Transcripts For CSPAN Defense Secretary Mattis On National D

Hill this week to testify on the pentagons National Defense strategy and a recent review of u. S. Nuclear capabilities and security. The services hearing took place a full a few days before Congress Approved a twoyear budget deal that raises defense spending by 165 million. It is 90 minutes. May you come to order. The Committee Meets today to her testimony on the administrations National Defense strategy and Nuclear Posture review, both of which were recently released. We welcome back secretary of defense and vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to discuss these important documents. I cannot count the number of times i have heard members of this Committee Talk about the importance of having a Defense Strategy to help guide decisions that we and the executive branch have to make. Now, we have one. It is a component of the Broader National Security strategy released in december, and it has within it, the Nuclear Posture review, the first of its kind since 2010. A lot has changed since 2010. And both documents coming at a critical time. Come at a critical time. Americas military remains the strongest in the world, however, you must advantages are streaking is moderate states modernize and build up their conventional and nuclear forces. End quote. There will be criticism of both documents, some of it will be based on valid shortcomings, and some may spring from more ideological differences. Debates about the particulars are fair and to be expected. Fair, i think, to commend the administration for its attempt to bring structure and rationality are wide ranging National Security efforts in what is surely a dangerous and volatile world. One last point. We must never forget that with any strategy, the heart of our nations defense, our most valuable asset remains the people who served. To sendrally wrong brave men and women out on missions under any strategy for which they are not fully trained , equipped, or supported but the best that this country can provide. That support should not be conditioned on any other issue. And we can never forget that there is a real human cost to failing to fully support them. Strategy is important. But nothing is more important for congress than for us to do our job to support the men and women who protect us. F thank you mr. Chairman. I appreciate you both being here. I appreciate that you put out the National Security strategy, obviously a crucial important step in figuring out how we put together our budget. I will start by agreeing with the last point the chairman may, whatever our strategy is and what we tell the women and men who served and are military, this is what we expect you to do. It is our paramount obligation to fund that. We dont give them so many tasks, but not enough resources to train for them. That is the definition of a hollow force, when we send them into battle unprepared for what we told them to do. Unfortunately due to budgetary challenges in the last six and seven years, that has happened far too often. We have lurched from continuing resolution to Government Shutdown to continuing resolution to sometimes appropriations deals. Its very difficult for both of you and your predecessors to plan what you are going to do when you dont know how much money you are going to have one week to the next. I appreciate the strategies put together. My biggest concern is, does it match the amount of resources we are likely to have to fund it . We are 21 trillion in debt and counting. The deficit last year was close to 700 billion. Its going up, not down. So how do we make this fit . How does this work . You look at the broader picture. We just cut taxes. The immediate shortterm impact of that is that we will hit the debt ceiling sooner than we expected to, because less revenue is coming into the treasury. In the face of the 21 trillion debt, and all of the needs the chairman outlined, and your strategy lays it out. And all of us in this committee are aware of the list. Those are the threats we face. How do we meet them . In the face of all of that, we decided to give away 2 trillion. I could make the argument that in so doing, the congress made a Public Policy decision that we will not fund the government at defense at levels that we should. There are other places we can get the money. The president said he is not for not going to reform mandatory spending at all. The state of the Union Address promised more money than i could have ever imagined. As a side note, i think we ought to ban the state of the Union Address. I say this for republicans and democrats alike. It lets the executive promise things that are impossible to deliver, and the American Public comes to expect it like magic, and is surprised when it does not happen. That is bipartisan. Every state of the Union Address i have seen since i came here i have walked out and said we dont have the money heard what is he talking about . I worry greatly about how the strategy will be implemented in the face of our debt and deficits. If Interest Rates go up, we have been incredibly lucky we have been able to borrow this money onthe cheap. If Interest Rates go up to 3 , you can forget about this stuff. I dont blame that on the Defense Budget. I understand it is a piece of it, 17 of the budget. Our overall budget picture doesnt add up. I worry that ultimately will cost the men and women we serve, cost on our ability to give them the training they need to carry out the missions we all hear that we need. Last thing i want to hear we have the list china, russia, north korea, iran, violent islamist extremist groups how can we protect our country . I just want to make a couple of quick comments on that. There is a Common Thread between all of those threats. That is a threat to representative democracy, freedom, and capitalism. All of those groups want to make the world safe for autocratic dictatorships. Each one of them has a slightly different viewpoint on what that dictatorship should look like. It is a fundamental threat to democracy and representative government. I think we have to understand in that context and push back comprehensively to try and create a world that is safe for freedom and democracy. I think that is incredibly important in keeping a peaceful and prosperous world. Lastly, i am interested in hearing from you we hear a lot from the military about what you dont have, about where we are not spending enough money, the threads we are not meeting. If we get to where we need to go, we need to hear where can we save money . What part of our National Security strategy can we not spend money on . If we dont hear places where we can save money, there is no way we will have enough money to spend on the places that we need to meet it. Your leadership and under ash carter and the chairman has done a good job at getting at at procurement reform, employing commercial technology, ideas that can enable us to get more for less money. That is never going to be more important than it is going forward, given the fiscal situation we are in, and given the threat environment as described. How will we meet that . We have to be smarter about how we spend our money. With that, i yield and look forward to your testimony. The committee is pleased to welcome general matters. Mattis. Rep. Thornberry gentlemen, thank you for being here. Secretary, you are recognized for any comments you like to make. Sec. Mattis thank you distinguished members of the committee. Im here at your invitation to testify on two subjects, the 2018 National Defense strategy, and Nuclear Posture review. In the midst of our ongoing counterterrorism campaigns, my role is to keep the peace for one more year, one more day, giving secretary tillerson and diplomats time to resolve crises through diplomatic channels. The department of defense does this by providing the commanderinchief with military options that ensure diplomats negotiate from a position of strength. Up front, i need to note that three days from now i will visit our Security Assistance brigade in georgia, as they prepare to deploy to afghanistan. To advance the security of our nation, these troops are putting themselves in harms way, and signing a blank check payable to the American People for their lives. Congress despite obligation to provide stable funding. We have been dealing with debilitating continuing resolutions for more than 1000 days in the past decade. These men and women hold the line for america while lacking this most fundamental support for a predictable budget. Congress rightfully mandated this National Defense strategy, the first one in a decade, and then shut down the government the day of its release. Today we are again operating under a disruptive continuing resolution. It is not lost on me that as a testify before you this morning, we are again on the verge of Government Shutdown, or at best, another damaging continuing resolution. I regret that without sustained predictable appropriations, my presence here today waste your your time,astes because no strategy can survive without the funding necessary to resource it. Yet we all know that america can afford survival. Nations as different as china and russia have chosen to be strategic competitors. They seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models, and pursue veto power over other nations economic, diplomatic, and security decisions. Rogue regimes like north korea and iran persist in outline in taking outlaw actions that undermine and threaten regional and global stability. Violent extremist organizations continue to sow hatred and murder innocents. Across the globe, democracies are taking notice. We recognize Great Power Competition is once again a reality. We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorism by, with, and through our allies. In our new Defense Strategy, Great Power Competition is now the primary focus of u. S. National security. Our military remains capable, but our Competitive Edge has eroded in every domain of warfare. Under frequent continuing resolutions and sequestered budget caps, our advantages continue to shrink. The combination of rapidly changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nations history, and insufficient funding have created an overstretched and under resourced military. State ofst weeks Union Address, President Trump said weakness is the surest path to conflict. For those that say we should accept a yearlong continuing resolution, it would mean a disastrous sequestration funding level for the military. In a world of increasing threats, there is no room for complacency. History makes clear that no country has a preordained right to victory on the battlefield. President trumps National Security strategy, our 2018 National Defense strategy provides clear direction for americas military. A longterm competition requires strategic competition requires the seamless integration of multiple elements of National Power diplomacy, information, economics, law enforcement, and military. The departments principal priorities are longterm strategic competitions with china and russia. Given the magnitude of the threats they pose to u. S. Security and prosperity today, Congress Must commit to an increased and sustained investment in capabilities. Currently the department will sustain his effort to deter and counter rogue regimes, and defeat terrorists threats to the United States, and consolidate our gains in iraq and afghanistan while moving toward a more resources sustainable approach. More than any other nation, america can expand the competitive space. We can challenge our competitors where we possess advantages. To restore our competitive military edge, this strategy pursues three primary lines of effort. To build a more lethal force, strengthen traditional alliances alliances,ing new and reform the Business Practices for performance and affordability. Our first line of effort emphasizes that everything we do must contribute to the lethality of our military. In war, an enemy will attack a perceived weakness. Therefore we cannot adopt a single preclusive form of warfare. Rather, we must be evil to fight across the spectrum of combat. This means the size and composition of our force matters. The nation must field a sufficient capable force to deter conflict. If deterrence fails, we must win. To defend our way of life, our military will embrace change while holding fast to proven traditional, proven attributes that make us the most Formidable Force on any battlefield. Those that would threaten americas experiment in democracy must know, if you threaten us, it will be your longest and worst day. To implement this strategy, we capabilities, key recognizing we can expect success fighting tomorrows conflicts with yesterdays equipments. Driven by this strategy, next week you will see in our fy19 budget investments the following space and cyber, Missile Defense, advanced autonomous systems, and professional military education to provide our high quality troops what they need to win. We will prioritize rebuilding readiness while modernizing our existing force. We will also be changing our forces posture to prioritize readiness for war fighting in major combat, making us strategically predictable for our allies and unpredictable for any adversary. Our second line of effort is to strengthen alliances while building new partnerships. History is clear that nations with allies thrive. We inherited this approach from the greatest generation, and it has served the United States well for 70 years. Working by, with, and through allies is a source of strength. Since the costly victory in world war ii, americans have carried a disproportionate share of the Global Defense burden while others recovered. Today, the growing economic strength of allies and partners has enabled them to step up. International organizations participating in the defeat places campaign, and in the 40some nations standing in natos mission in afghanistan. Most nato allies are increasing their budgets, giving credence to the value of democracy standing together. Our third line of effort serves as the foundation for our militarys Competitive Edge. Reforming the Business Practices of the department to provide both solvency and security, and thereby gaining full benefit from every dollar spent. Every day we warn the trust of congress and the American People. We must be good stewards of the tax dollars entrusted to us. In this regard, we will deliver our departments full financial this year because results and accountability matter. The first audit in dod history will reveal how we can be better stewards. The department is transitioning to a culture of performance and affordability that operates at the speed of relevance. We will prioritize speed of delivery, and tenuous continuous adaptation, and frequent modular upgrade. With your critical support, we will shed outdated processes while adopting american industrys best practices. If current structures inhibit our pursuit of lethality, i expect my agency heads to consolidate, eliminate, and restructure to achieve the mission. One of the key elements of the 2018 National Defense strategy is to ensure americas military provides a safe, secure, and Effective Nuclear deterrent. Last january, President Trump directed a Nuclear Posture review to ensure the u. S. Nuclear deterrent is robust, flexible, resilient, ready, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure allies. I recently received a letter from senators concerned that the 2018 Nuclear Posture review would undermine the existential threat posed by Nuclear Weapons. To the contrary, the Nuclear Posture review reaffirms the mutually reinforcement role of Nuclear Deterrence in an complex security environment, while underscoring continued commitment to nonproliferation to counter Nuclear Terrorism and arms control. Specifically, the review reflects the department of defenses priority to maintain a safe and Effective Nuclear deterrent that will successfully deter nuclear and nonnuclear strategic attacks, assure partners, respond effectively should deterrence fail, and hedge against future uncertainties and dangers. The United States remains committed to its Global Leadership role to reduce the number of Nuclear Weapons, and to fulfill armed treaty obligations. Leadership that has reduced our National Defense<\/a> strategy and a recent review of u. S. Nuclear capabilities and security. The services hearing took place a full a few days before Congress Approved<\/a> a twoyear budget deal that raises defense spending by 165 million. It is 90 minutes. May you come to order. The Committee Meets<\/a> today to her testimony on the administrations National Defense<\/a> strategy and Nuclear Posture<\/a> review, both of which were recently released. We welcome back secretary of defense and vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to discuss these important documents. I cannot count the number of times i have heard members of this Committee Talk<\/a> about the importance of having a Defense Strategy<\/a> to help guide decisions that we and the executive branch have to make. Now, we have one. It is a component of the Broader National Security<\/a> strategy released in december, and it has within it, the Nuclear Posture<\/a> review, the first of its kind since 2010. A lot has changed since 2010. And both documents coming at a critical time. Come at a critical time. Americas military remains the strongest in the world, however, you must advantages are streaking is moderate states modernize and build up their conventional and nuclear forces. End quote. There will be criticism of both documents, some of it will be based on valid shortcomings, and some may spring from more ideological differences. Debates about the particulars are fair and to be expected. Fair, i think, to commend the administration for its attempt to bring structure and rationality are wide ranging National Security<\/a> efforts in what is surely a dangerous and volatile world. One last point. We must never forget that with any strategy, the heart of our nations defense, our most valuable asset remains the people who served. To sendrally wrong brave men and women out on missions under any strategy for which they are not fully trained , equipped, or supported but the best that this country can provide. That support should not be conditioned on any other issue. And we can never forget that there is a real human cost to failing to fully support them. Strategy is important. But nothing is more important for congress than for us to do our job to support the men and women who protect us. F thank you mr. Chairman. I appreciate you both being here. I appreciate that you put out the National Security<\/a> strategy, obviously a crucial important step in figuring out how we put together our budget. I will start by agreeing with the last point the chairman may, whatever our strategy is and what we tell the women and men who served and are military, this is what we expect you to do. It is our paramount obligation to fund that. We dont give them so many tasks, but not enough resources to train for them. That is the definition of a hollow force, when we send them into battle unprepared for what we told them to do. Unfortunately due to budgetary challenges in the last six and seven years, that has happened far too often. We have lurched from continuing resolution to Government Shutdown<\/a> to continuing resolution to sometimes appropriations deals. Its very difficult for both of you and your predecessors to plan what you are going to do when you dont know how much money you are going to have one week to the next. I appreciate the strategies put together. My biggest concern is, does it match the amount of resources we are likely to have to fund it . We are 21 trillion in debt and counting. The deficit last year was close to 700 billion. Its going up, not down. So how do we make this fit . How does this work . You look at the broader picture. We just cut taxes. The immediate shortterm impact of that is that we will hit the debt ceiling sooner than we expected to, because less revenue is coming into the treasury. In the face of the 21 trillion debt, and all of the needs the chairman outlined, and your strategy lays it out. And all of us in this committee are aware of the list. Those are the threats we face. How do we meet them . In the face of all of that, we decided to give away 2 trillion. I could make the argument that in so doing, the congress made a Public Policy<\/a> decision that we will not fund the government at defense at levels that we should. There are other places we can get the money. The president said he is not for not going to reform mandatory spending at all. The state of the Union Address<\/a> promised more money than i could have ever imagined. As a side note, i think we ought to ban the state of the Union Address<\/a>. I say this for republicans and democrats alike. It lets the executive promise things that are impossible to deliver, and the American Public<\/a> comes to expect it like magic, and is surprised when it does not happen. That is bipartisan. Every state of the Union Address<\/a> i have seen since i came here i have walked out and said we dont have the money heard what is he talking about . I worry greatly about how the strategy will be implemented in the face of our debt and deficits. If Interest Rates<\/a> go up, we have been incredibly lucky we have been able to borrow this money onthe cheap. If Interest Rates<\/a> go up to 3 , you can forget about this stuff. I dont blame that on the Defense Budget<\/a>. I understand it is a piece of it, 17 of the budget. Our overall budget picture doesnt add up. I worry that ultimately will cost the men and women we serve, cost on our ability to give them the training they need to carry out the missions we all hear that we need. Last thing i want to hear we have the list china, russia, north korea, iran, violent islamist extremist groups how can we protect our country . I just want to make a couple of quick comments on that. There is a Common Thread<\/a> between all of those threats. That is a threat to representative democracy, freedom, and capitalism. All of those groups want to make the world safe for autocratic dictatorships. Each one of them has a slightly different viewpoint on what that dictatorship should look like. It is a fundamental threat to democracy and representative government. I think we have to understand in that context and push back comprehensively to try and create a world that is safe for freedom and democracy. I think that is incredibly important in keeping a peaceful and prosperous world. Lastly, i am interested in hearing from you we hear a lot from the military about what you dont have, about where we are not spending enough money, the threads we are not meeting. If we get to where we need to go, we need to hear where can we save money . What part of our National Security<\/a> strategy can we not spend money on . If we dont hear places where we can save money, there is no way we will have enough money to spend on the places that we need to meet it. Your leadership and under ash carter and the chairman has done a good job at getting at at procurement reform, employing commercial technology, ideas that can enable us to get more for less money. That is never going to be more important than it is going forward, given the fiscal situation we are in, and given the threat environment as described. How will we meet that . We have to be smarter about how we spend our money. With that, i yield and look forward to your testimony. The committee is pleased to welcome general matters. Mattis. Rep. Thornberry gentlemen, thank you for being here. Secretary, you are recognized for any comments you like to make. Sec. Mattis thank you distinguished members of the committee. Im here at your invitation to testify on two subjects, the 2018 National Defense<\/a> strategy, and Nuclear Posture<\/a> review. In the midst of our ongoing counterterrorism campaigns, my role is to keep the peace for one more year, one more day, giving secretary tillerson and diplomats time to resolve crises through diplomatic channels. The department of defense does this by providing the commanderinchief with military options that ensure diplomats negotiate from a position of strength. Up front, i need to note that three days from now i will visit our Security Assistance<\/a> brigade in georgia, as they prepare to deploy to afghanistan. To advance the security of our nation, these troops are putting themselves in harms way, and signing a blank check payable to the American People<\/a> for their lives. Congress despite obligation to provide stable funding. We have been dealing with debilitating continuing resolutions for more than 1000 days in the past decade. These men and women hold the line for america while lacking this most fundamental support for a predictable budget. Congress rightfully mandated this National Defense<\/a> strategy, the first one in a decade, and then shut down the government the day of its release. Today we are again operating under a disruptive continuing resolution. It is not lost on me that as a testify before you this morning, we are again on the verge of Government Shutdown<\/a>, or at best, another damaging continuing resolution. I regret that without sustained predictable appropriations, my presence here today waste your your time,astes because no strategy can survive without the funding necessary to resource it. Yet we all know that america can afford survival. Nations as different as china and russia have chosen to be strategic competitors. They seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models, and pursue veto power over other nations economic, diplomatic, and security decisions. Rogue regimes like north korea and iran persist in outline in taking outlaw actions that undermine and threaten regional and global stability. Violent extremist organizations continue to sow hatred and murder innocents. Across the globe, democracies are taking notice. We recognize Great Power Competition<\/a> is once again a reality. We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorism by, with, and through our allies. In our new Defense Strategy<\/a>, Great Power Competition<\/a> is now the primary focus of u. S. National security. Our military remains capable, but our Competitive Edge<\/a> has eroded in every domain of warfare. Under frequent continuing resolutions and sequestered budget caps, our advantages continue to shrink. The combination of rapidly changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nations history, and insufficient funding have created an overstretched and under resourced military. State ofst weeks Union Address<\/a>, President Trump<\/a> said weakness is the surest path to conflict. For those that say we should accept a yearlong continuing resolution, it would mean a disastrous sequestration funding level for the military. In a world of increasing threats, there is no room for complacency. History makes clear that no country has a preordained right to victory on the battlefield. President trumps National Security<\/a> strategy, our 2018 National Defense<\/a> strategy provides clear direction for americas military. A longterm competition requires strategic competition requires the seamless integration of multiple elements of National Power<\/a> diplomacy, information, economics, law enforcement, and military. The departments principal priorities are longterm strategic competitions with china and russia. Given the magnitude of the threats they pose to u. S. Security and prosperity today, Congress Must<\/a> commit to an increased and sustained investment in capabilities. Currently the department will sustain his effort to deter and counter rogue regimes, and defeat terrorists threats to the United States<\/a>, and consolidate our gains in iraq and afghanistan while moving toward a more resources sustainable approach. More than any other nation, america can expand the competitive space. We can challenge our competitors where we possess advantages. To restore our competitive military edge, this strategy pursues three primary lines of effort. To build a more lethal force, strengthen traditional alliances alliances,ing new and reform the Business Practices<\/a> for performance and affordability. Our first line of effort emphasizes that everything we do must contribute to the lethality of our military. In war, an enemy will attack a perceived weakness. Therefore we cannot adopt a single preclusive form of warfare. Rather, we must be evil to fight across the spectrum of combat. This means the size and composition of our force matters. The nation must field a sufficient capable force to deter conflict. If deterrence fails, we must win. To defend our way of life, our military will embrace change while holding fast to proven traditional, proven attributes that make us the most Formidable Force<\/a> on any battlefield. Those that would threaten americas experiment in democracy must know, if you threaten us, it will be your longest and worst day. To implement this strategy, we capabilities, key recognizing we can expect success fighting tomorrows conflicts with yesterdays equipments. Driven by this strategy, next week you will see in our fy19 budget investments the following space and cyber, Missile Defense<\/a>, advanced autonomous systems, and professional military education to provide our high quality troops what they need to win. We will prioritize rebuilding readiness while modernizing our existing force. We will also be changing our forces posture to prioritize readiness for war fighting in major combat, making us strategically predictable for our allies and unpredictable for any adversary. Our second line of effort is to strengthen alliances while building new partnerships. History is clear that nations with allies thrive. We inherited this approach from the greatest generation, and it has served the United States<\/a> well for 70 years. Working by, with, and through allies is a source of strength. Since the costly victory in world war ii, americans have carried a disproportionate share of the Global Defense<\/a> burden while others recovered. Today, the growing economic strength of allies and partners has enabled them to step up. International organizations participating in the defeat places campaign, and in the 40some nations standing in natos mission in afghanistan. Most nato allies are increasing their budgets, giving credence to the value of democracy standing together. Our third line of effort serves as the foundation for our militarys Competitive Edge<\/a>. Reforming the Business Practices<\/a> of the department to provide both solvency and security, and thereby gaining full benefit from every dollar spent. Every day we warn the trust of congress and the American People<\/a>. We must be good stewards of the tax dollars entrusted to us. In this regard, we will deliver our departments full financial this year because results and accountability matter. The first audit in dod history will reveal how we can be better stewards. The department is transitioning to a culture of performance and affordability that operates at the speed of relevance. We will prioritize speed of delivery, and tenuous continuous adaptation, and frequent modular upgrade. With your critical support, we will shed outdated processes while adopting american industrys best practices. If current structures inhibit our pursuit of lethality, i expect my agency heads to consolidate, eliminate, and restructure to achieve the mission. One of the key elements of the 2018 National Defense<\/a> strategy is to ensure americas military provides a safe, secure, and Effective Nuclear<\/a> deterrent. Last january, President Trump<\/a> directed a Nuclear Posture<\/a> review to ensure the u. S. Nuclear deterrent is robust, flexible, resilient, ready, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure allies. I recently received a letter from senators concerned that the 2018 Nuclear Posture<\/a> review would undermine the existential threat posed by Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. To the contrary, the Nuclear Posture<\/a> review reaffirms the mutually reinforcement role of Nuclear Deterrence<\/a> in an complex security environment, while underscoring continued commitment to nonproliferation to counter Nuclear Terrorism<\/a> and arms control. Specifically, the review reflects the department of defenses priority to maintain a safe and Effective Nuclear<\/a> deterrent that will successfully deter nuclear and nonnuclear strategic attacks, assure partners, respond effectively should deterrence fail, and hedge against future uncertainties and dangers. The United States<\/a> remains committed to its Global Leadership<\/a> role to reduce the number of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, and to fulfill armed treaty obligations. Leadership that has reduced our Nuclear Weapons<\/a> stockpile 85 from its cold war high. Yet we must recognize deterrence and arms control can only be achieved with a credible capability. A review of the Global Nuclear<\/a> situation is sobering. While russia has only reduced a number of its accountable Strategic Nuclear<\/a> force, as agreed upon, at the same time russia has been modernizing these weapons as well as other nuclear systems. Moscow advocates a theory of Nuclear Escalation<\/a> for military conflict. China is modernizing and expanding its already Large Nuclear<\/a> forces and new Nuclear Capabilities<\/a>. It is also modernizing its conventional military to challenge u. S. Military superiority. Despite universal condemnation in the united nations, north Koreas Nuclear<\/a> provocations threaten regional and global peace, and irans ambitions remain an unresolved concern. Globally, Nuclear Terrorism<\/a> remains a tangible threat. As senator mccain said last week, since the end of the cold war, we let our Nuclear Capabilities<\/a> atrophy under the false belief that the era of great competition is over. As the new offensive strategy rightfully acknowledges, we now face the renewed threat of competition from russia and china, and we cannot ignore their investments in Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, in addition to conventional forces. The 2018 Nuclear Posture<\/a> review reaffirms the findings of previous reviews that the Nuclear Triad<\/a>, comprised of silobased intercontinental missiles, is the most sound means of ensuring Nuclear Deterrence<\/a>. To remain effective, we must recapitalize our cold war legacy, Nuclear Deterrent<\/a> forces, continuing Modernization Program<\/a> initiated during the previous instruction. Administration. To quote my predecessor secretary carter, we have been in a Nuclear Arms Race<\/a> for two decades now, but the u. S. Has not been running the race. As you can see, demonstrated in this chart in the corner of the room, that gives credence to my predecessors observations. The Nuclear Delivery<\/a> system over eight years shows numerous advances by russia, china, and north korea, with near absence of such activity by the United States<\/a>. With competitors and adversaries developing 34 new systems in that time, and compared to one for the u. S. Nuclear deterrence will play a Critical Role<\/a> in largescale conventional warfare between Nuclear Armed<\/a> states for the foreseeable future. U. S. Nuclear weapons assure and defend our allies against conventional and nuclear threats, furthering our nonproliferation goals and increasing Global Security<\/a>. The National Defense<\/a> strategy and Nuclear Posture<\/a> review align with the president s strategy. As i said earlier, no strategy can survive without the necessary stable, predictable funding. Failure to modernize our military leaves us with a force that can dominate the last war, but be irrelevant to tomorrows security. Lift theongress to defense spending caps and support the military of 700 billion for this year and 716 million for the next fiscal year. As hard as the last 16 years of war have been on our military, no enemy in the field has done as much to harm the u. S. Military than combined spending caps, worsened over the last 10 years over continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration. The budget control act was purposely designed to be so injurious that congress would pass budgets. It was never intended to be the solution. For too long, we asked our military to carry on stoically with a success at any cost attitude. Our troops worked tirelessly to accomplish every mission with increasingly inadequate resources, simply because congress has not maintained regular order. The fact that our volunteer military has performed so well is a credit to their dedication and professionalism. We expect the men and women of the military to be faithful in their service, even in going in harms way. We must also remain faithful to them. Chairman, as you said in january, if congress does not come together to find a way to fund this strategy, secretary mattis must explicitly inform congress and the American People<\/a> of the consequences of failure. The consequences of not providing a budget are clear. Even though we are protecting Ongoing Operations<\/a> from continuing resolution disruptions, each increment of funding and support of our partners in afghanistan, iraq, and syria, requires a 15 day congressional notification. My commanders in the field write to me for help in getting timely and predictable funds as they execute their strategy. Additionally, should we stumble into a yearlong continuing resolution, your military would not be able to provide pay for our troops by the end of the fiscal year, recruit the 15,000 soldiers and 4000 air force to fill critical shortfalls. We will maintain the balance between operations and time in port for maintenance. We will ground aircraft due to a lack in spare parts. We will deplete the ammunition, training, and manpower required to deter war and delay contracts or vital acquisition programs necessary to modernize the force. Further, i cannot overstate the impact to our troops morale from all this uncertainty. Today as i sit here, we are engaged in prudent planning in the pentagon for another disruptive Government Shutdown<\/a>. You know that i cannot care more defense thanntries this congress, for it is congress alone that has the Constitutional Authority<\/a> to raise and support armies and maintain a navy. We need congress back in the drivers seat, not in the spectator seats of the budget control act, indiscriminate and automatic cuts. In time of a major war, congress will provide our military with all that it needs. Money at a time of crisis fails to deter war. You know we would be at that point to have no time to prepare, as it takes months and years to produce the munitions, training, and readiness required to fight well. To carry out the strategy you rightly directed we develop, we need to pass a budget now. If we are to sustain our militarys primacy, we need budget predictability. Congress must take action to ensure our lethality defends our way of life, to preserve the promise of prosperity, and pass on the freedoms we enjoy to the next generation. I asked that you not let disagreements hold our defense hostage. The general now discuss the military National Defense<\/a> strategy or and our Nuclear Posture<\/a> review. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to join secretary mattis. General dunford and i along with the joint chiefs of staff fully support the strategies outlined. Both documents are the product of significant consultation and collaboration between members of the joint staff and the osd staff. The National Defense<\/a> strategy divides strategy, planning, and operations. Therefore, the chairmans 2016 classified strategy will require an update to maintain complete consistency with the National Defense<\/a> strategy and the president s National Security<\/a> strategy released in december. Immediately upon release, published last month, general dunford directed a revision. That process is underway. Other subsequent guidance and plans will be revised in turn to support the lines of effort outlined in the National Defense<\/a> strategy and to operationalize the concept of Dynamic Force<\/a> employment. Additionally, we have begun to refute the processes to determine if we need to make adjustments to support the global integrator responsibilities and to better position support the better position the chairman to support the echo carries decisionmaking process. Refining the organization and processes are a step toward requesting the joint force. In light of the reemergence of Great Power Competition<\/a>s. The Nuclear Posture<\/a> review reflects the realities of todays security environment as well as projecting the future environment and its potential impacts on u. S. Nuclear weapons policy and strategy. More specifically the nuclear , posture review pays attention to russian, chinese, and north korean activities to develop, modernize, and expand their Nuclear Capabilities<\/a> and to integrate them into their military strategies and doctrine. The Nuclear Posture<\/a> review takes into account the potential for irans capability to participate in the future. Our strategy must be tailored to each potential adversary. This will effectively comedic mitigate the cost of aggression. This tailored strategy requires that the u. S. Maintains a credible mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities. It should not be lost on this committee that the Nuclear Posture<\/a> review conducted its assessment across a 30 year swath of the future. It reaffirms as the bedrock of our ability to deter aggression, and hedge against an uncertain future. As the secretary has mentioned, it reaffirms the need to recapitalize each component of our legacy systems remained ready, secure, able, and credible now and into the future. Two supplemental capabilities recommended in the posture review include the modification of race small number of submarine launch Ballistic Missile<\/a> warheads would enhance deterrence by ensuring that no adversary can perceive an advantage through the use of a limited Nuclear Escalation<\/a> or other strategic attack. Fielding these capabilities will not lower the threshold at which u. S. Would employ Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, rather it will raise adversaries. Nuclear weapons pose the only existential military threat to our nation. Therefore, there is no higher priority for the joint force than fielding all of the components of an Effective Nuclear<\/a> deterrent to deter potential adversaries from Nuclear Attack<\/a> on any scale. It is important to note that the National Defense<\/a> strategy and the Nuclear Posture<\/a> review both make the assumption that the military will receive timely, predictable, and sufficient funding to execute these strategies. As general mattis has emphasized, we in uniform appreciate the support of this committee and the congress and we trust the congress will provide the funding needed to provide these into reality. Thank you for your time. We look forward to your questions. Thank you. We are going to have votes on the floor at about 11 30. The secretary and general silva were gracious to move this up to 9 30 to get in more times before the vote. But we will still not have time to get to everybody so we will do the best we can until we have votes. We will break and go to the floor and then we will reconvene after votes in a closed, classified session so that we can get further details about the National Security<\/a> strategy. Secretary still has to be over in the senate later today. But i think that is the best combination of things to give us the most useful information in both public and in a classified session. Mr. Secretary, i was sitting here thinking i believe the statement you just gave is the clearest, most direct, bluntest statement i have heard about any from any administration witness about the importance of congress doing its job and in a way that mr. Smith and i have both talked about in our opening statements. You were very clear about crs and the damage they do to the military. Later today the house will vote on an appropriation bill for the department of defense for the rest of the fiscal year. It is consistent with about 700 billion of total spending for our National Defense<\/a> account. My question to you is, is that bill, that level of funding, consistent with the National Defense<\/a> strategy that you have talked about today . If for whatever reason that level of resources does not happen, what does that do to the strategy . Chairman that is sufficient. , i would tell you that with it we can restore the competitive advantage or begin down the trail for restoring the competitive advantage that has been eroded. I would tell you additionally that without it we will be put into the position where if the strategy would have to be changed, we would have to accept greater risk, especially in terms of deterring adversaries who might think that we are weaker because they can register where our readiness is being eroded. Ok. Let me ask one other thing in the interest of time so we can get to other members. When you assumed this office, there was speculation perhaps that you were a skeptic on some aspects of our Nuclear Triad<\/a>, our Nuclear Deterrence<\/a>. You spent a year looking through the Nuclear Posture<\/a> review. Is the result of the study that you in the department has put into us. Can you just tell us what, as you have looked at our Nuclear Deterrence<\/a>, how has your thinking evolved . I dont know if you want to say if you were a skeptic or not, but it looks like there was a change or at least some evolution. Why . Sec. Mattis i think that is a fair statement. I was confident that when i received the waiver from the house and senate to go into this job that you expected me to exercise my judgment. I came in wanting to challenge just about everything. I wanted it to be proven to me that we needed to spend every cent. That if we had a troop in harms way it was for the American People<\/a>. In this case, i looked at the triad piece by piece and the elements of each leg of the triad. I was especially attentive to the intercontinental Ballistic Missile<\/a> force. After talking with a lot of people and visiting the missile fields, and doing a lot of study, i believe it is a stabilizing element that would be a strong deterrent to anyone who decided they wanted to employ Nuclear Weapons<\/a> against us. There was another Weapon System<\/a> that i was concerned could be destabilizing, and air launched Cruise Missile<\/a>. A Cruise Missile<\/a> you can see over here on the charge. Clearly russia does not consider that destabilizing. Look at the number they have developed and fielded. As i put together how do we keep us in a position where this is a Nuclear Deterrent<\/a> it has got to , have those capabilities to be most persuasive. Deterrence is in the eye of the adversary. That was the journey i embarked on. It was a little rough on the staff and those who came in promoting it at first. But i think they were compelling by the time we were done. Sen. Thornberry thank you. Mr. Smith . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think you are quite correct that we entered a era where great power rivalry is back on the table. China and russia have become more active in a variety of different ways. What disturbs me about the direction of this conversation is that i dont believe great power rivalry equals endless arms race. Basically whenever you great power rivalry all that is , involved is military power. You have to build as much as you can build a guilt as much as they can build and it goes up and up and up and up. Would you agree, mr. Secretary, that there are other important elements of dealing with great power rivalry, starting for instance with the state department, with diplomacy . With the idea that dialogue between adversaries is important . Sec. Mattis i would agree 100 and i would point out we are not developing nuclear torpedoes. Our nation is quite capable of developing new weapons and unlike russia, for example, we have chosen not to do that to give opportunity but the point is deterrence is also your diplomatic stance. Deterrence is dialogue. This is what concerns me. Yes we have to be able to do to , to deter russia and china from moving forward, but part of the wiki deter them is the have a dialogue. Do what Ronald Reagan<\/a> did with gorbachev. Not just arms reduction, but an open discussion so that you dont miscalculate. A lot of what we are building and do here is we are assuming the russians if we dont have low yield Nuclear Weapons<\/a> the russians will think they can get away with a low yield strike. Part of the way you dont think that if you let them know. You have a dialogue. Im very concerned right now that we dont have much in the way of a dialogue with russia or china. We did get something in the dod bill that would mandate that, but we mandate in a lot of things that the executive branch does not do. On a larger point, essentially what we are presented with, but the chairman has presented us with is cutting taxes massively. We have done that. Then we have to find defense now we will have a massive increase in defense. You will gut Everything Else<\/a>. Lets forget infrastructure, education, things that are also important to actually having a just and prosperous society. Defense is important, but if you gut Everything Else<\/a> you create problems. Lets focus on security. Italy passed the budget the republicans want to put before us today the state department , will continue to be destroyed. As we all know, career and diplomats are leaving. There have been massive cuts in their budget and now we are proposing no budget for the state department. We will give them a cr. They will not pay any attention to that whatsoever. It becomes a selffulfilling prophecy. How do we know we have to build massive weapons to deter russia and china . Well, we are not talking to them, so we must presume the worst. We will give up on diplomacy and simply focus on having as many weapons as humanly possible to make sure they are deterred. Dialogue is incredibly important. Not just dialogue with russia and china. We need allies. If we are in a great power rivalry in this world with both russia and china, even our massive debt and chinas economic might, that will be a tough hill to climb. The kindle a 1 trillion military and it will be hard to match that. We need allies. We need friends. There are a lot of possibilities. Korea,vietnam, south japan. We still dont even have an ambassador to south korea. We are degrading diplomacy at an incredibly rapid. We are also degrading development, which i think is an important part of it. We talk about all that stuff on the chart over there that china is doing, one of the biggest china is doing is spending a ton of money all across the world to try to curry favor with countries and also build their own economic might. They are doing it in an incredibly crass and terrible way because they dont care what the government does. They will not pull money out of a country because of a human rights violation. They dont care where it they are doing it and we are pulling back. This budget is being proposed, guts developement. It is part of the nondefense discretionary budget. It will be gutted by this approach. We will leave it in the wind in the cr because defense takes priority, we do nothing else. The Justice Department<\/a> has played an enormous role in stopping terrorist attacks and also bringing to justice those who have committed them. It too gets gutted by this budget. I always bristle a little bit when i hear, how can we hold the fence hostage to domestic political priorities, as if they were some kind of luxury that we engage in for fun and enjoyment and are not really important. All of those things are important. The state department is really important. In fact, i think it was your predecessor who said if you are i think it was you who said if you are going to cut the state department you had better give me five more divisions. Because that is what i will need to defend this country or is it was either you or general done for, i apologize general dunford. I apologize. To sit here and say we will spend money on defense because it would be wrong to prioritize other things, it is patently absurd and insulting. Defense is incredibly important. It is not the only thing important in keeping the peace. This is more a speech that i question. But i think it is important. You have to recruit there are other things important than keeping the peace. If we do what is being proposed, we say they dont matter. Department of justice does not matter. The state department of the matter. None of that matters. Doesnt that make your job vastly more difficult . That was a question. Sec. Mattis congressman smith, i take no issue with the fact that we need to have regular order across all government expenditures. Unfortunately, right now what we are doing is creating security vulnerabilities that can no longer be denied. One look at the chart and you he where we are at. We cannot do do starts or get into cyber section. We do not have the ability to do so under a continuing resolution. Nine of the last 10 years. I dont think there is anything contradictory in the way you and i look at this right now. Secretary tillerson and i have a very close working relationship. Our military operations are wrapped firmly inside our foreign policy. The president has directed secretary tillerson and i to find ways to engage on nonproliferation. Right now we have constant communications with the russians in whatever call operational matters. Counterterrorism. North korea. But some of these are on pretty big issues. I agree that we need more communication with russia, with china, along the level of a philosophical engagement and operational matters. I dont think it is anything at all illadvised about making protector of the countries but for most of the country can do all the other things you are referring to. Foremost is ok. Only, exclusively, while ignoring Everything Else<\/a>, not ok. That is what we are about to do this afternoon. The only contradictory thing is to completely ignore the rest of the budget. Massively cut taxes and fund defense. And i he provided for security for the country. But other people have got to get in. I have made my point. I appreciate you answering the question. I yield back. Sen. Thornberry just for the record, i hope we get a complete budget agreement for all aspects of the government. We can do that. And we should. Mr. Jones. Rep. Jones thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to talk about the graveyard of empires. I think that is what they say about afghanistan. The history of afghanistan. Mr. Secretary a few headlines , from the last two weeks. Kabul attacks. While are we still shutting our soldiers blood for pedophiles. The full extent of child Sexual Assault<\/a> committed by Afghan Security<\/a> forces may never be known. Another heading. The taliban is gaining strength and territory in afghanistan. Another headline. Taliban threatens 70 of afghanistan. Last headline. Pentagon blocks release of key data on afghan war. The pentagon has restricted the release of critical information on the progress being made in the war in afghanistan, a move that will limit transparency. In your prepared remarks, you very kindly said we need to build the trust of the American People<\/a>. How can we build the trust of the American People<\/a> after 16 years, over 2300 americans killed, over 20,000 wounded. And we spent 1 trillion. I dont have to add to mr. Smiths comment. But this country is headed for bankruptcy. Mr. Trump campaigned. I have 30 of his comments and tweets. He was opposed to being in afghanistan. He wanted to pull out. He was very critical of those who wanted to stay. We are now increasing the number of our troops in afghanistan and after 16 years, the American People<\/a> have a right to know of these excesses. Some of that im sure is classified under information which i can understand. , but i also note that we are not getting the kind of information that we need to get to know what is success that we are having. And after 16 years, i do not think we are having any success. I would love to have a classified hearing. That they have it couple of hours if you would be able to tell us of some benchmarks that we have made after 16 years. A friend of yours is a friend of mine, former, that of the marine corps commandant of the marine corps. He has been my unofficial advisor on afghanistan for five years. Previous secretary of defense have gotten questions he asked me to ask during hearings like this one. Not today did i get that from him. But three or four months ago, when you talked about increasing the number of troops in afghanistan, he sent me a five paragraph email. I am only going to read one sentence. That i want to ask you a question. No one has ever conquered afghanistan and many have tried. We will join the list of nations that have tried and failed. Mr. Secretary, how can we, with this budget situation we have got and an economic collapse in this country, how can we continue to go on a policy after 16 years when the secretary of defense that follows you and the congressman that follows me or congresswoman if we are still talking about afghanistan in the future and nothing is changing . I think there has got to be a time that you would say to President Trump<\/a> we have done all we can do. Blood and treasure is lost and we have nothing to show that we have gained except we still have trouble with the leaders of afghanistan having sex with little boys. Give me a Quick Response<\/a> if you can. Sec. Mattis congressman, if we were engaged in conquering afghanistan, i would agree 100 with what you just stated here if that was our sense of empire. In fact, what we are doing to earn the trust of the American People<\/a> is to ensure another 9 11 hatched out of their does not happen during our watch. Further, the strategy we put together, and President Trump<\/a> challenged every assumption it took months to put it together to answer every question he had and the gravity of protecting the American People<\/a> caused him to change his mind based on what the Intelligence Services<\/a> told him was the vulnerability we would have if we pulled out of there. That strategy did permit a more regional approach. It has been embraced by nations as diverse as those in nato and india. We have now declined 39 nations fighting in the campaign from 50 years ago. It has gone now to 41. They are there because they believe in the strategy, which means the afghan boys continue to carry the load for the fighting. But now, with advisers that bring the nato air support and fire support to bare to help them. The taliban have not made their pitch to the Afghan People<\/a> in a positive way by murdering innocent people. They are not incurring the support of the Afghan People<\/a> whereas nato does have thats , that support. It has been a long, hard slog. I recognize that. I would also tell you that any attempt to keep information from the American People<\/a>, it was a nato decision at that point. It was a mistake, i might add. That information is now available. A number of those headlines are selected by their editors in order to make the storyline they have. We believe that the regionalized strategy will draw even more allies and it puts the enemy on a path toward accepting reconciliation. We are not out to conquer it. The gentlemans time has expired. I just mentioned to members, you can ask whatever you want to, but if you ask a question for four minutes, and leave the secretary time to answer, i will not cut him off. Ms. Davis. Rep. Davis thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both of you for being here this morning. I would like to associate with myself with the rankings members comments regarding the government approach that is so critical. I know that secretary mattis, you have mentioned that we must negotiate from a position of strength so that our military capability should be clear and send that message, but at the same time, we know how long it takes to develop high ranking officers who can provide our country with the best of advice. We must have that same timeline for the state department and for those individuals to negotiate whether it is in commerce or whatever realm it is. I wanted to just go to the issue of lowering the threshold in terms of Nuclear Capability<\/a>. There is a question whether or not the Nuclear Posture<\/a> review is clear on what it considers to be lowering the threshold versus some of the comments that general silva made. That it is possible to modernize Nuclear Capability<\/a> and at the same time lower that threshold as it is perceived by our adversaries. Can you speak to that more . I think we are all concerned about the russian doctrine of escalating to deescalate. Where are we and how can we make that clear to the American People<\/a> . Sec. Mattis i think part of it can be addressed through the continuity of our Nuclear Deterrent<\/a>. Again, i never say nuclear Nuclear Deterrent<\/a>. How we manage it and how we talk about it. If you look at the 2010 Nuclear Posture<\/a> review in which it said we would only use Nuclear Weapon<\/a> in extreme circumstance, i would refer to 2018 where we say in the most extreme circumstances would we use those weapons. You see the continuity between two different administrations and political parties. In regards to the lower yield weapon, it is to make certain that no one thinks that they could use a low yield weapon and put us in a position where we could only respond with a high yield weapon with the supposition that maybe we would not. We can say well we know we would, but what matters in deterrence is what does the adversary think . In this regard, deterrence is dynamic and we must recognize that todays deterrent must keep pace with the thinking of todays adversaries or competitors. Rep. Jones could you respond to the belief that a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> is a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> . No matter the size, it would will signal that we are using Nuclear Weapon<\/a>. And perhaps even changing the rules of the game. Sec. Mattis i would agree. I dont think there is any such thing as a tactical Nuclear Weapon<\/a>. Any Nuclear Weapon<\/a> used is a strategic game changer. That said, we do not want someone else to miscalculate and think that because they are you a that they are going to use a low yield weapon that they would confront surrender or suicide. That we do not want even an inch of daylight to appear in how we look at the Nuclear Deterrent<\/a>. It is a Nuclear Deterrent<\/a> and must be considered credible. Rep. Jones thank you. General silva as well, looking at that nuclear modernization, 700 billion. 1. 5 trillion. Is that something that given the whole scope in terms of our Defense Budget<\/a> that makes sense today . Gen. Silva my response is yes, it does make sense. It makes sense in the context that we are talking across a 40 year time span. The cost of about 700 million to modernize the three legs of the triad to make available to future secretaries of defense and commanders in chief. A credible, secure, reliable, Nuclear Triad<\/a> that allows those individuals 20 or 30 years into the future to be able to tailor strategic responses as well as support the possibility of negotiating away entire types of classes of weapons. That process will have to continue over a long time span. The arsenal and weapons we have today are ready, secure, and credible. They must be modernized over the span of time to keep those options available to our commanders in chief. Rep. Jones thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Rep. Wilson thank you so much for your service and being here today. I especially appreciate what you are doing as a veteran, myself. Particularly as the grateful dead. Ive had four sons and a nephew serve overseas in iraq, afghanistan, egypt army, navy, air force. I am very grateful for your service and leadership. It is so reassuring as a military parent. Secretary mattis, your unusual Nuclear Posture<\/a> review recommends two supplemental capabilities. First, low yield submarine. Second, ac launched Cruise Missile<\/a>. Why are these needed for deterrence and assurance and following on that, some are arguing that they lower the threshold for the u. S. To use Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Do you believe the addition of these capabilities is an increase or decrease in likelihood of a nuclear war . Another angle. Why should we need a low yield slbm when we already have a low yield Nuclear Gravity<\/a> bomb. Are these capabilities redundant . Sec. Mattis congressman, i dont believe it lowers the threshold at all. What it does is makes very clear that we have a deterrent. If the russians choose to carry out what some of their people have promoted which would be to employ a low yield Nuclear Weapon<\/a> in a conventional fight in order to escalate to deescalate. In other words, to escalate to victory and then deescalate. We want to make sure they recognize we can respond in kind. We dont have to go with a high yield weapon. Thus the deterrent stays primary. It is not to in any way lower the threshold. On the sea launch Cruise Missile<\/a> as you know we have an ongoing , issue with russias violation of the inf. I want to make certain that our negotiators have something to negotiate with. That we want russia back into compliance. We do not want to forgo the inf. But at the same time, we have options if russia continues to go down this path. The idea, once again to keep our negotiators negotiating from a position of strength. I dont believe you can go into negotiation and try to get something for nothing. I dont think the russians would be willing to give up something to gain nothing from us in terms of reduction. Rep. Wilson well if there is any negotiation i have faith in your capabilities. We look forward to working with you. Another issue that is so important and, mr. Secretary needs to be restated. That you referenced it in your opening statement. Is there any stronger indication of congress resolved . There is not, congressman. The u. S. Congress speaks for American People<\/a>. Messageing and sobering that this democracy will stand up for itself. That chairman thornberry has been leading on, to address our readiness issue. Can you tell if congress does not do its part to turn this crisis around, can we expect to see further impacts to the military and should we anticipate more accidents, tragic accidents as we saw in the pacific this year with the fitzgerald and mccain . Sec. Mattis congressman, we are doing Everything Possible<\/a> to avoid repeats of those accidents. However, there are a number of areas where, when time is lost if you have pilots who are not taking in their flying time now, five years from now when they are majors or a label not or lieutenant colonels, they will not have the level of expertise we would expect because they did not get the opportunity that they lost during continuing resolutions or during budget shutdowns or governmental shutdowns. It impacts us. It is not like we maintain even the status quo if we go into one of these situations yet again. We lose ground and i could go on for a number of examples in all the forces. Thank both of you for your service. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank you your service. I also want to associate myself with the comments of the ranking member. When it comes to taking a whole government approach to funding our National Security<\/a> priorities. But i want to turn to another aspect of security challenges that face is our country today. That faces our country today. Mr. Secretary, it is an accepted fact that our planets climate is changing. You have acknowledged this yourself to our committee and you have shown leadership in this regard as your confirmation hearing that you will and i quote, ensure that the department continues to be prepared to conduct operations today and in the future and that we are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat assessment resources and readiness. I want to commend you for those statements. However, both the president s National Security<\/a> strategy and the departments National Defense<\/a> strategy theyll to note Climate Change<\/a> as a threats. I am perplexed by that and, certainly ask why was that omitted, but as these changes occur, how will you ensure the department is prepared to respond . What steps will the department take to mitigate the challenges of a changing land and sea skate to ensure americas emission seascape to ensure americas emission resiliency . Sec. Mattis on a military level, every base we have has what we call extreme weather plans. We acknowledge any type of environmental impacts from the weather. Whether it is draining systems or whatever we need to keep the base operating. Airfield, seaport, marshall in bases for deployment. This is a normal part of what the military does. Under any strategy, it is part and parcel. I find it perplexing that it was left out of the National Defense<\/a> strategy. General silva, let me turn to part of your testimony. You say Nuclear Weapons<\/a> boast the only existential military threat to our nation. I would add Cyber Weapons<\/a> as also posing and existential and asymmetric threat to our nation as well. In your assessment, both you and the secretary, how well resourced and trained our forces are our forces to deal with threats of Cyber Security<\/a> . Gen. Silva congressman, we have established the u. S. Cyber command as the work for the military networks that we operate on. In order be in order to be able to defend the nation. Cybercrime and consultation with the National Security<\/a> withistration provides security and infrastructures around the country. My point in saying that Nuclear Weapons<\/a> represent the only military existential threat is that they would be used uniquely for military purposes. There is no question. It would cause us to capitulate or surrender in the face of a military threat. Cyber is an asymmetric capability and this nation has vulnerabilities in Critical Infrastructure<\/a> and civilian infrastructure. We will continue to do the work of normalizing our ability to defend those and provide the advice we can from the nsa as well as doj and the apartment of department of Homeland Security<\/a> to defend those networks. Do you feel our training is meeting its expectations as to where we need to be at this time to deal with our cyber challenges . Gen. Silva collaboration between the military and department of Homeland Security<\/a> and nsa to defend national networks. The training is as good as we can possibly make it and we are reacting to the threats we can see. The National Defense<\/a> strategy states that interstates cap competition rather than terrorism is the primary National Security<\/a> concern. It is also eroding competitive military advantage. While i agree that we must increase our military edge in the event of conflict, today our competitors are launching political, economic, information , and Cyber Operations<\/a> targeting us. Where do you believe we are in respect to these activities that do not rise to the level of conflict. How should we increase our proficiencies . Gen. Silva it is a great question sir, because this is what i was alluding to when i mentioned that we have the potential to enlarge the competitive space. It is right into the areas you are talking about. We have to remember we are a revolutionary pact, this country. The kind of democracy we stand for. You can practice all the predatory economics you want. You can send your military into syria to prop up if you wish to. But we have areas of diplomacy, education, that go far beyond what other nations can reach back and find strength in. We can use that to build modern partnerships. Not abandon nato for example but expand to a broader array of partners who do not want to be made tribute states to someone elses economic or political system. Thank you both. Thank you both for being here. Thank you for your strong statements here today. I have two yous and a question. To thank use our, one thank you for your strong statements on the budget. I voted against the budget control act because i believe that sequestration would be damaging to our military and that it would happen. Certainly, everyone in this committee has fought since it has been implemented to try to lift that burden on our military. Your strong words are important to let people know the effects of that. It is sad that in your comments you have a whole section on the impact of congressional in action. The house has not really been inactive. We passed a budget. The National Defense<\/a> authorization act. We have passed Appropriations Bills<\/a> three times. We are dealing with a handful of those in the senate who are causing in action. I certainly call the democratic leadership to dislodge the defense funding. Because of the damage that is occurring by connecting defense to other items. Secondly, thank you for your strong words and the nuclear review. We are coming off the 2010 obama review that assigned dod the responsibility of reducing the weapons and nuclear National Security<\/a> strategy while giving the responsibility to modernize. It is hard to reduce and at the same time modernize. Your chart is important as it certainly on the right shows that those who say we need to reduce our Nuclear Weapons<\/a> because others will follow is folly. Our reducing our Nuclear Weapons<\/a> does not result in anyone else doing so. It is not based on reality or history. On the bottom right of your launch is ony air paper. That is not an accomplished capability. To my question, you have indicated that the inf treaty was violated by russia. We are continuing a dialogue. We also know that they violated the territory treaty with ukraine. They have violated the open skies treaty. How do we approach their violation in dialogue when they show no indication that treaties even matter . Sec. Mattis sir, i have had extensive discussions with our nato allies and the secretarygeneral at nato on this issue. I have made clear that our approach is that we do not want to withdraw from inf. We are going to have to see effort by russia to get in line with it. This state department is engaged on this with the russians as we speak right now. Also, we are going to stay inside the inf compliance requirements. Were going to do research and development of an alternative weapon that should put russia in a position to see the value to returning to an inf compliance. I will yield to mr. Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher thank you for your hard work on the National Defense<\/a> strategy. Particularly focused on Great Power Competition<\/a>. As we type we try to revolutionize it, i am worried about where we may have to shift to competitors. You recently and 4 endorsed the Foreign Investment<\/a> risk review modernization act. You have talked about chinas pursuit of veto authority. Why in your view is this legislation and a hard look needed . Sec. Mattis we have made keen observations of the amount of intellectual property that has been basically under industrial espionage. It has been rifled through in our country and expo traded. Expo traded. It is time we look at the most critical National Security<\/a> industries that may not be covered under the current act that we need to broaden and deepen the protections for this advantage that we have available . Whether it be silicon valley, seattle, or elsewhere. General silva, what advice do you have on our ability to protect dods supply chain in our Industrial Base<\/a> given current tools practice. Gen. Silva the supply chain in the Industrial Base<\/a> speed speak directly to the timeliness of actions in our ability to control who invests in those key capabilities. They allow us to supply, train, and deploy military forces so the notion that we would not Pay Attention<\/a> to who is investing in the companies that allow us to move and mobilize our force is folly. The refinement and renewal of the powers within the capabilities to determine who is doing that investing and for what reason put us in a position of being able to understand the potential vulnerabilities of those investments. Thank you both, my time has expired. Mr. Larson in the response to a question earlier, you said that we need to slip them in the sl bm to have the stand up for to have democracy stand up for itself. You are not suggesting that if any of us dont support the one development of that we are not standing up for democracy . Sec. Mattis that would never be the way i characterize someone. Mr. Larson you also argued that in the Nuclear Posture<\/a> review it provides a bargaining chip in dealing with inf treaty violations. Is that correct . Sec. Mattis thats correct. Mr. Larson is it a logical extension then that if we saw a change in russian behavior the administration would stop the development of either one or both . Sec. Mattis i dont want to say in advance of a negotiation and undercut our negotiators position what we would or would not do. The point i would make is that deterrence is dynamic. We have to deal with it as it stands today. As we see it on the chart and in that regard, i believe that we have to get our negotiator give our negotiator something with which to negotiate. Have anyn do you indication there would be a change in russian behavior . Sec. Mattis i can only tell you that we go into this with capabilities to make certain the russians understand that we have a capability a deterrent capability and based on not just the two nations, but the broader deterrent portfolio as well. Mr. Larson does the u. S. Currently have the ability to deliver a Nuclear Response<\/a> without this investment . Do we have the ability without this investment . Sec. Mattis are you referring to a sea launched Cruise Missile<\/a> . Mr. Larson time talking about a talking about a strategic nonNuclear Response<\/a>. Sec. Mattis i would be cautious about saying any Nuclear Weapon<\/a> is not strategic. If you mean a low yield, yes we do. Mr. Larson what is the difference between that capability and a sea launch. Sec. Mattis the gravity bomb that is low yield means the bomber would have to penetrate. But today, air Defense Systems<\/a> are altogether different than 10 or 20 years ago. Mr. Larson is this the is there any investment going on in counter to deal with this . Is this the development of the new capabilities the only solution . Sec. Mattis no, sir. We are certainly working on air defense penetration capability. Again, we have to deal with where we are today. We are working on the issue. Mr. Larson its kind of where we are at question. It is something im not going to bore you with and details. We will get to it in subcommittee hearings. The cbo estimate of 1. 2 trillion over 30 years, which the department would say is only 6. 4 of the budget, when it was higher in the past. I dont know if that means the rest of the Defense Budget<\/a> is out of control, or the fact that we dont have an accounting of what the 1. 2 trillion is. We are now looking at an npr that presumes Additional Development<\/a> of capabilities, which i presume would be on top of this current cbo estimate. You can address that briefly, but we are going to have plenty of time over the next couple months to explore that. The money question. Which is a big concern of all of our spirit can you tell us about of all of ours. Can you tell us about the assurance since Nuclear Deterrence<\/a> is an assurance of allies. The assurance of new low yield Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Any response from our specifically our nato allies at this point . Sec. Mattis sir, we engaged in extensive consultation with our nato allies. I was on the phone this morning with one of my counterparts. She expressed a deep appreciation of her country for the amount of collaboration that went into the Nuclear Posture<\/a> review. Right now, the deterrence posture we have and we have outlined in the review has gained a great deal of support from our allies. Mr. Larson i get thanks for collaboration all the time and then people work against me. Has nato then yet taken a position and i will follow up later. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers the last Nuclear Posture<\/a> review published eight years ago said russia is not an enemy and is increasingly a partner. At that time there were many of us that did not believe that statement. We certainly dont today. Russia continues to brazenly violate the inf treaty. Continues to conduct Dangerous Nuclear<\/a> exercises against the u. S. , nato allies and partners. It continues a military occupation. China clearly demands being a and globaltekeeper influence. With that backdrop, secretary mattis, how would you characterize the changes weve seen in Global Security<\/a> environment since the 2010 npr and why do these changes matter, and how is your npr adapting . Sec. Mattis i believe what we have seen is that russia and china, from ukraine and mucking around in the elections in the case of russia, to chinas militarization. We have seen them choose to become strategic competitors with us where a one time we had hoped would be some level of partnership. Mr. Rogers do you believe the 6 or 7 of the Defense Budget<\/a> were devoting to Nuclear Enterprise<\/a> is an adequate level of spending to do our nations to fund our nations number one priority . Sec. Mattis i do believe it is and i would point out that it is around 3. 5 for many years 6. 7 at its6. 5 or top percentage in 2029. At that point, it would go into a more measured maintenance of what we have built in the columbia class and this sort of thing. Mr. Rogers thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and general silva, thank you for your testimony. In the National Defense<\/a> strategy you noted we are a resilient joint force in regards to our Forward Deployed<\/a> services. Forces. I am concerned regarding the u. S. Navys ability to remain resilient during conflict with a year adversary. Here adversary. Specifically, with ship repair capability in the pacific. In the fleet comprehensive review, the navy identified capacity issues. At the ship repair facility in japan. Section 1047 requires the secretary of the navy to submit a report on the ship maintenance capability and the western in the western pacific. It further requires the secretary of defense to certify to congressional defense committees whether or not the current shape ship depot maintenance capability and capacity including drydocks, are sufficient to meet both peacetime and contingency requirements. So, my question is where is the department in terms of meeting these requirements and how are you going about determining if there is sufficient capability and capacity . Sec. Mattis congresswoman, where we are at right now is we are examining the sufficiency of it in terms of raw capacity, the anticipated need if we go into conflict, and the distribution over a number of locations for obvious reasons. Right now, we are still in the assessment. We obviously know what we have right now. But whether it is sufficient for the future is where we are concentrating the study. I will make certain that the secretary of the navy follows up with this as we get more mature in our output. Thank you, mr. Secretary. The next question i have is that the people of guam are proud to host the continued bomber presence. With the recent addition of the b2 and b52 commerce. Btwo and b52 bombers. Considering the bomber presence and as the westernmost territory of the u. S. , guam holds vital strategic aces. I am happy to see that the army aid in its defense. However, in your strategy, you call for investment on layered Missile Defense<\/a> from north korean threats. Considering our strategic importance, is guam adequately defended from theater missile threats and how do you intend to bolster these Defense Systems<\/a> in the future . Sec. Mattis we will continue bolstering them to keep pace with the threat out of north korea as you know. Besides that system we keep the Ballistic Missile<\/a> defense u. S. Navy warship in the waters out there and we can always reinforce that. We also have several of those ships in japanese waters. They can move back and forth to include coverage of one. They can move back and forth to include coverage of guam. We are looking at all the systems to include a sure as we look to the protection of our pacific area. Thank you, mr. Secretary. I think weve talked about this. Keep guam in a secure position. Keep the bombers and Everything Else<\/a> you have therefore a wild. While. I thank you again. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Votes have come early. We do not have time to get to two more members in. As soon as votes are completed on the floor, we will come back up be in classified session in 2212. At this point, the open hearing is adjourned. [captions Copyright National<\/a> cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National<\/a> cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [indiscernible conversations] [indiscernible conversations] this weekend on American History<\/a> tv on cspan3. From the west point center for oral history, Kenneth Carlsen<\/a> talks about growing up in a military family and his service in vietnam. This bunker had a viewpoint where you could see what was going on over the combat base. We were watching the rockets coming in. Miss arkansas and mr. Z are there miss new jersey are there. Miss arkansas said that looks like the fourth of july. I said no, people are dying when those land. That doesnt happen on the fourth of july. She started crying. At 4 00 p. M. On real america. We are featuring two films, the 1953 film rebirth of so, korea, and the film on the eighth Winter Olympics<\/a> in california. States team is causing plenty of unexpected excitement. They were pregame underdogs. Now they have upset all predictions by winning this game. Their play earning them the first gold medal ever one by a u. S. Team in hockey. At 8 00 p. M. Eastern on the presidency, scholars explore the relationships between president Ronald Reagan<\/a>, george h. W. Bush, and Mikael Gorbachev<\/a> during the end of the cold war. When you look back at 1989, when bush comes in. Then you look at bush and gorbachev in 90 and 91. From gorbachevs point of view, bush is not measuring up to what reagan had been. Watch American History<\/a> tv every weekend on cspan3. Tuesday morning, we are live in little rock, arkansas with the next stop on the cspan 50 capitals tour. Eastern. At 9 00 a. M. Week,the house floor this Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi<\/a> used her unlimited time as leader to discuss immigration policy and the need for legislation that would address socalled dreamers. According to the house historian, her speech was the longest ever uninterrupted speech on the house floor. It lasted more than eight hours. Here is a halfhour portion. Alternatives. This is yet another attempt to stack the deck further against working families. Mr. Speaker, this debate is an utter waste of time. Every decor rageous patriotic dreamers lose their status. Every day the American Dream<\/a> slips further out of reach. As members of congress, we have a moral responsibility to act now to protect dreamers who are the pride of our nation and are american in every day but on paper. I use this occasion as opposing","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia903101.us.archive.org\/0\/items\/CSPAN_20180210_182400_Defense_Secretary_Mattis_on_National_Defense_Strategy__Nuclear_Posture\/CSPAN_20180210_182400_Defense_Secretary_Mattis_on_National_Defense_Strategy__Nuclear_Posture.thumbs\/CSPAN_20180210_182400_Defense_Secretary_Mattis_on_National_Defense_Strategy__Nuclear_Posture_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240630T12:35:10+00:00"}