tonight to grow. working together with you i'm committed to finding a way to address these challenges, thank you, sir, and i look forward to your questions. >> general neller?
12:22 pm
>> chairman mccain, ranking member reed, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the ability to prepare today and talk about your marines and thank you for your support of marine, sailors that serve with marines, our civilian marines and our families. marines have a unique perspective on readiness based on the intent of congress. we are the nation's force and readiness and being ready is central to our identity as part of the navy/marine corps team. that said, militia, my understanding of the purpose of this hearing is for the service chiefs to provide our best military advice on our current and future readiness challenges, my experience in the marine corps has been to make due with what we've been given. that's just the way i was raised and i've never been comfortable asking for anything more and i also understand there are many competing fiscal requirements that this congress has to deal with. however, based on the current top line and the future budget projections, and though we are meeting our current requirements, i believe we're
12:23 pm
pushing risk and the long-term health of the force into the future. as an example, we submitted an unfunded priority list of approximately $2.6 billion, which was the largest we've ever submitted. the global security environment drives our requirements and requirements equal commitments, your marines are as busy and committed now as during the height of operations in iraq and afghanistan. current op tempo balanced against fiscal reductions, instability of continuing resolutions and the threat of sequestration during the past few years have driven us to critically review the allocation of resources in order to meet these commitments. we, like the other services, make tough choices everyday and we're facing our readiness challenges head on. our readiness priority has been deployed. current readiness shortfalls in aviation, facility sustainment, future modernization, retention of critical skills and building the depth on our ready bench forces at home are our primary concerns. that said, we have not stood
12:24 pm
idly by in planning for our future. i'm confident we have identified our requirements for readiness recovery and improvements and we are making progress, slowly, but progress nonetheless. our force 2025 initiative is identifying the requirements of our fuch heture marine corps. force 2025 addresses current capability shortfalls, sustainment of capacity and future manpower requirements to fight on the 21st century battlefield. fiscal constraints necessarily bring tradeoffs and to paraphrase one of our predecessors, we will give you the most ready marine corps the nation can afford. we will generate the maximum readiness possible with the resources we are provided by and we will generate a marine corps is that is agile, ready and lethal. working side by side with congress, the other services and our navy shipmates especially you can count on your marines to meet and exceed the standards
12:25 pm
the american people have set for us, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. general gold fein. >> thank you. it's an honor to be here and be a member of this jcs team. serving beside men i have known for years, fought with and admire. in the interest of brevity, you asked five questions in your letter to us requesting this hearing. you asked what are the air force's modernization needs. we need to maintain stable predictable funding for the f-35, the kc-46 and the b-21 in order to outpace our adversaries. at the same time, shoulder-to-shoulder with the navy we must modernize our aging nuclear enterprise and while we continue to extend the life of our existing fleets, we need to flexibility to retire aging weapons systems and reduce excess infrastructure in order to afford the technology needed to maintain our advantage given
12:26 pm
adversary advancements in slate-enabled precision, stealth, cruise and ballistic missiles, isr, and other anti-access area denial capabilities that continue to proliferate worldwide. you asked how will the air force regain full-spectrum readiness. it starts with people. our bipartisan budget act in strength totals 492,000 airmen for fy-'17. 317,000 of which are active duty. based upon current and projected global demands to defeat challenges presented by china, russia, iran, north korea and violent extremism we respectfully request your support to grow our force to 321,000 active duty airmen by the end of fy-'17. this remains our top priority in the current budget request. you asked how will the air force maintain its technological edge?
12:27 pm
we're laser focused on fighter, tanker and bomber recapitalization, nuclear modernization, preparing for a war that could extend into space, increasing our capability and capacity in the cyber domain and leveraging and improving multidomain and coalition-friendly command-and-control as the foundation of future combined arms operation. you asked how will your requirements will impact the budgetary top line from fiscal year 2018 onward. we'll be forced to continually make strategic trades to simultaneously sustain legacy fleets encaged in the current flight while smartly investing in modernization and the future technologies that will be required to meet combat and commander demands in the information age of warfare. repealing sequestration, returning to stable budgets without extended continuing resolutions and allowing the flexibility to reduce excess infrastructure and make
12:28 pm
strategic trades are essential to success. finally you asked what solutions are available for mid-gaiting growing costs such as new acquisition authorities or solutions to maintaining our military. as the chief requirements officer, i review every major program to ensure requirements are clearly published and sustained throughout the program. and by personally signing documents leading to milestone a and b decisions to ensure we meet cost, schedule and performance standards for war fighting commanders. additionally we aligned our continuous process improvement efforts with d.o.d.'s initiatives as well as secretary james bending the cost kevin activities. in summary all of our portfolios depend on steady predictable and timely funding and the flex tonight make key trades to balance capability, capacity and readiness. current global security demands remind us that america's joint team must be ready to engage any time, anywhere across the full
12:29 pm
spectrum of conflict all while defending the homeland and providing a safe, secure, and reliable strategic nuclear deterrent. america expects it, combat and commanders require it and with your support our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will continue to deliver it. we look forward to your questions. >> thank you. thank the witnesses and thank you for your leadership and service to the nation. i think we would all agree that the world has changed a lot since the initiation of sequestration. a simple question. do you feel we can adequately -- you would have the resources and ability to defend this nation against present and future threats if we continue down this path of quesequestration? beginning with you, general milley. >> under sequestration, no, sir, i do not. >> admiral richardson? >> i agree with general milley, sir, sequestration will prevent us from doing that.
12:30 pm
>> general neller? >> no, sir, we would not have the capability. >> chairman goldfein? >> same. >> thank you. admiral richardson you talk about -- in your written statement "our people are feeling the strain, we continue to meet our recruiting and retention goals." but you go on to talk about seals, you begin to talk about surface nuclear officers not meeting goals. naval aviation is another area of concern, we've seen declines in officer retention for multiple grades and bonuses are not proving fully effective. i guess i would ask admiral richardson, general neller and general goldfein, it's not a matter of money with these young pilot, isn't that true? it's a matter of being able to fly and operate and to -- when we just talk about solving this problem with bonuses, we're never going to compete with the
12:31 pm
airlines. they can always up the ante. but when they're flying less than the chinese, you're going to have a problem. >> our pilots join to fly naval aircraft, that's what they want to do. this is a much bigger problem than money. money can help to a point. we want to make sure we adequately compensate our -- all of our people. there is competition but this is a highly dedicated team that wants to defend the nation in high performance aircraft. they want to fly. >> general neller? >> sir, i would hayy from with that. on paper our situation looks a little bit better but it doesn't take out into account the experience level of those air crew but it is about the best retention thing we can do is provide modern, maintainable ready-to-fly airplanes. but i'd say it's more than just
12:32 pm
the air crew, it's also the maintainers. we're making it now on the backs of those sergeants and staff sergeants out there that have to do -- work twice and to get the part from one and put it on the other so i'm as concerned about maintainers sticking around. as we go to depots, we compete not just with airlines for air crew but with contractors and commercial concerns for the marines that maintain our airplanes. >> and you -- while i've still got you, in your written statement you said the marine corps is no longer in a position to generate current readiness and reset our equipment while sustaining facilities and modernizing to ensure future readiness. that's a pretty strong statement, general. >> based on the current fiscal environment as was stated i believe by my fellow chiefs, we're all making trades and those trades require us to accept risk in certain areas. i would like to have our parts support. when you look at the aviation
12:33 pm
particularly but i can say the same thing about ground equipment. the amount of money we're able to put against parts and supply support is not what we need to maintain our legacy aircraft. >> general goldfein? >> sir, i approach this as a balanced challenge and opportunity, quality of service and quality of life. removing financial burdens through aviation bonus falls in the quality of life category, but what we've found in the past and we have been through this before because airlines have hired before is that it's the quality of service that's as important as quality of life and quality of service is making sure you're given the opportunity to be the best you can be in your designed -- if your chosen occupation. pilots who don't fly, mainta maintainers who don't maintain, controllers who don't control will walk and there's not enough money in the treasury to keep them in if we don't give them the resources they need to be the best they can be. in my mind, readiness and morale are linked. where we have high readiness, we tend to have high morale because they're given the opportunities
12:34 pm
to compete. where we have low readiness, we have lowest morale. >> general milley in your written statement you said "our goal is to have regular army brigade combat teams achieve 60% full spectrum readiness and i estimate that it will take the army approximately four years to achieve that assuming no significant increase in demand and no sequestration levels of funding." that's a pretty alarming statement when you look at the challenges, the potential challenges that we are facing. you want to elaborate on that a bit? >> thanks, senator. for 15 consecutive years the army has been decisively committed to iraq and afghanistan and other counterinsurgency and counterterrorist operations. in order to do that, we essentially came off of a core war fighting skills of combined arms maneuver against a higher end threat so for example just a
12:35 pm
couple of examples, an err mortar officer today, a tank officer up through, say, the rank of major has very little experience in terms of maneuvering tanks against an opponent who has armor. very little experience in gunnery. artillery, battalion, have not filed battalion-level fires consistently in a decade and a half. so i have -- you know, we have to rebuild that and that's going to take considerable time, effort on our part, we've made a lot of progress in the last year. >> and you can't do it with sequestration? >> absolutely not. sequestration will take it out from underneath us. i said to senator reed that i wanted your frank and honest review and appreciate your
12:36 pm
testimony today and it will be in our efforts to eliminate the effect of sequestration and give us the with wheherewithal that to meet the challenges which are, as i said in the beginning, far more significant than they were on the day that sequestration began. we have a lot of issues but appreciate the fact that you have outlined for this committee and i hope for the american people the necessity of us as dreading these challenges. i thank the witnesses. senator reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. again, thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony it's very insightful, very sobering and reinforces the point the chairman made, that we have to move away from sequestration and one of the issues that -- has been ill traited by your testimony is not just the limits on spending, it's the uncertainty. admiral richardson you pointed
12:37 pm
out you only operate three quarters of the year, one quarter is just standing around wishing and hoping. can you elaborate a bit? >> sir, behaviors have modified to adapt to the reality of the last eight years so big programs that require new funding, that require authorities for new starts, those are prohibited in a continuing resolution environment and so rather than put those programs in the first quarter and put them at risk we just live in a three-quarter year and that first quarter is a light touch on trying to keep things going. >> let me go to general milley and then general goldfein, your comments about this uncertainty factor? one could argue -- and i'll get your insight -- that effectively you're losing lots of money and wasting lots of money because of this uncertainty, not saving anything because of sequestration, is that fair? >> that's correct, senator, because if all we're doing is
12:38 pm
planning things year to year or three quarters of a year to three quarters of a year, things like multiyear contract, developing long-term relationships with industry where they can count on us, that becomes very difficult and what ends up happening is the price per unit goes up so it's built in inefficiency, built in cost overruns, it's not good and it needs to en. >> general neller, your comments. >> very much the same, senator, we don't have -- we've got some major programs and we would like to have the certainty to tell the vendor that they have the funding and we can press them to to drive the cost down. but in line with what general goldfein said, the force out there is looking at us and they want to know what the plan is, people for all of us are our center of gravity. that's the one thing we have to protect. we can buy the planes and ships an tanks and vehicles we want but we have to keep --s in a volunteer force, this is a recruited and retained force and
12:39 pm
they watch everything going on. these young men and women are very smart. they want to know there's commitment that they can count on as they decide whether they'll continue to stay in. >> thank you, sir. general goldfein? >> thank you, sir, just perhaps to add some perspective. if we end up in a long-term continuing resolution, this will be the eighth we've had to deal with so just to give you a scale, then, for what will happen in the united states air force, if we go beyond three months into a long-term cr, that will be $1.3 billion less than the fy-'17 budget. some immediate impacts, kc-46 will go from 15 to 12 aircraft. we'll be procuring munitions at the fy-'16 rates. in the fy-'17 budget we were actually able to forecast based on what we believe we will be dropping in the current fight. that will go away so we'll be procuring preferred munitions at a lower rate which not only affects all of us engaged in the campaign but also our coalition
12:40 pm
partners relying on us as well for preferred munitions. we'll have 60 acquisition programs that will be affected and 50 milcon projects will also be affected. that just by a long term cr. >> thank you. one of the issues that you all discussed is the chairman has made i think appropriate reference to a changing situation in terms of unexpected challenges in the last several years. my sense, too, is that as we look around particularly from technology that you're beginning to discuss unanticipated costs to legacy systems in addition that we might not even have added into the projection, is that fair to say, general goldfe goldfein? then we'll go down the panel. >> we do a service life extension program or slep. there's a reason it's a four-letter word. we put in an aircraft and shake it and put it through all kinds of environmental testings then
12:41 pm
we find out what the failure parts are and we either buy those parts or put them bench stock and try to predict what we will need then we certify that aircraft will fly to the next 2,000 hours. the reality is we only fix what we can accurately predict and when we put these aircraft into depot maunt innocenintenance wes breaking that we never predicted. classic example, a nose steering problem and we look for the part and we haven't made that part in five years so we go to industry and we find we have to hand make a part we haven't made in years and that causes the costs to go up so what we found over the years is that older aircraft, it's not a linear path in terms of cost growth, it gets to an expotential growth and that cost per flying hour requires us to put more money into systems longer than putting that money into the modernization which we desperately need. >> my time is expired, thank
12:42 pm
you, gentlemen, again for your service. mr. chairman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, general milley, when you were talking about ground troops, i'm reminded of my last year in the house. i was on the house arms services committee in 1994 when we had an expert witness sitting out there like you guys are saying in ten years we'd no longer need ground troops. and i think so often about what our needs will be in the future and how we're trying to survive today and yet looking into the future, yeah, you talk about the kc-46 and the need -- the kc-135 has been around for 57 years and it will be around for a lot longer and this is not what the other side, the competition does. i think the chairman is right when he says that he asked for your honest opinion and i don't have and we don't have the credibility to go out to the public and adequately explain the level of risk that we're
12:43 pm
accepting today and the fact we're in the most threatened position, in nmy opinion, we've ever been. they depend on hearing that from you not people like me. when general dempsey said some time ago "we're putting our military on a path where the force is so degraded and unready it would be immoral to use force." that was a courageous statement that i've used and people are shocked when they hear it. this is so time ago now. the statement was made there can be for the first time in my career instances where we'll be asked to respond a crisis and we'll have to say that we cannot. that's a shocker, then, of course, when our former colleague chuck hagel said rm american dominance of the seas, in the skies and in space can no longer be taken for granted. what i'm saying is that you folks need to be outspoken. you need to be heard because you're the experts and the public is not aware of the threats we have so i'm going to ask you in a minute a question
12:44 pm
just on the size of the military but let me give you a couple of -- these are quotes from you and other people talking about just the size. general goldfein you said "our strategic capability advantage over competitors is shrinking and our ability to protect strategic deterrence is being challenged." general, your predecessor, general welsh said "virtually every mission area faces critical manning shortages. condition with manning shortages. and the air force risks burning airmen out." general milley said "in light of the threats confronting our nation to include russia, china, north korea, iran, isis, we need to talk about that, the army has accepted high military risk to meet the requirements of the national security strategy." the general allen at today's strength "army risk consuming readiness is building." so i'd like that ask each one of you to do the realities of the
12:45 pm
strategic environment today and the foreseeable future call for a change in the size of our military starting with you, general milley. >> thank you, senator. i think the army has got adequate readiness and adequate size to deal with our current demand, which is fighting terrorists. counterinsurgency operations in iraq and elsewhere around the world and meet combat-and-commander demand for day to day operation. >> now you're saying the current end strength -- >> the current. the day to day, national military strategy given we're engaged against isis, al qaeda and other groups, that's current. the risk comes if we have a conflict with a near peer high end competitor. those other contingencies that secretary of defense carter and many others have talked about with china, russia, north korea or iran. each of which is different operationally and tactically, each of which would require went
12:46 pm
from levels of forces, types of forces and methods of operation. the bottom line is, with the size of the u.s. army today, if one or more of those other contingencies took place i maintain that our risk would significantly increase, as i mentioned before, and if two of them happened at the same time i think it's high risk for the nation. >> and that is not predictable. >> of course not but we have to be prepared for it and one last comment, you know everything -- what we want is to deter. nobody wants to have wars with near peer competitors and the only thing more extensive than deterrence is fighting a war and the only thing more expensive than fighting one is fighting and losing one. we recognize it's expensive we but the bottom line is it's an investment worth every nickel. >> good statement. is briefly, admiral richardson, size. >> sir, philosophically i couldn't say it any better than general milley did. in terms of size, we're asking the same question.
12:47 pm
when i first came in to be the cno, our current fleet size -- and there's more to capability than size but size does matter -- is 308 ships. that assessment was done without considering emerging threat of russia or isis. we are completing a study this month that gets at a new force structure assessment and we'll bring that to you shortly. >> you two generally agree with that? i think it's two things, senator, it's the capacity and size you talked about but it was mentioned by every else the capability sets that we have now, the future fight, if there is one, hopefully there isn't but to deter a future fight there are capabilities we don't in the marine corps have that we'll require because we we focused on the fight against terrorism in the last 15 years. how big is that force? what do you do? otherwise you have to trade -- because there are capabilities we have that we don't want to
12:48 pm
get rid of, as you trade one capability for another you give something up and accept risks to get the other capability and those are the trades we're kiss cussing. >> and you have to september risk. i have not comment to make concerning that. agree we the fact -- and i talked to the pilots. they want to fly more, that is significant you can't eliminate the fact that it costs $9 million to take someone off the street and make an f-22 pilot out of them yet the bonus, what, $25,000 a year, that has to be considered also i would say. >> sir in terms of the fact that we're moving forward for aviation bonus, i'm not sure. >> you have to consider that, too, along with flying hours because the extense of taking someone and putting advance air force training and taking them up to f-22 cape zblblt yes, sir.
12:49 pm
as a matter of fact our studies that we've done show that -- we haven't adjusted the aviation bonus for a numbers of years so we're asking for congress's support to give us authorization for a higher level based on the data we have that shows it will take more than what we're offering today to be able to provide the quality of life incentives to allow them to stay in but at the same time i amylaser focused on the quality of service aspect of this because even if i pay them more, if i don't get them in the air, they're going to walk. >> you're right, you're right. >> on behalf of the chairman, senator mccaskill. >> thank you. i want to associate myself with the opening statement of senator mccain in many ways because i think you all honestly step forward and lead an amazing fighting force. we owe the american people honesty about the military budget and what is going on in the house of representatives is once again a phony budget gimmick to pretend that they are
12:50 pm
somehow being fiscally conservative because they are using the overseas contingency operations fund to fund the base operations of our military that is that is dishonest on its face. it is inefficient and infective for a military. and general milley, i would like to bring this home to my state. obviously, we have fort leonard wood that dates back to world war ii to some of its buildings, and we have temporary military construction, dating back to that time and we are in an aggressive updating of that facility, which is such a key facility for our army. and i noticed that they even had the nerve to put military construction activities at bases in the united states in the overseas contingencies operating fund. can you comment about how this impacts your ability on
12:51 pm
readiness and training, when you are being put in a fund that is year to year, and not certain, and you can't plan with it in. >> sure, senator. i mean, exactly right. you can't plan with it. you can't just go year to year. and things like multi year contracts and having relationships with commercial industry in order to upgrade weapons, equipment, et cetera. specifically what you're talking about infrastructure, a key component. it is atrophied. through put capacities. we've got a laundry list of details, not just missouri, but many other places. that's of great concern. we've been robbing that account in order to maintain readiness in order to pay for the war. that's another area of great concern, the infrastructure. >> our men and women that have been deployed, they're not
12:52 pm
deployed for a half a year, so we certainly shouldn't fund their money for a half a year. general goldfein, i also had an opportunity to go to 139 air lift wing over the last few weeks, and it is the top gun of air lift in terms of training. and the frustration there is there seems to be a disconnect, and only you and people that you interact with can fix this, and that is, these are strategic level courses. we're training people from all over the country at this facility in terms of lift, and internationally i might add, our allies as you probably well know. for some reason, they're having to deal with an annual funding issue, instead of getting programmatic funding. i don't get that. i don't get why national guard bureau and air mobility command cannot get together. because you know what they're doing, they're doing this.
12:53 pm
one is saying, oh, we're putting programmatic, and the other is saying we don't have it. it is really frustrating for that excellent facility to have to continue to beat on the door and have nobody answer. i would like your commitment to look into this and see if you can get it resolved once and for all. >> yes, ma'am. i'll tell you really quickly, we had this come up in the remote pilot aircraft business. what we found was that because there are so many elements associated with getting a cap airborne and do a sortie, we hadn't gone through and done the work that built the requirements that layout over an entire year, and so the wing commanders were having to plug holes and go month to month to month. so as a result of that, we put together a team and we're working with the director of the national guard lay out annual requirement for the npa days. and once we have the annual requirements, we'll fund them. i'll take this on. >> that would be terrific. >> finally, for you, general miller, i'm a big, big fan of
12:54 pm
the marines. but i was struck when i was at fort leonard wood, visiting recruits, they had done nine weeks, ait training, and i had a chance to visit with these men and women. i was struck how many immigrants were in this training class. from south korea, honduras, they did just done a naturalization ceremony on the base for 67 soldiers becoming united states citizens. these people want to cross the line and die for their country. when i saw the way the muslim soldier was treated in paris island, it hurt my heart. i just want it on the record for you to commit that you will get to the bottom of this, and there will be no question in the marines that abusing someone because of their ethnicity or their religion is absolutely unacceptable, or their gender orientation.
12:55 pm
>> senator, you have my complete and total commitment to that. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> on behalf of chairman mccain. >> thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. i'm going to pick up a little bit on senator mccaskill's expression of frustration and expand that. many times, the american people hear different stories, different information from different sources. i would like to highlight part of that today and get your response to that, and if you would clarify it. general milley, the "wall street journal" published an article by general petraeus last month. it was entitled "the myth of the u.s. military readiness crisis." in it he characterized army's weapons inventory in the following way. while some categories of aircraft and other key weapons are aging and will need replacement or major refurbishment soon, most remains in fairly good shape.
12:56 pm
according to our sources, army has mission capable rates today exceeding 90%, and that is historically high level. general, do you believe that general petraeus was correct in that assessment to that -- the equipment and mission capable rates are what he says they are, and what does that tell us, or possibly what does it not tell us about this state of the army? >> thanks, senator. i've got -- i know general petraeus and i have a lot of respect for him, along with the co-author. both are very talented. but as you might expect, i don't necessarily agree with that. the readiness issue, you know, the title of the article, i
12:57 pm
don't know if crisis is the right word. that's packed with emotion, but there are serious readiness challenges in the united states army today. the operational readiness rates are not above 90%. they are well below 90% in some cases. and that's cause for great concern. they're improving, but they're below 90%. 90% is the standard. nine out of ten are ready to go at war, weapons systems are not in that condition at this time. >> thank you, sir, for clarifying that. also, the argument goes on to argue that training for full spectrum operations is resuming. by 2017, the army plans to rotate nearly 20 brigades, about a third of its force, through national training each year. the marine corps plans to put 12 infantry battalions, half its force through large training exercises and the air force is funding its training and readiness programs at 80 to 98% to what it considers fully
12:58 pm
resourced levels. generals, do you that that accurately portrays your services and their readiness to conduct the full spectrum separations? general milley? >> it is a partial answer. so with the flagship training event for an army brigade, going to a combat training center down in louisiana, and a few years ago, we were not doing decisive action operations against higher end threats. we changed gears about 24 months ago and about 12 to 18 months ago, we started putting brigades, unless they were specifically designated to go into afghanistan or iraq. by the end of next year, 100% on active duty will have one rotation.
12:59 pm
all about reps. so if you are back in the day, pre 9/11, a major for example, would he have three, four, five, maybe more rotations through a training center by the time they reach those levels. today, we have an entire generation of officers, commanding battalions or even in some cases companies that are not -- have little or no experience. by the end -- 100%. it is a matter of reps. we do it over and over again. the data i have and the forecast we have is by the end of 18, 24 months from now, we'll have nine of our brigades, with three rotations, 18 with two, and four with one. that's not bad. it is better. and all that is good, but more to it than just going to the training centers.
1:00 pm
that's a key part, but more to it. manning levels, holding us back. we have over 30,000 non-available soldiers in the regular army today. that's a corps. an entire corps are not available for medical, legal, and a variety of other reasons. that's not even talking about your training account, basic training, what the overhead it takes to run basic training. your personnel piece is big and equipment maintenance, we just talked about with or rates, those are all parts of readiness. that's just readiness with the equipment, modernization, systems we have today. five or ten years from now, there is lots of systems out there that we need to investment in to get them online to be able to deal with a power, if, in fact, that day ever comes. so i don't subscribe 100% to what general petraeus and as much as i respect them and michael hanlan wrote. >> thank you. i'm out of time. if you could get me that

54 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on