Cspans q a. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. Defense secretary mark eer and mark milley were on capitol hill to testify for the 2020 request for the pentagon. They were also asked about military moderation efforts and defense funds for border wall construction. The Committee Meets today to receive testimony in the department of defense fiscal year 2021 budget request and our witnesses we thank them for our service and both dr. Marques per and general mark. We have a pair of marks this morning. This committees top priority is ensuring the effectiveness adjacent to a National Defense strategy thats our vote we had heard in hearing for a long period of time now, about three years. Unfortunately, the last administration we asked our military to do more with less. That got us in trouble between 2012 and 2017, we boost 150 billion to sequestration. Our Defense Budget in the redness of our forces were devastated. I think we all understand this. As a result when President Trump came to officer, he inherited an American Military in crisis, thankfully he delivered on his promise to begin rebuilding the u. S. Armed force. Last year, President Trump negotiated the highest level of defense spending ever. A down payment toward getting our military back to work it needs to be, but thats not enough. We face a more dangerous world today than we anticipated we would. Since then, the russian has invited crimea. Back to assad and syria, sent mers naers to libya and violatinged the imf treaty. China began building islandings in the south china sea, harassing its neighbors more frequently and accelerating Nuclear Modernization. The bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission report said if were going to adequately fund the National Defense strategy and take on these threats, its going to take a threeto5 increase, net increase above inflation each year. Now, were not doing that. Thats what we committed to. We had a meeting here. Everyone adheres to the logic of this contract that we agreed to. But were not carrying through with it. That should mean the budget request would have been if we had adhered to that, 775 to 790 billion this year. Instead, weve got a bucket agreement that provides 740. 5 billion for all that weve got to do for our military defence. Thats not your fault. Not you guys, but Congress Needs to do more, be more realistic about what its going to take to maintain a force capable of deterring and, if needed, defeating our enemies. Were trying to do more while spending less and the math just doesnt work that way. Thats why weve, youve seen so many stories about how we cant buy necessary equipment, thats why we cant do the training that we need to do. Thats why we cant give our troops the tools that they need to keep the peace. Its all in the nds. We can pay them now or we pay them later and leave when our children need leave the debt to our children and grandchildren to pay. Theyll be doing so in the more dangerous world if we dont fix the budget tragedy that were facing right now. I know youve tried to do the best you can within the limits of what you have been given and i appreciate that you are already done, found a lot of savings and you are to be applauded for that. Thats hard to do with the decreasing budget, which we have today. And on that heavy note, i look forward to continuing to work with you to make sure our troops have the resources they need to fight and win. Senator reed. Well, thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Let me join you in welcoming our witness today. We thank them for the service of the nation. I look forward to their testimony. We consider the details of the budget request, id like to address some broader concerns i have with the department. The National Defense Strategy Commission report released in november 2018 expressed significant concern about the balance of power between civilian and military leadership at the department of defense. Specifically, it stated, civilian voices have been relatively muted at the center of u. S. Defense and policy undermining the concept of civilian control. Unfortunately, the situation has only gotten worse since the Commission Issues its report. The office of the secretary of defense is without Senate Confirmed leadership in many of the most important positions in the policy office of the seven positions requiring senate confirmation, there are only two confirmed individual, one of these is now serving as the acting under secretary. We just received a nomination for under secretary of personnel and readiness after two year vacancy. Then on monday, the administration withdrew the nomination of Elaine Acosta to be department controller. These vacancies continue to challenge the ability to effectively respond to National Challenges and undermining the decisionmaking process. The large amount of work in the department is now being done by career Civil Servants and they, too, are beleaguered. Congress shares the blame in adding to the civil work force woes, pay freezes, hiring freeze and having career Civil Servants carry the weight of political decisions is likely to lead to a hollowing out of the work force whose experience and expertise we des spatially need february 23rd of last year i should say not this year, they have sent you mr. Secretary a letter expressing concern about the departments failure to properly empower and staff the office of the assistant secretary of Defense Special Operations and lower intensity conflict in order to fully exercise the mandated responsibilities for oversight for special operations forces. This is another position as had had an acting principle for more than half the administration. Its unacceptable, frankly, we still havent received a response to our letter more than four months later. Turning to the budget request, the fiscal year 2021 budget for the department of defense seeks the for the base budget and 69 billion for overseas contingency funds of which 16 billion is designated to pay for base requirements. And its base budget request, the Defense Department highlights resources targeted for the modernization of a more lethal force that is prepared for a highend fight and operationalize a National Defense strategy including investments in space and cyber domains. The recapitalization of our Nuclear Deterrent and the largest ever resurgent budget for Artificial Intelligence, we directed energy and Hypersonic Weapons. The base budget also increases the quality of life for our personnel. Its clear that the base budget request will not cover all of the Defense Department requirements. We have been presented with an overgeneralize of this account, i acknowledge both congress and other administrations have included element a base funding. Overloading would with 16 billion dollars of the belong the base budget is hard to justify. The department submitted a report in january that stated it is more important than ever that we find creative ways to fund nds driven activities. The review identified more than 500 billion dollars of savings that were deemed a lower priority while and consistent with parties of the nds. Secretary let me commend you for taking this review, it is a tough job and you did it thoroughly. You did it with quite a bit of energy. Now these savings will be taken from among other things, health affairs, beauty schools and cooperative production programs. I have an interest in hearing more about the analysis behind the programs that will cut or eliminate and the areas in which these resources were reinvested. Scrutinizing current programs to determine which one supports the departments priorities and which ones should be reduced or eliminated is appropriate and necessary. I again commend you. It is somewhat disingenuous to say that it has forced the department to realign funds internally to support nds implementation when the department is making an affirmative decision to divert funding from nds priorities. For example, the department recently approved the transfer of 3. 8 billion dollars from National Guard equipment, additional combat aircraft, i. S. Our assets and and these shifts in order to pay for our wall. The budget requests proposed significant cuts like the European Defense initiative. This is after funding for several military construction projects, was taken out last year to pay for the wall again. Our close bond with our european allies and partners, when our greatest refugee advantages and key to combatting russia. But these cuts send the wrong message to our allies and adversaries. It is responsible for this committee that we men and men we send it to harms way can complete the mission and returned safely. This committee is always working a bipartisan fashion, i look forward to work with all members to come to a reasonable conclusion again this year. Opening statements from secretary esper and general milley, your entire statement will be made as part of the record and you are recognized. Thank you mister chairman. Chairman paul, Ranking Member reed, distinguished members of this committee. Iest appreciate the opportunity testify. Im joined by the chairman joints of staff general mark milley. E the 2018 defensive strategy provides d a clear roadmap for theddr department of defense to address the reemergence of longterm strategic rus interference by russia andnd china. Ndsoughout the pentagon and across the joint force, the ndsa guides ourct decisions and actions as we adapt the force to simultaneouslys of content wh thee preparing for the challenges of tomorrow. We increased the readiness of or our war fighters, strengthening our alliances and partnerships and reforming the way the department does business. Additionally, we have placed renewed emphasis on taking care of our Service Members and me their families. The department ismb grateful for the strong support provided in the fy 20 and d. O. D. Appropriations which allow us to make vital investments in our militarys modernization. Enabling the creation of theovii space force and provide our l Service Members with thea in largest pay increase in a decade. Our continued success is contingent upon predictable, adequate,predi sustained and tim funding. I encourage congress to pass a full yearss a spending package r all, fy 21 on time to avoid then debilitating effects of a another continuing resolution. The total budget request is 705. 4 bil 705. 4 billion dollars. This represents a minorrthom increase from fy 20 enacted amount of 704 billion 0. 6. K it does not keep pace with inflation. Given his flattened funding level, we were required to make many sure our priorities wereare adequately funded. Weely conducted a comprehensive ai defense why review aimed at from programs esources from programs and activities that provide low return on investment. Over four month period, we conducted o over 20 review sessio sessions, examining almost 100 billion dollars in programs, agencies and activities then make up the fourth of state. This review generated 5. 7 billion dollars, in fy 2100 servings that bi were reinvested into readiness and lethalitynd efforts. Each of the military services sr is instant tweeting a similar process review to achieve theme outcome of realizing resources and finding f savings they can e reinvested into higherto higher priorities. Additionally, i have initiated the process of conducting full reviewsrior of all combat comm s toto probably align our globalie military posture to the nds. This will e will enable the department to shift greater emphasisasis to the indopacifir allow us to return troops home. We ha prepare readiness. Thus far, we have ongoing reviews of southcom and expand reviews over the incoming months. My recent decision to deploy ano Army Assistance brigade to a co replace units is an example of how this us process is allowins to better match resources to eachomma mission. The budget request reflects the sameref discipline adherence to the to nds. Preserve our ur overmatched, we made significant investments in several Critical Technologies thet will mad alter the future battlefield. Our already tea any budget isoy the largest in our history and prioritizes hypersonics, microeconomics, 5g communications, Autonomous Systems systems and artificial a intelligence. Are moving forward with a longe overdue overr capitalization of the Nations Nuclear triad, investment inubm deterrence, the be 21 stealth bomber,r,ear submarines and impd Nuclear Command systems to namei a few. Were enhancing our Missile Defense capabilities of against the growing threat of enemy advanced Missile Systems. This budgets. Request expanse os capacity to defend our interestd in space as weat consolidate muh of our space in to price in the space force. It als advances the departments Cyber Capabilities allowing ushl to protect our Digital Infrastructure while disrupting covert attacks. Finally, in the Traditional Air land and see the mains we are focused on modernizing divesting from and equipment that are no slonger suited. What the department appreciates thisth ecommittees advocacy ofa National Defense strategy ande we Value Congress is gun its on reform, i now ask on your support so we may fully s implement ouruppo decisions and move forwardth thewith the investments needed tostme ensurm militaryil maintains our competitive advantage, deter war, and preserves our nationur. Security. Thank you. Thank you secretary esper, general milley. Al chairman of Ranking Member re, me distinguished members of the committee hthank you. Foran the opportunity to join secretary esper here today. It is mymy distinct honor and privilege to represent the almost 3 million soldiers, marines, our guard coachman as the best trained, best equipped and best led military force in theeth world. It would note be possible without your continued support. This budget is a strategyrategyn driven budget. It is driven by the nds, which youch are fully aware of and i fully support. We stand ready and capable. To t deter war defend our homeland from attack. Support our allies, and if deterrence ifails, we are fully capable our nations war against any potential adversary, anywhere on the earths surface at any time. Our competitive advantage is eroding and no one should have any doubt about that. China and russia are increasing their military capabilities to e outmatched the United States and its allies in order to exert their global influence. Chinese objective is to do that by mid century. North korea, iran, and violent extremist organizations fuelan,l regional instability and pose direct threats to partnere nations anddi u. S. Citizens. And while the nature of war is constant, advanced technologies havehav stressed our Industrial Age capabilities, concepts and g processes and the changing character of war is happening in a very, very fundamental way. Ry additionally, we are recoverg from readiness shortfalls, modernization deferments, fromyf 20 years of continuous warfare in a decade a fiscalinstability. Instability. This previousss readiness and modernization gains and i believe the fy 21 budget submission is the best allocationsubmi of resources ina balanced wayayba to support the National Defensive strategy. It builds a more lethal force, it strengthens allies and partners. Force greater performance andent, the affordability. It also prioritizes the secretary said, the indopacific region to deter chinese aggression, maintainion stability and ensure access to common domains in order to preserven free and openpreservea International System for which my parents fought for in theints second world war. Ich it continues in europe, to counter russian aggression and it will continue to allow allow United States military in concert with our allies and det partners to deter a provocativen north korea and iran from i aggressive action in the regions. And all the while, it provides money to continue our Counter Terrorist operations in various parts of the world. In short, we it supports agile and capable jointorce force that can compete deter and win across all domains all today and in the future. Itthe targets specific investmes in readiness, modernization, leader development, support to our people and their families. Ana invest in our readiness recovery, whos built over the lastver three years with this committee support, all thecommip services are scheduled to meet their readiness recovery goals inss r this. It funds modernization for Great Power Competition acrossmd all war fighting domains andri improves thety safety, security andelia reliability of our very Critical Nuclear enterprise. Invests and extends the space force, and increases d resiliency, deterrence capability and more Funding Options in both space andcyberse cyberspace. It funds joint all domain commanding ourcontrol, acrossna other services and with our allies. And it invests in the advancedea technologies that the secretaryd mentioned to address more comp complex threats at a faster pace as c pace as a character of war changes. Budget also invest in our most valuable asset, the most valuable asset of the United States military is our people. It also finds the facilities, infrastructure, Family Support andamil quality of life programn a balanced way. It invests in education and e Talent Management in order to develop our junior leaders with the values, and intellectualt ad agility to fight and win future conflicts. Lieutenants of today will bee the generals and an rules of tomorrow. Ultimately, our military needs sustained, predictable adequatei timely funding to retain its advantage in this era of Great Power Competition. With the understanding that we be good stewards of the resources that are interested to us by the American Peoplecon. And by congress. Want to thank this committee for your continued support, to all of our military. I look forward to answering questions. Because of the scheduling sc problem we will begin ourr questions with secretarycotton. Cotton. Thank you mister chairman, i. Appreciate your consideration. I must preside or the senate in ten minutes as presiding officererp duty which esper and miller can relate to. Its a duty, not an honor, and jun only the most junior ipersonal get bullet. Secretary esperget i want to commend your comments at the munich conference about the threat that huawei represents g to our allies and nato. Not all of our allies agree with it, could you talk about the threat that was always present in europe,t t especially in the nations where we have troop presence, and how it s threatens our security. My since my first natoin junet defensive ministerial in juneh last year, ive beenre eto three or four now, ive had a commond message, one of many. This is the threat that Huawei Technology imposes on our networks. N the message has been that if countries, ifif our nato allies incorporate Huawei Technology, it may very well have a severe impactmpa on our ability to shae information to share intelligence, to share operational plants and for theof alliance to conduct itself as al an allianceli. Some countries get, it many more dont, its a continued process where were trying to ps work and i think we also need to Work Together with some countries on alternatives to huawei because otherwise, weothl will find the alliance compromised in dueue course. Move forward with huawei and their networks, will we consider our force posture in those countries given what it means to the security and our forces . Depending on how they moveast forward, we will have to assesse what theyve done and how d theyve done it. Make an assessment for each country and then from their,de decide what were going to do with regard to those things i mentioned. Information sharing intelligence sharing and so forth. G, last month there were medit department ofhe defense had reservations about a regulationns abo relating to i and the Commerce Department is proposed that we move forward. Could you make clear for us and all of those who work for yousin today with the secretarys position is on huawei. Im very concerned by huawei and other chinese technologies. We need toawei take a careful ee with regards to our export controls. General. Echnology in huawei specifically. I think we need to take very nk the very conscience of chine technology in our system. I need to balance the equationct and make sure we understand our own Technology Companies andg te ensuring that we have access to that asll. Well. m but overall, im very concerned aboututab chinese technology, espionage, cybertheft, you name its o it. Its ongoing ngand has been for many years ny y in our country. Thank you. On the topic of espionage, lets turn to russia and specifically speci the open skis treaty and how they use that and howowa they cheat on it in refusi their own country. Specifically not allowing us to fly open skies, open flights, overland and read, theres two tediously located enclave in europe and also around and near georgia. Neother witnesses in the past n front of this Committee Like general duck furred and generals milley, Vince Stewart have r testifiedussi the chinas been open skiesn the treaty, we dont get mucheyr benefit frome it as long as theyre o cheating. It has been called a relic of the past. Do you think the open skies treaty still serves the United States interest given the fact y that russia continually cheats on the treaty . E b cheating forn many years. I traised this at the defense t ministerial last month. H. With all of thatat we need to speak out more clearly about russian noncompliance. Younon mentioned georgia and lemongrass, those are two good we examples. Weve alsalso been deniedo acc there are otary exercises, overflights, there are somee other issues that we cancannot discuss in the session that we should come and talk to you about that i have a lot of concerns about the treaty as it stands right now. I noted the presence budget, the president s budget did not include money to recapitalize the open skies treaty aircraft t aussie 31 ive heard maybe as early as possibility ofe announced toraft. Modernize the aircraft, what can you tell us about that use of funds . Make a final decision on the wes path forward, im not prepared to want to make sure that we understand with derstathe direcn is. I would note that many of our tt this is impor open skies treaty, allies. Lked to them a lot, that they have the means to conduct t overflights. We still have the e mmeans to conduct overflights. I was last week and an air force base, and had a chance to about one of the osc 1 35s and talk to the crew ande take a look at the aircraft. But at this point in. Time, were holdinger until we get better direction. Good,rect thank you. Thank you very much misteran chairman again. Thankh, you gentlemen for being here today. Mr. Ere secretary let me return o some of my comments in the open statement. Ng the s vacancies in the department. There reare two significant t is issues. Onee military what you need. The insn and then institutional capacity. People who have been on the job, have the credibility and legitimacy to beinged confirmed but are not acting. Can you tellyou us why we have o many Unfilled Positions and acting personnel. Speaking for the chairman, i think hes done a remarkable job getting gepeople through wn they get up here. Could you comment . When ment we first give you a rundown on the numbers. Of the nda was passed, we addeddd two new spaces. Ed 38 are currently filled. Lewed. Have two nominees waitinn a vote. R foror we have four nominees in committee. To intense to nominate, we have ight bfour more right b them and then we have five more in the process. Of the balance, six in the balance that we have to identify p positions for. As you know, many of us have been a here a long time, it cha becomes more challenging as you get into the fourth year of a i first termn in terms of findinga people and that is a challenge. Wewe also have challenges withg moving people through the process. Are long processes. With with regard to where we are, i do thi not think the situation as dire as some may think. We have very capable people in positions. Ive got the chance to work wiin the current role and my secretary of the army. We have very capable d. O. D. Civilians, career civilians who also help out. Concerns aboutrn civilian contrl of theof military to be frank. I know review. Is part of the nds i came in, my first week orortw two on the job, i institd a number ofmbe changes where thd uniform and civilian leadership works together, sits together and weekly meetings. To review our National Defense strategygy and implementation. We together review a plan inelo. Implementation and development. We have a much betteration tod integration today betweenia civilians andns military then we did i think nine months ago. In in regards to the c nominations of the coming up. I was surprised that elainerom mccusker is nomination was withdrawn. From everything ive heard, shes very capable and experienced individual. In fact that was why she was nominated in the first place. You tell us why herwn . Nomination was withdrawn . Elaine is el a very capable d dedicated public servant. But the president has the right to choose theto members he will nominate. So as a president ial decision not a recommendation by you or anyone else in the department of defense . D it was a ppo decision ate o this point. I tdont have any more fidelity at this ju juncture. Again i think one of the thee concerns we go back to is, your role as as secretary of defenses to have a critical voice and all of these nominations. Territory. With the ry. And you should h ahave it. Not have it in this proble case i think that is a problem which we hope we can address. Adthe other area i spoke of in y opening i remarks was the sole t position. Youion. Realize that over severl years, through several ndas, we try to build up the capacity. Ndv idagain, we have someone who is in acting position, when secretary west retired. Creso can you promptly provide e committee with a plan ntto implement not just getting a person in placecep but making ts person acton like a service secretary. Ervi thanks again, you brought this up a month ago when we talk together. I was not tracking it. I that is on me. Since then weve taken a number of. Actions so were pushing for it on the nominee. He we are looking we will reconsolidate. Bive tasked the solid to provide a number of sect recommendations on section 9 22 implementation. We will begin frequent meetings betweennt so lick and myself or the and deputy on a routine bass. Also, committed to recruiting and retaining more talent. I think were we taking a numbr of steps to integrate select and and achieve what was in lawlked. That you talked about. I y lookou forward to updating u on this as we move forward. U on go different topic. Due to exceptional staff work on both the majority and minority side, we discovered about two years ago that many m of oura allies were not paying for fuel to the saudi, for example, it was a 300 Million Dollar bill. The emeratis were confronted u. With a pay up, the saudis are still paying, just today, the gao has released a report th indicating that they failed toy secure more than one billion dollarsrs othert to nations. Ns i. Have no time left but can you briefly, very briefly, comment and also als indicate what you e goingto doto to collect the mo, basically. I have tried to track that number down. I haveye not found the billionn. Dollar number. I am ckintracking it with regaro payments. They are caught up at this time, they have reimbursed us theyfor approximately 113 million. There is still approximately 38 million upstanding in fine costs but i will pull the threat a little bit more on thed billion dollar number to make sure im notre a missing someth. That geo a report is helpful. Thank you. Thank you mister chairman. Mistern. Secretary and general milley, there has been a lot of reporting about the reduction and fundingg for the virginia class submarine in connection the and essays budget increase. Criticss of nucleare. Mode modernization are equating concern forth the navy shipbuildingvy sh plan with opposition to fund the an essay using some recent comments made by acting secretary and general milley tod suggest the d. O. D. Does not support do the current budgetrrt request for r nnsa. I share the concern for the navy ship budget. Loo an twill have opportunity to look at that. O i know you areth both very strog supporters of Nuclear Modernization. Also, admiral richard was beforere here several weeks agoe testifying that there was no access margin in the nnsa clear budget. I just want to be clear on this, doon requested level of funding for Nuclear Modernization at thesa . Nnsa . Not mind, i you do will give a bit of explanation. It is vitally critical that we recap allows our nuclear tryout. That is why we placed it as number one Defense Party in terms of refunding. Not just the platforms, the be 21, the ground based strategic s but also Nuclear Command a f control in a few other things l like strikes. E you also have to have the packages the, warheads, etc, thera plutonium to go with that. It ishos critical that those bed funded and move quickly so we u can havep impaired out in timeid to recapitalize and ensure the Strategic Deterrent is modern by the year, beginning of 2030. There is no room for pausing and the production . There is no room for margin. I have beenth working with our folks and admiral richer to try and dbuild margin into our Current Fleet so we have some room but it is critical that wel meet that timeline. General milley . E . I support fully funding the nuclear enterprise, it is my number one priority. It has kept peace, world peace,e for a modern warfare goingdecad. Seven have decades. I absolutely support ie think we are talking about the testimony from last week. T i was nothe qualified in the decision to move the money but fully support fully funding ourding nuclear enterprise. Thank you. It is important that the record reflect that. Mister secretary, section 10 39 at the 2013 and da requires ther Nuclear Weapons council to certify nnsas budget and make requirementis adequate to meet requirements. Ititth clearly states in the Company Report their expectations that through this provision, that Nuclear Weaponss council will quote, take an nnsa budget in shaping and reviewing the nnsa budget as it is prepared for submission in congress and negotiated with m the officer management during thehe quote. T review process, and this year, the certification pu that submitted pursuant to this, provision red quote, and an essay is unable to provide detailed budget information to supportn t certification and advance of the budget release of the president s fiscal yearrpf 2021 budgeti request by the office of management and budget. Thee nwc cannot perform the analysis is rrequired to produca budget Certification Letter without this information, andt quote. I think it sis obvious that th process is not working. Bu what is your view of the situation and how can we resolve this to ensure the intent of the provision is being met . Ision is i completely agree. I think we need too let the Nuclear Weapons council work. I think theyre worklooking at budgets needs to begin very, early, arguably in thee late summer of thear year befor. I would like to have a look at that as well. Surent to make sure that we art prioritizing the right thing so we haveiori a capable strategic. Deterrent. I think if that were the case, we would have been in a much differentnt we have already got an agreement from and nsa to dodoe. That, ideally. I i hagot an agreement from ombo support us on that. It is very important and to imp. Implement that Going Forward. Thank you. As you stated earlier, this has together, it has to be togethe. Order to meet ourriority number one priority. Tary also, mister secretary, in the time since the debate budget was released, we have heardnclu complaints including t here in congress about things that werent included or wordd e perceived to be underfunded on thisin th budget. Ships, Aerial Refueling tankersd stars and stripes, rumors about a withdrawal from africa, theom european deterrence initiative, the list goes on and on, youve. Nard those. What is forgotten sometimes is that it is congress that sets the fundi the funding level, not the administration. Ion mister secretary, is it fair to say that these trade offs are theade result of the lower toptp line that was approved by the congress . They are senator. I will still scrub my budget hard really after year. V it isie an as a chairman mentioned upfront, we have to get aveback on the trajectory of three to 5 annual growth and we are going to modernize the force and implement the and yes. I will show number a few daysbae ago that if you go back to the amount ofntrol act, if it was august 20 11th and the f amountt had ifding we wouldve we had gone that core, someone ist is between billion dollars lost, that we t couldve put intost we could h modernization. That ispu a catchup we have to look at at vethis point in time. S po thank you. Thank you mister chairman, thank you both forbo thbeing hee and for your service. Y ousecretary esper, i appreciate all of the comments that youvee efforts to find additional funding within your funding w budget given the constraints that you are looking at. Re as you are aware, im sure last, year the department of reliance 6. 1 billion dollars for its budget towards constructing ag border wall along the u. S. Southern border with mexico. More more recently, the goi administration is going to divert divert another 3. 8 billion from the pentagon toward the borderer wall. We number of programs, as senator reedrei outlined in his opening statement, including the other reports, which we heard from general walters, our were veryn important as they looking at isr at the european border. Lainexplain to me how we can fef comfortable with rating thethe g Defense Budget at a time when you are telling telus you have needs and are expecting a shortfall based on a flatter budget for 2021. Why should we assume, if youas could divert thatsu kind of mony for the border wall that we ths should give you additionalho funding to address other areas of need . Senator, as you know, the southwest border was declared ao nationalu emergency by the president cy b based on what has been w happening out there, dow there. Congress acti am sure you know,e Congress Actually voted that we not agree with thatd, designation and in fact, it ishe only because the p president vetoed itded that that did not change. There are some real questions about whether taking money that has beeny th appropriated by the congress signed into law for anr another use is actually legal and. I understand. With the declaration and the National Emergency the, we were asked to support the department of homeland security, borderd security is national bordsecurity. Is our understanding under the law, as director we are able to transfer that money to support that, much like we do many other things. Whether it is fighting wildfires, helping with floods, whatever the case may be. I think the larger issues with regard to modernizing, we arein talking about making some Big Investments that would requiredt things in the past in order tove invest in the things we need in the future. Est in the demands pale in comn to what is beingbe inused to the supporting dhs on the wall. We had the acting secretary of dhs before theion appropriations subcommittee wee. Last week and he showed us numbers that indicated there aredicate significant dollars fr additional construction on a border wall that they are not likely to use in the next year. T yit is hard for me to understd how we can justify taking money that weweta need from our mility toilitar construct a wall alonge southern border. I am not going to ask you to respond to that because im going toth atbe running out ofi. Time. I t hinkthink it is a very real certainly hope that we wont see past this year any further effort to take money from our military. I hope you willwill commit to t. Senator, at this time, we dont foresee the need, at this time, to draw upon these sources next year. I will follow up with the secretaryryan to find out. Wend ou want to support dhs butt over support teaches if that m makes sense. Ak thank you. I want to commend you on theda day thaty you were sworn in appointing a commission to deal witheal contamination. It is an issue for us new as you are aware in so many other states. Imim sure you know that the no included a provision to phase out the use of fluorine firefighting for use military use by 2024. Can you give us an update on where the military is in finding an alternative . Yes maam, we are working on that issue hard. It isard. An acronym. The three things we are focusing on is the replacement for that, number two making we are taking care of our pe people and then the communities that they live ive iin or near. Number three, making sure we areee, understanding the Health Effects erstanon humans from th. The task force has been workingv very hard since i launched them integrating other parts of the government. I hope to havend here very soon within a week oru two to update you on that in the progress we are making. Marks in terms of replacing theh current foam with a new mechanism. Ewe have been putting a lot of t dollars and researching that. In i want to say, we want a from 9 million last year to 200 million this year requested to tackle. Thank you, i appreciate your continued commitment. I think it is something we all need to mmitwork on. We athank you mister chairman. Thank you mister chairman. Gentleman, first, let me begin by thanking you and your families for your decades of service. It is not unnoticed and we will certainly appreciate what you have done. General milley, id like to begin with you, part of the discussion that senator shaheen has started with regards to the resources we have in the need for those resources, id like to give you an opportunity to talk a littlee ibit about modernization but also i want to talk aboutut i want to preface that by ship simply sharing the last number of years, this committee has received reports about the challenges we had in readinessok of our armed forces today. Y. The fact that years in the fact that you both alluded to, weve had or we have w been at war for 20 years and that takes its toll. When it comes to the equipment that our young in men and women use, i am just going to lift him out and id like to have you, if you could, give us an update. May of last year we had six of them that were actually operational, faa teens at one a point a little over a year ago were reported at less than 40 or about 40 . Were operational. If it 15 sees you were limited to two jeez maneuvering. Youve got approximately an f 20 twos, you have 125 remaining that might be operational at a time, a percentage of those. With regards to your nuclear summaries and attack summaries you have four of them right now that are at dock. I think the boise might be in dry dock right now, but nonetheless, we have a shortfall there obviously a Nuclear Attack some rains that are sitting and waiting for their are half life to begin. Along with that right now you i have then t cities in the army,t one point we had as few less than Single Digits the number that were ready to fight tonight. General milley, are we making m progress and can you give us an update on these particular ones with regard to where we have improvededth on those numbers in the last few years . Thanks senator for the opportunity. What i would like to do if i could is give you the specific numbers. Actual readiness that up by type of Weapon System with numbers that you are talking about is classified information, we do not want the enemy of our know all that. On wa one hand. On the other to hand i would pun it in about a third or so that havetha improved over numbers yu saw. Go. There are two steps forward andn one stepse backward in terms of readiness. We monitor very closely every month. It has improved, i canyou allom get you the exact data if you allow me to do it in y. A classified way. Thats fine. I want to make it clear, the numbers i gave you i received in an open session just like this. The reason for my point is not to be critical but rather too point out that we have the resources you to continue tose make those improvements. Readiness is our number one. In terms of the amount of money that were putting towards this budget and passed budgets, were trying to radically improve the readiness of the force. That same weing t time you h balance with modernization and the against those investments thatna secretary talked about earlier. The fact that we aresystems s modernizing our Nuclear Systems is probably absolutely critical because right now, based upon our non military. They fear our military abo because of our nukes. Peace through strength isti not just a bumperck sticker, it matters in the of idea of deterrence. Youter need the will tond use it and your enemy needs to know that. Thecapa capability is important. That goes into the readinesske t peace. We want to make sure our know that we are ready. I dont expect you to take that statement on faith, i want to report in a classified way. What you are looking at is aent tradeoff between current readinessand and future readine. The 3 50 to 450 billion dollars of losttry funding, its importt when youre trying to navy, recapitalize the armynavy, air force or marine corps. They projects like shipbuilding, not have that funding,t you just cant build. So its like driving an old car, you reaching a point where car, you hing so muchch newntenance into the old carar you have to buy a new one or else it is a losing battle. Question. You are making the point that we want toave have made which is you cant do it without continued resourcesurce on an expected basis year to year. I think you are making progress and y ear. I was hoping to sharee of that progress. Ifress. Given the appropriateree resources, we are making improvements and we will continue to. I agree, its readiness versus modernization in many cases and that tradeoff is hard to handle. Thank you mister chairman. Th. Th we are all monitoring the i coronavirus closely. I appreciate the department takingthi this seriously andur working to keep our servicee familiesand their safe. And while in a way we do not confirmedd cases, we are a gateway for our travelers from china, south korea, japan, must so we must be exceptionally vigilant and coordinated. Mister secretary will you commit to me that theill, onith request made by the state of hawaii t itin the event that it needed. Pursuant to the National Response framework and d. O. D. Directive 3 02 zero five. Titled two would require action from the government the governor first. Yo youre saying that theci indopacific remains d. O. D. Number one priority region. I have a series of question about the threat in this region. Threisas i have only four minuts left, i would really appreciate your answers to be very brief andnswe yes or no would be grea gin your statement you said north korea isth seeking to bud legitimacy through the legiti development of a variety of nuclear conventional and c unconventional weapons. And by growing its ballistic balli minnesota capabilities. Is the threat of north koreas f ballistic middle missilecapabile capabilities becomingincreasinga increasingly dangerous. It isis complicated as they seek tok modernize the full range of Missile Systems. I would say that is a yes. Are you saying to the fy 211 budget achieving and iith quote, irreversible implementation of imple nds and quote. Nhan includes enhancing missileper st defense capabilities pursuantsn . To the missile review. We are putting additionalis money into Missile Defense. F ensedo the north korean long rae missiles pose a danger to United States including why . Yes. If our intelligence is correctli they would. Genc you also statee budget requests could increase Missile Defense capability and capacity to keep pace with adversary Missile Systems while investing in a layered defense of the homeland. But, mister secretary, in spite of four years of authorizations and three years of appropriations from congress in missile d your own 2019 Missile Defense zeroed ou review. You have zeroed out thewhich hawaiian radar which is part of a system that provides layered defense of the homeland. Landis this decision to zero out funding for hd a our age a decision to not build this a radar at allt in hawaii . Ot not necessarily. As you know for many years weve h adhad a problem with sta and localut authorities giving s permission what to get on that e to do what we need to do. It seems their latest report is that we probably would not see any resolution for another year or two or three. Does that meansoluti we can t youn w to request, im familiar with certain delays with regard to there gardsiding. Can expect an wee request of money for the hd are h. In fiscal year 22 . I think we see a light at the end of the tunnel with to regards to clarence to build. Goodhat to know. The decision to reprioritizing the funds from d. O. T. s number one regent for another purposest really does not make sense. I would also like a commitment from you now that you will not seek to repurpose f 20 funding0 for this radar that is still being used to continue the hd our age hawaiian contract. Im not sure i can make that commitment because im not sure i fully understand what you are asking. Trying to do in an we era of tight budgets is putting poss money against something that wont beou affected in the near. Term. System andd was supposed to be operational by by 2023. Itth means that aside from the delays that i understand thatocw have occurred, were supposed to be on track. Tthats what the National Defensestr strategy calls for. In20 2020, there was some 188 Million Dollars. Is this is being expended even as weuld speak. I would like to know that you are notre going to rethis funding fun that is already theh senator if i recall. Yes maam. If i recall the issue properlye it is developing of the system is one thing. But if i develop a system and o cannot put it somewhere then it effect and it is wasted money. You know this contract, as far as i know, Lockheed Martin is already building this radar. Sotheres already a contract for them. This thing was supposed to be inis t effect, operational in 2. So if we dont go ahead with this, i you think you will have some contractual things to deal with. Whatfr im hearing is aside from the delays , that you have a commitment to pursue the radar and have it built in hawaii as m part of our defense system. I make a commitment that we t intend to defend all states and territories. What i need to come back to youh with is a better understanding of where things lie. If i invest 100 Million Dollars in a radar and cannot placed it somewhere it is wasted money. I realized that that is not what im asking. Thank you. Senator fischer is presiding. Nato thank you mister chair ad thank you gentlemen very much for being with us this afternoon. Thereter are a few things that i am im very interested in as the chair c of emerging threats andd capabilities. Of course, one of those is hypersonics. Secretary esper if i could focus on that for a moment. Assessing andd recalibrating our posture with regards to the to the ra Great Power Competition. Petichina has a leg up, we canne dispute that t, in developing technologies like hypersonic aircraft and missiles. The technology could give users the tactical longrange capability to hit targets with such speed and surprise that defending ag against them is ver difficult. Great concern to all of us. So how is the d. O. D. Investinga at the Conflicting Research priorities across we hservices. We have a lot of Research Going on out there to limit the duplicative spending on hypersonics. Onice youre correct, hypersonis is one of our Top Priorities ino terms ofp developing capability in lethality in that field. D. We are doing innovative work tell you it is more out of r innovative than what you would see coming out of russia orchi china. I can assure you that. We haver. Maximized every dolla. 3. 2 billion dollars, to make sure that we get inventory outt in the field as possible. Each of the services hases h apg variety of programs. Darpa hasas wethrough either a collaboration between the the services or the work throughghw our are any shok under dr. In griffin, were working the hard to make sure theres no duplication. Ation more importantly sharing. Theres a lot of between theri services. Im very confident in the next few years we will be deploying Hypersonic Weapons as thet the commanders need them in theb theaterut but in the indopacifc theater in particular. 3. 2 billion over fight . A 3. 2 billion this year. Th you feel that is sufficie. I asked multiple times is that every single dollar we can put against it . Inin other words, one more extra extra d dollar would be a waste dollar was assured multiple times that that was the maximum in. Ould put thank youou secretary. How Nuclear Modernization efforts . It certainly gives us, werel talking about conventional systems here, it gives us an incredible strike capability below the Nuclear Threshold which is important. Ant to reach out at longrange is to strike someone with precision it speeds of five or d ten times the speed of sound, with great capability. Y. It will give us a lot of reacl which is what we will need in ac conflict againstt a near here. Absolutely. Thank you. Mister secretary, mr. I know tht we s are embracing innovation at every level possible. Appreciate that within thed. D. O. D. We are modernizing to give our a war fighters that tacticalvanta advantage over our adversaries. Of course, another area i am interested in is terquantum Information Systems technology. Again one of mr. Griffins areas. Quantum integration in aeg for variety ofrati areas. We hear from variousries that industry that d. O. D. Requirements are r too broad. For the current scope of research. When the Industry Leaders are recommendinghat is that the d. O. Refine their requirements and this cannth help drive, unifyefo efforts to advance rapidly. First in the narrow area area ie insteadad o of slowly across a r large spectrum. A little bit to some of the advances we are seeing in quantum Information Systems. Tems . Yes. A quantum is definitely a top if priority, doctor griffin isut t. Very passionate about this. D i will have to go back and get to an answer, typically what wes ask of industry is, they ask uss not to give them requirements per se. They ask us to tell them the solution we are looking for. The problem we are trying to solve and let them help us develop the solution. Devethis is a little different m typically hear. Ient would like to run this doe and come back to you. Certainly, we would love to partner on that. Itst just critical that in some of these areas that we see in emergingthe ar threats and capabilities, a lot of thehe discussions that we have that very focused ocused on advancing technology. Chnoworking with industry partn, Small Businesses and so forth in thatat area. I do appreciate you both, for b gentlemen for being here today and look forward to working with you. Thank you both for being your service. I really appreciate your opportunity to come here. Secretaryy esper, it will come as no surprise to folks here that i have been advocating redr stonese arsenal to be the head f the i have ttalked about that a god bit. In may of 2019, before you were even the acting secretary, the list was whittling down. It was a series of visits,exten extensive process, it was window down to a few sides. Space command was supposed to be announced in the fall, itsite wasnt and we are still not. Yesterday, Lieutenant General thompson testified before the House Armed Services committee that the air force had been directed and i emphasize the werece directed, to go back and open this up. He b said, open and up the app t your and look at all levels u including some non traditional locationsll and that they would establish the criteria, which i had already been established, months, if not a couple years ago and that none of these t the list Red Stone Arsenal all there. Erecynical person in todays wod would think there was some would political electoral politics coming into this and play into because conngress has wanted to do this and weve been supportive but now we are going to get delayed again in opening this process up. I haveoing a series of question. Number one, this come from thef white house . If queso, who . Didif it didnt or it did, it s not pushed pushbaback. Ou tell me how that process came up to open this up againin because been looking at this for a long time . Ngit came from me. I am the responsible party. During my talks on the hill, prior to my nomination the and particularly after my hearing here, ieari visited the house. I the heard from members on both sides of the aisle that they felt the process had been run wast unfair and not transparentt and there are a number of complaints. I directed it at that time thata if we pause in place, i took ag briefing on its, along with deputy secretary norquist, we did not feel as well that he wase transparent enough and enough states, members, etc had a chance to participate so wea directedha it to be revisited. Different products would be a taken where they would outlined the criteria, the screening criteria by which the place woul would meet as a qualifying as a material. That would go out to allqual out members, nominate locations if will. We screen from there but to a a very thing where members can also comment on theerati criteria. We wouldd allowing it down much like we did on futures command so everyone had confidence that it was fair that there was nod politics involved in it. There was the best sight for the mission at hand. S the i regret to say that this process began late. Egan i had another revisit with them which prompted the testimony, i wanted, it was my initiative, simply to make sure there wasake transparency and buy in and consent from members along with the protests take now . It is going to take severalkl months. I think i dont see anythingced. If being being announced in fact,li regardless, i think it is best to keep anink election for thens reasons you cited. Let me ask you about some oft the concerns that i think has beens raised by a couple of folks that is the chance for funds to build a border wall. Taken out of that was 261 Million Dollars out of mobile, i alabama, which is a very, veryr thisrtant part of this transition. As you know, it is the onlyp delivering shift in the navy thd and off budget. On was any consideration given to how that might impact folks like like down in mobile when thesere decisions were made . The first part of that question, i want to make sure understood the reasons. The reasons for this part of the money is strictly forrikelr trying to close off approximately, it has nothing to do with immigration, that correct . Under this authority, it isds directed at the counter drug,rd, narco trafficking droughts if you will in support of dhs, that is the provision of law under which falls. Provisional law talk to me ab. A while we try to do in thisa process is to make sure we, as best as possible, a way to looks at the problem that was objective in a political and that we could stand behind. The staff came up with, as they looked at it, is a fact that the idols were not requested in the fy 20 budget or items that were access in need or early in need was a clean cut line that did not take politics or anything like that in those counts. It a was very objective and that was a standard by which we that went. I consulted with my service with secretaries, the chairman consulted with the chiefs ofd we staff, the joint chiefs. That was the basis upon which we made the decision, recognizing fully that there is a lot ofe a different players ad equipment and things caught up in that butent that was the wae approached it. Out of time but i will have some questions for the the record including maybe a little bit more of an explanation on the Space Command and aalso thd report of the current used b conditions in facilities that sn you have used for the institution and another one to see rotc Pilot Program, r scholarship programs that we are doing. Re d reprogram, by the way. Thank you. U. Also reviewed the report about the department of defense Child Development center. I will have those for the floor. Questions for the record. Thank you madam chairman, thank you secretary and general , for youryourcece appearance today. Tha a special thank you to mr. Secretary for you essentially. Please thank lee as well, it was tha an exceptional day for f airmanor and i hope you took something away from okthat. Since we are on theas topic and since went during the winter. The fact that you cameoes a february does i had to street crowd without adult. We also seen them at their best. In the toughest conditions. Working with some very oldbest equipment as i noticed, some very old airplanes, flown and maintained by some very young airman and some very old maintai missiles maintained by some very young missile leaders. We appreciate the priority of modernization, obviously. With regard to the missiles specifically the, ever since they have been on the planning d board, i press pretty hard about the timeline, in about thn particularly knowing there are are did tractors here in there and of course the lack of competitive added to this. If you could just give us an ge update on gps d, the progress and what you have seen, if any challenges there might be and what risks we run if there is a delay . Thank you senator. Gst, it is vitally important as the land base as you know. What concerns me most of the same thing i discussed with senator fischer, we have no margin left with regard to theat timeline. It is utterly important that wew move quickly. Ie share your concerns about lack ofonce competition so we ae goingetit to have to be very clr under secretary lord is working in a number of ways in which wem keep theber pressure on the contractor to stick to cost and stick to performance ando timeline. So the schedule associated withn that because there was no margin, with regard to replacing it. We have tend to have this free capitalization problem coming h all togetherave and around the same time but that said, i am looking at ways to build ways o margin in that leg of the trial. There are Different Things that we can do to extend it. T. Know, i have personal i have concern after we spoke to folks there and make surere thwe mainn the health and vitality oftali themself force itself. Important mission and aa very tough mission when youd to have a chance to get tone of t experience what they go through. General silo milley, with red toto this secretary referring tf the f th things of the past to we heard a lot lately in thisdgt budget about the risk a associated with getting to here and there. Some of those likely systems. Leg of the things that comes oftenacy, of course, is the i. S. Our demands in the theater,nk pretty much every commander i have talked to saysys awfully shirtke dand yet, some f the systems that are being targeted for retirement to makee roomsh for modernization include some very i just beare b interested to her your take on all of that, if you areeas comfortable with for example Global Future and q nine. Whether the risk is worth what the risk might even be . It depends on what adversary enemy you are talking about. My ymany of the systems that we have todayr that are very highta demand a very useful against, terrorists, sergeants, against excites, etc. Capability when there is no ratn significant defenses threat or other types of threats. If you are talking about greatrt power competition, which is what this and these talks about and what this budget is all abod different tyis a different type of i. S. Are. We are trying to divestthe ourselves in the isr that is not particularly useful in or russia or china. Even the high defends of iran or north koreams and invest in those isr. Ore that is why you see some of these divest in order to invest. There is no need it makes no sense to me to bt stuff that isnt in alignment with the with the nds. A it is a depends question on is. T your enemyy with respect to the quantity orr capacity relative to the consequences, you will nevero find a combatco commander who ha enough isr, it is just not going topen. Happen. We have been, every single year years, alway for 20 years, always been short of isr. We continue to build it. We you are never going to buy yw way out of theay problem. It it has to do with h information and having to and decisionmaking. G towe will always be chronicaly shortkin of isr but the key thoo for the divested and invest is o it depends on who you are goingg against. Toto invest in the capabiliti capabilities that are worth wild against china and russia. Whilru thank you both of you. O thank you. F rmathank both of you all for yo service, i appreciate you very much being here today. I support ther, wall, i i always support the wh i really have a problem with thehet funding, which i think yu all arel kn in a position being appropriate bias. That is our job. Illi the border wall and the reasonon it troubles billion, that is on the is National Guard, and the reserve an equipment. The National Guard isese every e of us. How do we justify the cuts toisr the guards and knowing the everd going roll of aspects of National Security . I know about homeland assecuri, but the guards defense and homeland security. I y appreciate that. I thinkhink with regard to your first remarks, we would agreeld it is our preference to be that this be funded through dhs. With that being said, we areat who we are and d. O. D. Will support w dhs in this regard. Ds as i was saying to senator sayig jones, when we try to find a a clear line, objective line, by which to draw the sources, we came up with the one regarding earlier need or access in need. As things popped out, it became obvious thatexce the impact wile on the National Guard. It is no pleasure for me to acclimate that decision as a formert guardsman myself. We try to not play also secretary, you said that you you are not ul has been successful in freeing up money. Couldey. Nothing be freed up th . I spent 22 sessions over four months and we find 5. 7 billion dollars out of 99 to free. We start again this year so i did find 5. 7 to put into ourpri nds priorities. Another thing that i would say, since they are intertwined, had theyin had any whatsoever . F no sir, the only four warnings were out with the ones consultations i had with the Service Secretaries and the with chairman had with general in the service chiefs. Been briefed on to the afghaneve fi finding that is going on today. I just got briefed on that. Maybe you could bring the up ton where we are in afghanistan talibans right now. Also, the pe peace agreement, ym think it might hold because it has not held for very long. What direction and what do i tell was virginians and people that have been upset aboutnd pe promising and releasing 5000 enemy fighters . That did not go over well in the state of west virginia. I will say this much, it is my view and i will let the to save time for the chairman. My view is that the best, of notot only path forward is to a political agreement. Reewe have an historic opportuny hereunit. We signed on saturday in qatar. T i wasar in kabul at the time thu disagreements. It leads ourt frameworks by which we would perceive on afghan negotiation. It will happen at this 0. 5 daysh froman now. Ne there was alsogoti for have been mixed. I am pleased to say, at supported and defend the afghan fighters. We cannot just leave them. Under the document and agreement, the commitment i made to the afghans when i was there on mmitsaturday. We continue ma to defend the suppor afghans and support them. The taliban are honoring theiroalition commitment in terms of not attacking Coalition Forces but not in reducing violence. Our is special envoy is there n, he will be pulling the parties. Back together. The five days, few days, will be getting the conditions set fort them todo sit down with. E what we see any form of retreatn when we hit the taliban today . The chairman and i spoke to general milley earlier. You want to comment . Bottom line is there was a variety of attacks in the last 24 to 48 hours. They were beaten back. Theyre at small outposts. We used air support. What its important to remember is these were small lower levell attacks at checkpoints. The taliban have signed up to aa conditions dowhole series which i believe the committee and allndit members of congress have the documents. Ss with disagreement, you can go th through all of it. Ofro significance, there is no attacks and 34 provincial capitals, not carpool, no suicide bombers, no vehicle borne suicide bombers, no attack against coalition. Ainst theres a whole laundry l things that are not happening. Hatyes there were a number of smallere s attacks, they were al beaten back. But we will continue to support. Wevee seen that theyve been ablele toto control their field fighterss right . Weven saw that over the seven days where they were able to got fromta 125 attacks a day down to 15. The issue issuedinstructions noo we attack. We dont know what know caus this . Keeping that group of peope on board is a challenge. Llenthey have their range ofhars hardliners and soft liners so they are wrestling with that too. Yes sir. Thank you chairman. Thank you both for being here. General milley i want to address, both of you actually, yououact mentioned i. S. Arent d now. I agree 100 . One of those perfect examples i want to lead peinto my question on asset allocation. Allojay d. C. To development, ths isn a lot of moving parts very rapidly and im shocked at the progress we hemade in the lasts. Year. I know were not in class fire, not go there. I want to know first secretary ifif you do not mind, the allocation of resources, after we take 14 or 15 for overhead in the d. O. D. D. O remaining in that we all allocate almost a third, a third, a third. That consistent with the nds refocus on maritime relative to standing up to our major yes competitor china . It is not a cleanly a third, a third and a third. Trnavy has the highest, army has the lowest, air force one between. Th the 21 budget, army and navy are almost equal. No sir. They are the navy is at 207 billion and the army at one 77. Okay go ahead. Anyways, that said. That is it where it is. As the chairman and i have talked about this, with chain of command, what we need to docm a think is first of all, updatea our war plants. They have not been updated and plants that are real relativeev. In the post. We need a new joint fighting concept conce the takes into act all domainsccou warfare. The joint staff is working on that right now. What i we havesking updated wars and we have a new war fighting a concept and we have a new sense of what Future Systems will look like, we need to look at thatept, reallocation. To scramble it up right now would be premature. Nowthat is a great characterization. I respect that. I have all the respect in the world for you to, i do notin questiong your authority at all. I know it is a moving target. Shipbuilding was do with thee budget, i know it is desk andd all the reasons why it is a tough decision. You have the columbia class cl requirements at number oneg priority. It e, will be about 25 , 30 plue percent inars some years of then total budget. I want to highlight some today. S that arere just shocking today. Y china has 345 service shipped to our two 95. Overero the next 15 years, their plan based on what we are seeing is they will take it to 4 35. We have a 3 55. Is the 3 55 consistent with the nds and secondarily, is that being looked at seriously and thesh 30year shipbuilding plan that we will see when it comes out of your office . I think the navy will brief me in the next few days with their proposal. Whatwith regard to the number, l i can let you know is, see a no. Says 3 55 is a number but we have to look at effects and capabilities. Fectmy gut feeling is we need me thanneed 3 55 if we stick to a number. We dont only need effects but we need presence. Is that a function ofng lethality. There we are not hamstrung with anymo ranges and capabilities. Plan, my thlaid out my plan andy thinking because we will run some internal war games and look at a range of options. Some think tanks have done somed good work. Some Core Principles we have worked tharound is we need more ships but smaller. Ncipwe need to have more attack summaries. More quicklymarine into unmanne. In all cases we need to have distributed sensors and shooters. The ability to have to beshoote, survival in this environment. There i are a number of things. We agreed that, lethality isis critical at range but for the navy its also presents. You need to have enough surface. Y combatants available at one time to have a presence to showe u. S. Assurance, deterrence, etc. My instinct is we need more than 3 55. We have more combat areas that we are responsible for. Many responsibilities, navy and needcounter drugs or other. General milley were goingfing something else, you have 23 seconds, tell us exactly what continued 12 of the last 23 years we havey hamstrung the military for at least the First Quarter of the fiscal year. Where in the sixth month of our fiscal year and we cannot i started this process yet. Were facing another see are this year,aven the 13th in 14 years. And 3so we are estimating now your servicece director surfaced commanders have told us ha its about five billion dollars per quarter lost. Affects our readiness and our were recapitalization efforts. Of those long term issues. Lot i would just tell you it is a very ineffective and inefficient way of managing taxpayer money. Industry cannot rely on steady cash flowow and stream and money. Predictability and industry. We in terms of programming and acquisition and etc, our Program Managers cannot rely on stable building as well. It is a very inefficient way. Inwere basically budgeting nie out of 12 months, six and 12 months, and thats nos i way too it. Thank you very much. Quick followup. Come theres a legislative provision of the d. O. T. Will come upother with. Nt it would h seek legislative authority to transfer any expired navy funds which otherwise would go back to backo treasury back into the sec and k account. Our conservative estimate is that would free up another acc billion dollars a year that we can put back into thi shipbuild, otherwise it i goes back into te treasuryry and that it would be money that youve already appropriated and mo authorized o us. One last comment on this. E were working withw onb, we will give you some freedom within the current rulesur rentthat the envisioned before because befoe they never realized how expensive this is. To give you some latitude so when you are in a sea are you are not as hamstrung as you are today. I ot agree with general milley,t th a travesty. Particularly for the shipyards. Nk thank you madam chair ano two witnesses to theha chairman and their secretary, i appreciate each of your service. Testimony today has been aboutut this budget being towardsrvic the National Defense strategy. General milley said about why sa would iid purchase something not aligned with the National Defense strategy . Weonal are in an area of tight budgets. Whereeer in the nationale defene strategyase, is there the phrasa border wall on the southern border. Homeland security is in the National Defense security. Gy. It is. But is there a mention of aa border wall on the osouthern border . I i re mnor is there with floods or wil wildfires. I read the nds talking about a budget that is focused on on the nds. The National Defense strategy has a 14 page synopsis, theis border wall on the. Southern border is notn mentioned. The southern border of the United States is not mentioned. There is one mention of a border in the publicy 14 page synopsis. Russia has violated the borders of other nations. When you come and tell me that this is focused on the nds, i have a real problem with that. I know that might be above decisions decisions or other peoples decisions about six billiondecit dollars came out of the pentagons budget last year. Three and a half for milcon and two and a half into the Counter Drug Fund and border wall. You havedrou done a reprogrammig of 3. 9, 3. 8. Theres also been a report in the Washington Post that there is a another shoe to drop in about 3. 7 billion is likely to take out ofk enmilcon. O utis that accurate . That is not an accurate number but there is a possibility that that could happen. Number might not be accurate but it is it likely that we will see another tranche takence out of milk on . We could. I dont want to take anani estimate at this time. O i cant imagine a scenario in which this committee, ill b, say it bluntly, would allow aak democratic president to takeeoue money out of the fence budgetde for non defense priority. I cannot imagine it. I appreciate secretary esper, in and your response to senator joe manchin way. Uld appropriations b way would be tough appropriations bail, and spend the money appropriated for d. O. D. Within d. O. D. Accounts. I think that makes perfect sense. Its per hard for you to look un the eye and say this is focusedv on the nds when i cant find cat mention of the border wall or the border at the nds. Earlier witnesses have tests testified, though its not a military emergency, it is an emergency. Another. Issue, you are using the 3. 8 figure. You do that transfer within the d. O. D. In t and to that counter g fund and then use that for the wall. Isco unthat transfer subject toe transfer authority that we give au you . Y thwhere there is a general transfer authority in the in the appropriations act that you canr transfer up to four billion dollars a year within d. O. T. Accounts with no no notice to congress withoutappro, approval. Is that 3. 8 transfer within that four billion dollar transferhin authority . Ik think so senator but i want to come back to you. Belief is that it is to. So you have four billion dollar of transfer 30, a few monthsits into the fiscal year. Transfer thirties most needed at the end of the year and 3. 8 of the transfer 30 by the beginning of march when we have many months left in thes le fiscal year. How much in the president s budget is Coronavirus Response if we need to o nmaintain people in bases in south korea italy and other places around the world. It is probably not in the p b. But that would be the kind of b thinge for which we give you transfer 30. But against the limit of yourupumpep transfer authority out of that t four billion to build money at the wall and we still have eight months left in the fiscal year is not not right . Your segment is correct sir. Wouldnt make your jobul easier ifd we eliminated yourli transfermina 30 and said any trs for authority you had to come to us forny t rpermission . The come four billion you can di without our permission. If we told you you cannot do any transfers is position, with that actually help you . Because it would with enable uso say you hel have to get it throd appropriations. If you want something for ena a wall, if you want to fight Climate Change, if you want to fight gun violence you need to get it throughnt appropriations. If you need to come back to us for authority, then we could keep the money and the budget that is directed toward the National Defense tragedy. There is no head of any wants organization who wants his or t her hands tied by narrowing the. Options, you always want them expanded and your maneuverr space. So no not necessarily. In an odd way are your hands not kind ofy, tied this way . If money can be taken out of your budget for dhs, Climate Change or gun violence, if it bc can be taken out of your hands, is that not sort of a timing of your hands . Senator i recognize what you are saying. Has declared any . InterNational Emergency, weve been tasked to support dhs. What is legally available we ape intend to support dhs. Ers. I appreciate your answer. Thank you madam chair. Thank you madam chair. Good to see you again secretaryt esper and general milley, i want to talk about the killing a of the terrorist leader qassem soleimani. I agreed with that important decision leiman wto take out the terrorist leader who has a lot of american blood on his hands. I despite thete rate nicholas the politicizing we saw at the timee iran. E almost sharing we were about to go to war against issu iran. Can you share at all with youve seen . I tbelieve it was a bodyha bloy weve heard that from ouyou and others. The thatimpact that is having on irans terrorist activities, their threats in the region, their proxyies, forces and the threat gion,to us and israel . Threat to us and i think senator as you will know, soleimani was a terrorist leader of a terrorist terrorist organization who killed Many Americans. He wounded thousands more, killed his own people, killed peoplele a very capable adversary. But i think its clear that taking him off the battlefield has set back the irs juicy andr iranian governmentnt. By the same action we have restoredon, deterrent to a degra and so for all those things, ibl still believe it was the right theomade byy commanderinchief. I. As domand thanks. General milley have anything to add to i wouldould add that ie right absolutely think it was the c right call. I second the idea that wewe reestablishedd deterrence. I think thati th is very criticl and we can talk about that in aa classified form. Thanks. Nthe reports of coronavirusvirus there, another totalitarian opaque country, i dont believe anything theyre reporting or how they handle it. Reports oft ting. 23 people in r parliament, 10 , adviser to the supreme leader, Vice President virus. Health minister have all contracted the virus. To the i anything related to see that impact especially with a rock and our forces in the region . How that mayn th further put pressure on the regime both internally and o from their own people as they are failing to deal with this . I think that becomes a factoror i obviously as we ses unfold. Authoritarian countries having a problem with transparency andd being forthright with theirirber folks. Ightmy w attention has been focn on three priorities i have been ou outlining internally to my commanders. One is protection of our forces, number two safeguarding our Mission Capability and numberur three supporting the inter agency. Great thank you. He i i want to change topics here on i w military sexualan assault. Last year i worked with your predecessors and i championed a reforms that made it into theo e nda specifically focused onfocun improving the process from the reportort forward. The investigative process and the support Going Forward aftern a report has been made. When i went to yuma in arizona, i had heard that they had no special Victims Counsel their fulltime, oftentimes victimsmee were waiting significant amount of time when they got to meet with an sec. So i put in the bill that they needed to have special Victims Council fulltime, victims are able to get their counsel quicker and have more immediate response. We are also hearing otherep reports of justor increases to mcas and the positive impact. Owgiven question given thegivene success, we still need to still prioritize implementation of those provisions, can you im report back to me on anything else you are seeing in thec field . Anort first of all, your effl and assistancel in establishing assistants assault Investigative Task force. We have a lot of good data so far. It we have made recommendations incdot focus areas, they are alh now policy which im pleased toe report. Whereess the process of implementation across the board. The task force continues to meet the ues tototrack implemen. Critical to reducing timelinesrg for cases, and i would love to come back and send a teen up toe you, it seems to be moving in the right direction rgenerally and its having an impact. Great the next thing we want to focus on is prevention, stopping thes these crimes were happening in the first place. Extensively about know if you want to addif something general mily in your long experience in the military. How do we get to the front in of preventing this comes from pi happening, in the age groups where it ishes e,happening. We know its exactly what we ge need to get aftererw but what weve done with training and is not working. I want to thank you personally but the key here is the chain of command. D. Officers starting at the senior levels but also going all the way down to Team Sergeants ands team leaders and firsttime supervisors. As our major of the army used to say, not my squad, not my myr battalion sort of thing. This takes ownership and you need to embrace it completely. It is our function of goododi order and discipline in the force for which commanders and commanders of alone are persony alone and should be held for the accountable for the good order and discipline other force. Sexual assault, drugs, crimesev of violence,er whatever it is, the key here to success is commanders. Thanks. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this issue. Thanks madam chair. Thank you both for your service and for being here today. I sent a letter last monthrvice along with senator murphy to express mymy navy budget included funding for only one virginia class some rain. Reports that you signed off onin a decision to shift 1. 6 billion fromin virginia class submarine construction to the national nur Nuclear Security administration. Imnist not here tora ask any question about it because i hope that you continue to believe as you have expresse when you visited the last time e you visited. That undersea warfare superiority of the United Statese should not be compromised. That we need to meet the goalss for submarine production. Uctionhopefully, to virginia cls submarines for fy 21 will be accomplished. Im concerned also in the delaye about delivering the force Structure Assessment in the shipb third year shipbuilding plant that apparently is still on your still desk or somewhere ine pentagon for approval. Peni expect that both will be delivered to congress and maybe as soon as possible, both in a classifiedied and unclassified version. I hope that is true. Would yououwo confront that it . Senator i was briefed about o a week ago, i have yet to be toe briefed on the 30year the shipbuilding plan. Theyd cover different timelines and horizons. What i want to do is step back and look at not just one view in terms of the future fleet,d but l i want to taken a range of views. I regret that it isnge a latei dont have a good reason why. What i want to give you is a fullsses assessment of what the future i think will be. A quick note on this. Im a big believer in attack subs. Believe it is a distinct to grw advantage we need to grow both capability andi was very capacity. Ipres was impressed by the tripi had up up to gotten. Ottethe numbers i see right nowr attack subs i think the number needs to be higher. What i wante to do is take a broadi w look at this in light f an improved on plant and other n ideas out there to make sure beforere that i sign off on it,e want to makeit sure i get it right. I wa think we need a bigger flet and i think we need to put more emphasis on attack summaries. You could not find a morebigd enthusiastic and passionate supporter of a bigger summaryora fleet and i hope we have an fle. Opportunity to discuss this before hour mark up in may on this committee. I want to shift slightly to a point that has been raised by atn least one of my colleagues. The Coronavirus Impact on not our ser only our service men and women and their families but also, f for example, f35 production. Today, the supply line in japana wasn completely shut down. That is one example of our that defenses industrialization that could be greatly impaired by coronavirus. Would like to hear from you and the chairman, an assessment of what the impact is likely to be, what you are doing about to specific. And by the way, i was disappointed by a report that i saw, im not vouching necessarily for its accuracy, that you indicated that American Military commanders were warned overseas, quote, not to surprise President Trump on the coronavirus, end quote. So maybe you can respond. First of all, i was disappointed by that story as well. It was completely wrong, bad reporting at its worst. Ive been very clear with my commanders privately and members and their families, number r thtwo is safeguarding , missions which include production and number three,e, the intert of agency. Heim providing resources to mae decisions. They made any number of decisions, i dont think i have had to make one. Myi do one request to them and chairman will vouch, if you are going to make a a highprofile decision give me a heads up. I want to make sure that we are clear across the agency. That the white house knows, thatd c congress knows, that is what i need to do. Do , that was a bad report, completelyt wa false and if you want to add anything chairman. Two things. Buttvt all he said was, general abrams, please give me a heads a up so i can make sure d. C. s informed. Ind. Ti read the article and it struck me is very odd, it was aa mischaracterization. More importantlyport is the impt on the military. On the uniformu kn military, wea have a demographic that is at different than society at large. Young, healthy yand fit. To date, weve only got, as ofo 24 hours ago, we have onets uniformed member whos comekor, down with it in korea. We are fami screening lots of people. Inreing l terms of the numbers relative relative to the hole, very smallsmal impact. C secondlyondl, on exercises, in s indopacific we are taking a hard look at. Some korea exercises have beend, canceled. , scaled down or postponed. Ri speaking as of right now the impact on the uniformedvery, v military is very minimal. We are also preparing to help whatever the nation needs. We have plans to support other agencies as required by the president and congress. All our medical Research Institutes are involved in providing solutions to thisns. Problem. I want to thank you both and i want suggest respectfully that telling more to the American People about those plants would behe reassuring. The enemy here really has become stronger. Ack lack of information, lackf these are not classified pants. Ied this is stuff that we could easily let people know. Not i agree. Thank you. Peo. Thank you madam chair. Nt i want to thank you for your exceptional service. Appreciated our meetings are yesterday. I think both of you are doing an d excellent job for our nation. General milley, i wanted to get a l a little bit more bityouve stated publicly and o our classified hearing on thean, soleimani strike. I thought it but also in our nationss interest. You mention your duty, how you saw that strike after you read the intel. Ass we all know, general soleimanikno was not in iraq ong vacation. He was there targeting the killing ofvice more american Service Members. Almosts a half the service mems in iraq were based in. Canthp use to simplya say what youve said. Otherwise. I think its important to hear it directly from you with your experience. What you duty was after readingt the into. Publicly and i in have read it raided it in classified sessions. I reiterated it rei in more dets i believe the intelligence was compelling. I imminent. Was not only would soleimani have ak long track record , morebombingb importantly his command and control control role in what he was about to do. I believe i, secretary esper,re theside president and many othes would be negligent had we not taken the action we did. I think nej Many Americans wouly died as a result. Believe it was the right thing to do then, and i still t. Believe that. Believe we contributed to with reestablishing deterrence witha regards to iran. Ciatie think reestablishing deterrence is very difficult to do, youve been able to do that and i appreciate it. Mister secretary we had a goodo. Discussion yesterday on theto ot dprk. There was language in the ndas. From last year that essentially has the two of you focusing on dprk. The issue is strongly received here in the senate in a bipartisan way. If you look attif our force posture in the asian pacific. How are you thinking about that . How should we be thinking about thatt ere in the senate. I think we need to take a fresh look at our force posturee everywhere. That t an is why were doing the reviews. Ive been working my way through these to take just abuth look at these things. We should absolutely think of what it means if we have to facf face against china in the year 2035 or 2049. Deeply our eye is something that was developed many years ago. Its a little tricky, a lot oflt diplomacy involved. Its something we should take a look athat to make sure we areic wellul postured to not just be j able tous respond flexibly but o sustain and train our forces in the region for an extended period. Atcan i dig into that a litte the iss bit with you . The issue of training i thinklyi is important whether it is in guam or other places, okinawa p forlace example. We doinaw not get the opportuniy to do a lot of training in those ingplaces. D isustainable deployments but keeping our forces sharp, we need good training, would youood t agree with that . Absolutely. Atraining is the lifeblood of a unit effectiveness. Theeff ability to train, maintan and equipped their force. Fo we lookrc forward to work wih you on this continuedyoure reassessment. The other issue i have been raising doing. E otquite a long a mister secretary, you might remember in our confirmation hearing. You mention that if our air force. In it was done in an area that was colocated with over a 105th generation fighters. Tiothat it would provide the unt United States with extremextreme strategic reach and it would show that to our potentialsarie. Adversaries. Last week thm commanderer testified last week that one of the most stress capable aspects of their number one readiness o concern was the air refuelling fleet. Mike question, having a deployment of casey 46 is in the bed down in an area theya can reach multiple coke comes cs like in alaska with the hundred and 50 jen fighters. What message does that sent our adversaries . Youve talked about the issue of extreme strategic reach when i asked that question earlier. Ld two critical needs for our have t forces right now is to have the strategic lift, refuelling and sea lift by the way. But the location of alaska gives you great reach whether you go across the youpole into russia or china. When you couple it with anth the impossible commission forces, it puts the enemy in a different posture have thatent reach, that lethaly at hand. Great. Thank you very much. Senator if i might. Oni do not want any adversary walk away thinking the United States cannot project power, we can and they should have no, and doubt about it. Yes we are giving up ten casey, we still have almost 500. We can get there, and no one. Should doubt that. Certainly one of the best o ways to really distress. S it is. We can get there i dont want anyone thinking we cant. Senator. Thank you. Nk mister acting chairman, i appreciate it. I know you will ask aa question on the arctic. Secretary esper i want to thank you first by the participation of the department. Over a year we worked very hardd we made significant nor contributions in intellectual firepower si and criticism ando thoughtfulnessig and i want to thank and you for yourienk you authorization for that participation, it was veryon int meaningful. Thank you senator im very encouraged by all of that to,end there is a lot of good comingt out of it. We will be releasing our relg report next wednesday as a matter of fact and i think its. A good piece of work. Indeed, we spent a whole here and really have nott talked about cyber which is an essential, that is not aa right word, a very real domain of warfare today. That is what we will be talking about extensively next week. We are in cyber competition conflict every day. Exactly. We are at war today. Yes sir. General milley. I guess this is a question for both of you. Is ation foim very concerned ap in defense against Hypersonic Weapons. Both of our principal adversaries, china and russia, have developed these weapons. Theyweap have actually deployed them. This puts at risk our naval resources particularly. Talk to me about what we are doing the counter that threat. Research, we are putting money into defensive systems. E one of thear early things we knw we need that money is going to is a low earth orbit missile eah tracking system that would be able to track hypersonicould beb systems moving through the atmosphere. Is theyone of the problems with hypersonics is they do not leave a radar. They move so fast they create a plasma shieldey and we need to track them. Weve determined that you need a low earth orbit tracking system, that isto one of our priorities. Then you needoritie to figure oe effect years outto knock one out of the sky. Itldnock is critical. The maneuverability, the speed and the effectiveness of the effective systemsne is remarkable. Two things senator king on that tw one. One oning. The defense. If it can be seen it can be hit. It goes five to ten times the speed of sound and you cannot defend against it. Whati you have to dove is be invisible. There techniques and precision that were working on in order to make ourere forces very difficuo to see from an acquisition standpoint in terms of enemy radar. Thats in terms of defense. On the other part, you will not shoot zero. Itsoot going so fast you will t hit s it. You need to shoot the archer. You need to go deep downtown on thee. Offense. E if you want to defeat hypersonics you need to go to the source. If youre launching hypersonics thengo United States, youve gotnging to war and we wl pour it on with mass and firepower. You made an important point earlier where you bias are. E. T we sort of had a vacation onon isis are because weve been acting against enemies and that we dont havest e any air capac. A whole different ball game. Are that can penetrate the. S. To airspace of these great power pi competitors. Its also why we talk about the shipbuilding principles ive laid out. The navy agrees with this. Laia move away from very large platforms into smaller platforms and more distributed for us to complicate enemies plants, particularly when it comes to licahypersonics. P you raised shipbuilding. We talk about the indopacific most important region, i we talk about the National Defense strategy and yet, the budgetse talks about knocking ot 40 stores and i think in an fib in the future. How firm is that plan . Can we revisit it . I want to get some thoughts on that. , the other thought isis, we are doing thisalizatiof recapitalization out of operating costs. In any other organization, youre talking about capital y budget and your building 40 year asset, the columbia some y rainet, were running out of cah flow. Get back talk to me about the shipbuilding. To me i dont focus so much number, on the number. 3 55, my gut tells me we need a more than that. If you saw it, it shows what china is doing, you would feel vindicated. Yes sir. We have y a qualitative capability over them. Nonetheless, if it is not just capability and lethality it is presence. You need to have the presence. Prandesnce. So i do think we neo get on that path. Pa we are a number of things need to do. I support what the cnn did. They decided to reallocate 400ed billioned or so to get readiness up. We have a readiness challenge, it has been well documented. Ship is s no good if it is in the dock. In yes sir. Due to maintenance challenges, the equivalent to 19 ships didc not go out toao sea. We need to change the readiness challenge andix poor more money into ship building. If we can get the legislative approved. D. The army found 40 billion dollars over five years, that will free up a good chunk of what they think they need. And then we need to up get the t higher top lineh moving. What worries me about what youre talking about. Atim sorry im overtime but i worry that, you cant turn the Industrial Base on and off likee a switch. Youe drive it down and have a loss of personal and skilled shipbuilders wherever it may be. You cannot turn them back on. I completely agree senator. T t themthats what i think we o look more particularly with capl Large Capital investments, even the navy we discussed yesterday is can you multi year o m sincec you dont have the same perturbations in your main cycle. You can afford to take a ship out and have a month or two month gap. Theyre with the maintenance up there. Gyou have to figure out a way to smoothinge that out so they can be incentivized to stay in the trade. Praising consistent fundsde. From congress would a fifth . Thank you gentlemen. Senator josh hawley. Thank you for being here and thank you for your service. Let me start with you, you. Secretary in your testimony conr last summer,mation he wrote thae needed a force posture at the end of the pacific and im po concerned about the concentration of our core forces in south korea and your assessment about our ability to compete with china given that concentration . Ur abi those forces that arr for a variety of reasons. A presence that reflects orresy weve been for many ryears. S. We need to step back and i knowp admiral davidson is looking at that and im trying to get out there, ive traveled there two or three times to visit traveled nontraditional partners and ive been to vietnam, indonesiag i think theres much more i ground we cannd cover in buildia relationships and more countries. You lead to myext next quest in the specific to survive and improve in these operations you think that we can. . But ve sin more people ins of standing up and you have toh obey the International Rules on the theyll take a lot of hat. Investment. To improve our forces alongbe ao those lines . As you think through thehrouh warplanes, where do we need to be . Does it require the chairman and i are big believers andar that. Emore countries through the specific into our School Houses and build that relationship over their career. There are things that we should do that the d. O. D. Is doing andd were committed to. A 50 growth over the next five years. A sticking with the question of investment, your hearing you said you are open in principle to Something Like edi indo pay calm. I dont see anything like that in yourt budget, why is that . I nk the more i think about that we discuss this a lot and if certain amouncertain amount of money it could be both limitingh and in other words, you put so f much money and people say thats it and thats all you need. Or you get trapped by that fund. I appreciate the flexibility of less in more or less and depending on how circumstances change. Ho were talking to the commander about what are your o tinvestmet plans in terms of future plans, president s and what do we need to dore do with those relations. Theyve been so successful and i continue believe in. That mechanism. Sometimes it takes they, pressure off of a country toof o own dollars iown dollars into supporting this nation support. They see the fund out there and afterhere that theyre going tog their parliaments and saying how can we support u. S. How can presence. I want to make sure were getting the resources into what is our priority here and i believe under nds in a timely fashion if were going to bey successful and were behind the i curve i think. We can and should do more im trying to do these reviews to invest more into that future fight. I reviewed those by the way and we talk about african. Every suddenly testified that the allies could send mored forces tose west african takeic over some of the missionsa currently being done by aerial review. Do you agree with that . Ive talked to the allies about this about Aerial Refueling. We combat that to the french and thats one of the areas ide say were having a problem with. Air refuelling right now and it helps us all out of office and how do we do the same mission. Its a clear situation andctr expect our allies to do more and general milley lets talk about irantch and the provocats oversume the next few months. Tionwhat is your assessment of w manymont hstroops we can send tt can theater without risking our our situation without undermining the determines in the pacific . I dont think i can answerth that in one session. Idat i rather come in to a classified session just to betwt clear, to there is a significant amount of force in the pacific. 300,000 troops, and there is a lot of force in the pacific. F orin Central Command here lookig atre 70,000 troops currently right now. Its an accurate amount ofof force and if deterrence breaks down, will analyze that situation and do whatever iswhaq required to achieveui whateverhi nationalev security objective is necessary and relative to iran. Thats getting back to you in ae classified session. You bet. In thed onue tha classified sety question on this misterified st chairman, just your comments about the relative balancebalanf between sitcom and pay calm. Is there something. Agai think if you think that c youre close tol a war with korea or or china than probably not. Itnot. Depends on what the situation is at that moment in time. Weion is will do whatever is red through National Security interestdo w. If something were to happen,pen very significantly more than its one of going on in the decisions would berent in the made and would be able to move the right amount of force. Thankes. You general and thak youyou mister secretary. Thank you for your testimony here today and your service. Id like to discuss thed description of the drug priceses try care. Its an issue that senator rounds andthis i have been workr on in the members of the commite committee. They eauthorized a Pilot Program that would lower cost of prescription t wodrugs andrescrn beneficiaries of servicecl members, theirud infamilies andr military retirees. Department hasas begin to process of preparing for this prescription drug, pilot parity prescripti program and has not begun. My question is, can you work with us on lowering the cost of prescriptionmit drugs under try fo care and expanding theires to opportunities to purchase these drugs . Yes sir, without having too detail we want to improve this quality. Last week, senator tom cotton and i wanted to we sent establish and it Operations Technology working group that t will coordinateh and had military research andinate and Development Efforts between thee United States ande israel the sharel on the threats that our countries face and drift th capitalizing on the nationaltal security base of both countries in theding u. S. And israel. This is for your view on Security Cooperation with israel in the areas of technology and research. How can we use that our country . I will tell you that we have a very good innovative base and. I think the more we can cooperate together is will have our partners come up with solutions. We do a lot of work with them now and in the industrial levell they compete and with american companies. If there are ways to improve that we should pursue it. Impr as you know, we work very closely with israel and in combat developments for example, we have the active protective i system on our Armored Vehicles we and we looked at the ballistic Missile Defense system in a a wide variety of other systems. Its an exchange of ideas and knowledge on a regular basis. Secretary theres been military use of Artificial Intelligence, the principles were designed to complementples w existing calic frameworks around five specific areas of military use that were not responsible, equitable,eth traceable, reliab. Ive had longstanding concerned about consequences ins the United States and their allies adopting ethical standards opwithout similarti equitable standards andal standd adversaries that offer under different frameworks and we do. R my question is, is it a competitive disadvantage oft a tactical tactical and operational level that is not shared by our ai adversaries and if so, how do od we compensate for this . First of all, a lot of good work done with a lot of outreach to a wide range of perd persons and i was briefed and a lot of number of discussions with a with leaders and i think this where we lead and the principles from where ive read and study to put us in and a leadership posin so i in think were establishia standard as you will and oh make us better and the more we gettion other countries to comes board and aligned themselves the better. In the past. The u. S. Has successfully used International Agreements and arms control treaties to provide some stability, particularly with emerging technologies. The attempt to minimize minimie potential catastrophic mistakes that could occur. In terms of ar, ai. Are we at the stage where it made it requiresbas a International Treaty . If how would that look . A good question. It its not something i would take offa kethe table but it is a fan question. I agaithink we want to develope common standards and try to set the bar by signing on those ai ethical principles. Ge o setting a high bar. Onchairman any thoughts . I think Artificial Intelligence as i havef testified before is the mother of all technologies. It is extraordinarily powerful. There is no doubt in my mind that it will be used for and no military purposes in thet not future. Ant there is a a wide variety of ethicalalet concerns. I dont have Arms Treaties are the proper mechanism. Allll cou countries will have te unite to grips with the use of ai in terms of military application. Toit is a strong weapon tool and will need to be dealt with. Thank you mister chairman. I would like to thank both witnesses for appearing before theou ldcommittee today. Id like to follow up with whap my colleague mr. Josh hawley and the indopacific strategy. I heard fromo spend more attentn on this area and i have heard from both of you the importance of ourmpha role. Well i appreciate prioritizing power competition in thisrned region over other priorities. I do not our believe we have matched ourwi th rhetoric with r actions. How are we able to divert several 7 billion to border wala our main eff and say that it is our main effort. Yo senator secretary esper, i believe it to be very important. I recently met with the tie army general and talked very fondly about his time spent a u. S. Training facilities. Itd was his joint experience with general from indonesia to form a friendship based on their experience in the u. S. I think it takes more than that. I think you need to put some look at staffing and resource increasingsing for the indo pay calm in order to deter chinese aggression. I would love to hear from both of you inin terms of when we wil see what we will see in this region. Ii agree with the importance of indodoof pay calm, because i number one in our strategy to say the least. If the simpleendo disposition of forces. It has five times as many forces as any a other theater. Lose350, 000, the next one is ad 70,000. If you added every other theater, indo would be twice as big as all of them. We have a lot of forces in thatt theater. Ii al dont think the challenges t putting more forces in,he its looking at our disposition on how do wed and think use it more effectively to grow partners and allies . How dow do we exercise with him . That is my quick assessment. Thats i do not disagree thats notdisa just about the number of ground. The it is about resourcing so they can go out. I think you talked about this already. Dy ti was impressed with what ws done in ag south korea when we d not have enough ammunition. But this son the reason you have more troopsa is because it is a larger geographic region. The geography is different. General you are going to say. Youre exactly right, the geography is completely different. The politics are different. Geogthely international politie different, the allies aredi different. All ofies that is different. You have to factor all of that in in. In terms of main effort tversus supporting efforts and economy of force efforts. The Central Command area, theyre all designated as economy force. Yukon is a supporting effort and pay calm is the main it is effort. Its part of a globally integrated level of effort with all the resources the department of defense has. You mentioned 350,000 soups. He has 200 ships, seven aircraft carriers, he has 160000 performance aircraft. It is a highly resourced theaterer. Its not so much the numbers of the ships, planes, trains, use t automobiles sorts of thing. Its how we use it and what oure broader strategy in terms of what we think will be the most significantth eadversary which s china. Chimilitary is one aspect of a much larger c strategy. Iip think indo pay calm is well resourced from a departmental standpoint in terms of military capability right now. But the chinese are really moving ahead when it comes to basing issues. We need to have more than a little toehold there inter, in order to ensure freedom oftion. Navigation. Adjacent to this issue, i want tohis shift to the other witches logistics. Contested logistics is more something i believe we need to. Pay more attention to. This years cuts tohis the tankr fleet and anemic investment in maintenance really worry me. Can you both tell me how this Defense Budget request improves our ability to transform sport and sustain our forces . Senator you are exactl right. I do not know if you were here earlier but i arrivevmentioned i was concerned with two important things that are often overlooked. We havee airlift and strategic sea lift. Weve invested in to search ships this year. Ive had a lot of conversationso we need to do more and more soon. Is why we talked about the pla shipbuilding glen, one thing it does nots incorporate is strategic sea lift. I said when i look at thehipbuig shipbuilding plan, i think we should factor in strategic sea lift because it also competes for budget dollars. It is a critical factor. Ical im concerned in the delays with the kc 46, i looked at the ago. Two weproblems two weeks ago. We will have to look at restoring some tense and 1 45 seat. Its a very capable airplane but it will take some time. Those are critical things whenee you see a distances between alaska all the way into theater. Then forward basing is another way to offset that of course. Not youre right, its not jt s about the sea lift, but its also fueling. You need to have forward fueling capability. We just cant be shipping ourpig fuel there for everything that needs gas right . , that is right. You arere absolutely right to be concerned about the maritime sea lift, weve given that up as a nation for the most part t over manyhe years. Nk eron the tankers i want to be clear again, weve got almost 500 tankers. In this budget, ten casey tens and 13 casey 1 35. Yes there is stress on thet force, noretc question, but at i same time i dont want people t who are watching this to think thatat the United States of america cannot project power overseas when needed. Eded can and we will if require. Thank you. Let me thank you for your testimony and particularly for your service. Let me call the adjournment of the hearing, thank you gentlemen. Djo
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.