[Senate Hearing 115-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:32 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Shelby, Alexander, Collins,
Murkowski, Graham, Blunt, Daines, Moran, Durbin, Leahy,
Feinstein, Murray, Reed, Tester, Udall, Schatz, and Baldwin.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary of Defense
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES N. MATTIS, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID NORQUIST, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
opening statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. The committee will please come to order.
This morning, I want to begin by acknowledging the sad
incident in Alexandria, Virginia, and to commend the service of
the U.S. Capitol Police. Our thoughts are with those who were
injured, and hope for their speedy, full recovery.
Today, we are here to receive the testimony for the budget
request submitted by the Department of Defense to Congress for
the next fiscal year.
We are pleased to have with us today the Honorable James N.
Mattis, Secretary of Defense, General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We are very pleased with
their attendance and for providing us with our needs for
reviewing the budget request.
We are pleased to have Secretary Mattis and Chairman
Dunford here for their second appearance before the
subcommittee this year. We thank you for your distinguished
service and your commitment to the defense of our Nation. We
thank you for your commitment to the safety and security of our
Nation.
We look forward to receiving and considering the budget
request formally from the Department of Defense, for our
distinguished group of staff members who help us review this
and do the work under this subcommittee's jurisdiction and our
full committee's jurisdiction.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thad Cochran
The subcommittee will please come to order. I want to begin today
by acknowledging the sad incident this morning in Alexandria, Virginia,
and to commend the service of the U.S. Capitol Police. Our thoughts are
with those who were injured, and hope for their speedy and full
recovery.
Today we will receive testimony for the budget request submitted by
the Department of Defense to Congress for the 2018 fiscal year. We are
pleased to have with us today the Honorable James N. Mattis, Secretary
of Defense, and General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
We are very pleased with their attendance and for providing us with
our needs to review the budget request. This is their second appearance
before the subcommittee this year. We thank you for your distinguished
service and your commitment to the defense and security of our Nation.
We look forward to hearing more about the budget request for the
Department of Defense. The committee needs to respond to this request
in a responsible way to ensure the military is prepared to meet current
and future threats.
Senator Cochran. So we are pleased to begin our review of
the request by hearing directly from the Vice Chairman. Vice
Chairman Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, is not with us yet.
We will give Senator Leahy the honor of making whatever remarks
that he would like at this opening statement time.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will put my full remarks in the record, but I know that
it is important that Secretary Mattis and General Dunford are
here. They are both men of integrity. I have known them for
years. We will benefit from their expertise and candor.
Also, I realize we cannot maintain the strongest military
at the expense of our domestic priorities. It is not an either/
or thing, because it makes us neither safe, nor strong, nor
great. Our national security is not limited to just the
activities of the Department of Defense.
Secretary Mattis, you said, historically, nations that did
not keep their fiscal house in order, their economy strong,
lose their military power. We have to decide how to do that. I
agree with your conclusion.
But I do not think that we can set up a budget that says it
is either/or. We have to look at both. We talk about parity for
defense and nondefense spending. They are intrinsically linked.
We cannot be both militarily strong but economically weak.
So I will work with the Chairman in my capacity as Vice
Chairman to see what we can do to have bills that do that.
I just state, as a personal note, I do not want to
embarrass General Dunford, but, in Vermont, we were very
pleased to have the General come to St. Michael's College where
he got his undergraduate degree before he got his graduate
degree at Georgetown. He was the graduation speaker. I was
there, even though I think I graduated decades before he was
born.
But the welcoming, Mr. Secretary, the welcoming that you
saw for General Dunford from all across the political spectrum,
military, non-military alike, was tremendous. It made the
Marines proud. It made the Department of Defense proud.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Thank you, Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Durbin, for the
opportunity to make these brief remarks. Welcome to Secretary Mattis
and General Dunford. This Committee benefits from your expertise and
your candor.
It has been almost 3 months since you last testified before this
Committee, and there has been no shortage of world events in that short
time. American missiles have targeted and struck Syrian forces. A
massive ransomware cyberattack spread around the globe. North Korea has
tested new missiles. The United States withdrew from the Paris Climate
Accords joining just Syria and Nicaragua as the only nations not
joining the international community to combat a global threat. And mind
you Nicaragua stayed out of the agreement because it didn't think those
accords went far enough. These are just a few of the biggest recent
headlines.
In this chaotic world, this President--with his minimal experience
in government, foreign affairs and defense policy--adds to that chaos.
I know that you both provide steady voices as we debate our military
policy and spending priorities. But as we have discussed previously, I
know that you both share my belief that we cannot maintain the
strongest military at the expense of our domestic priorities. This
makes us neither safe, nor strong, nor great. And our national security
is not limited to the activities of the Department of Defense.
Secretary Mattis, you have testified before Congress that ``If you [the
Congress] don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy
more ammunition.'' Yet, the President proposes to cut foreign
assistance by 30 percent.
Secretary Mattis, the President's budget proposal may provide money
for more bullets, but it fails in every other regard. It cuts housing
assistance for low income and disabled Americans. It cuts support for
State and local law enforcement. It underfunds our anti-opioid and
anti-heroin efforts. It cuts rural development programs that create
jobs and support our local economies. It eliminates the Small Business
Administration--small businesses are the backbone of our economy. It
cuts critical programs that will protect our environment for
generations to come. How is the Trump budget a ``foundation for
greatness?''
Secretary Mattis, you have said that historically ``nations that
didn't keep their fiscal house in order, their economies strong, lost
their military power.'' In Congress, we have varied opinions about how
we do that. But the budget President Trump has proposed is a false
choice between maintaining our military might and protecting essential
domestic priorities.
We talk about ``parity'' for defense and non-defense spending.
These are intrinsically linked. We cannot be militarily strong while
economically weak. You both know that. I know that. I suspect most if
not all of the members of this panel know that. I am committed to
drafting appropriations bills that reflect that. I challenge both of
you to join in that effort. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
I now recognize the distinguished Senator from Illinois,
Senator Durbin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, first, let me apologize. It
turns out, it is all Chuck Grassley's fault. The Senate
Judiciary Committee had a hearing that began on nominations
this morning. I am sorry that I am a few minutes late.
I mean no disrespect to you, Mr. Secretary, General, or the
guests in our audience.
I would ask that my opening statement be made part of the
record.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, your statement will be
reported in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the Secretary
of Defense, the Honorable James Mattis, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, to our hearing to review the
Department of Defense's budget request for fiscal year 2018.
budget increases
Secretary Mattis, we have spoken several times about the problem
that sequestration poses for our armed forces. You have made improving
readiness your top priority, and it is clear that would be in jeopardy
if the Department is hit with another sequester.
As of today, there are no ongoing negotiations to change the Budget
Control Act's strict spending caps. It appears that this Congress is
likely to do one of two things: provide more funding for the Defense
Department through a massive OCO gimmick, or simply kick the can down
the road for several months and hope that we stumble onto a solution
for sequestration, perhaps even by accident.
This is no way for the greatest nation on earth to run the world's
most powerful military.
crs and regular order
Secretary Mattis, your written testimony clearly lays out the
pernicious effects of relying on months-long continuing resolutions as
a matter of practice.
I completely agree with you. Setting Federal agencies on a
budgetary autopilot--whether we are talking about our armed forces, law
enforcement, scientific research, or any other program--is destructive
and the practice needs to end.
In many cases, these long CRs were completely avoidable. Last fall,
Chairman Cochran and I, working with our House counterparts, were 98
percent finished with negotiating the defense bill for fiscal year
2017.
On November 16, the House Leadership, at the behest of the Trump
transition team, cancelled all budget talks and endorsed another long,
senseless CR.
Between November 16 and May 5, the only change to the defense bill
was the addition of $15 billion in response to your readiness request.
I will never know why the Trump team decided it was better to waste
6 months without a budget deal. But I ask that you deliver the same
message to the Administration as you are delivering to Congress: no
shutdowns, no CRs, and no more games. Let us get moving on a truly
bipartisan budget deal and get our work back on track.
efficiencies
I would add, Mr. Secretary, that we all must recommit ourselves to
the interests of the American taxpayer.
The Nation needs to know that our comparatively high levels defense
spending is making a difference to our national security, instead of
simply lining someone else's pockets.
A recently released Inspector General's report finds that we have
lost track of $1 billion in equipment given to the Iraqi security
forces.
After many years of asking, it is still the case that nobody is
really trying to get a handle on the proliferation of contractors,
which cost 2-3 times more than civilian personnel according to DoD.
And finally, the most recent cost estimate for all $1.6 trillion in
planned spending for major weapons programs shows $193 billion, or
eight percent, in cost increases.
Secretary Mattis, we need to get a handle on cutting waste out of
the defense budget, and this Committee needs your help to do it.
Fortunately, I believe you may be the right person in the right place
to help us achieve this.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, we have another challenging year ahead of us, but I
look forward to working with you to do the best we can for the
incredible women and men who are serving in the armed forces.
Senator Cochran. You may proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES N. MATTIS
Secretary Mattis. Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Durbin,
and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to
testify in support of the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2018.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for accepting my written
statement for the record.
I am joined today, of course, by Chairman Dunford, the
Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I also have, Chairman and Ranking Member, the Under
Secretary of Defense Comptroller, David Norquist, recently
confirmed by the Senate and sworn in. Should we need more
detailed answers, your staff has been kind enough to set up a
seat for him. We can call him forward, if you so choose,
Chairman.
This budget request holds me accountable to the men and
women of the Department of Defense. Every day, more than 2
million servicemembers and nearly 1 million civilians do their
duty, honoring previous generations of veterans and civil
servants who have sacrificed for our country. It is my
privilege to serve alongside them.
We in the department are keenly aware of the sacrifices
made by the American people to fund our military. Many times in
the past, we have looked reality in the eye, met challenges
with the help of congressional leadership, and built the most
capable warfighting force in the world.
There is no room for complacency in the Department of
Defense, and we have no God-given right to victory on the
battlefield. Each generation of Americans, from the halls of
Congress to the battlefields, earns victory through commitment
and sacrifice.
And yet, for 4 years, the department has been subjected to
or threatened by automatic, across-the-board cuts as a result
of sequester, a mechanism meant to be so injurious to the
military it would never go into effect. But it did go into
effect, and as forecast by then-Secretary of Defense Panetta,
the damage has been severe.
In addition, during 9 of the past 10 years, Congress has
enacted 30 separate continuing resolutions to fund the
Department of Defense, thus inhibiting our readiness and
adaptation to new challenges.
We need bipartisan support for this request. In the past,
by failing to pass a budget on time or to eliminate the threat
of sequestration, Congress sidelined itself from its active
constitutional oversight role. Continuing resolutions coupled
with sequestration blocked new programs, prevented service
growth, stalled industry initiative, and placed troops at
greater risk.
Despite the tremendous efforts of this committee, Congress,
as a whole, has met the present challenge with lassitude, not
leadership.
I retired from military service 3 months after
sequestration took effect. Four years later, I have returned to
the department, and I have been shocked by what I have seen
about our readiness to fight. While nothing can compare to the
heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars,
no enemy in the field has done more to harm the combat
readiness of our military than sequestration.
We have only sustained our ability to meet America's
commitments for our security because our troops have stoically
shouldered a much greater burden. But our troops' stoic
commitment cannot reduce the growing risk.
It took us years to get into this situation. It will
require years of stable budgets and increased funding to get us
out of it.
I urge members of this committee and Congress to achieve
three goals. First, fully fund our request, which requires an
increase to the Defense budget caps. Second, pass a fiscal year
2018 budget in a timely manner to avoid yet another harmful
continuing resolution. And, third, eliminate the threat of
future sequestration cuts to provide a stable budgetary
planning horizon.
Stable budgets and increased funding are necessary because
of four external factors acting on the department at the same
time.
The first force acting on us that we must recognize is 16
years of war. When Congress approved the all-volunteer force in
1973, our country never envisioned sending our military to war
for more than a decade without pause or conscription. America's
long war has placed a heavy burden on men and women in uniform
and their families.
Here I will note a few points on Afghanistan, recognizing
our military posture there is part of a larger regional context
in South Asia. Our primary national interest and the
international interest in Afghanistan is ensuring it does not
become an ungoverned space from which attacks can be launched
against the United States, other nations, or the Afghan people.
In this regard, our forces are conducting partnered
counterterrorism operations, and we are supporting the NATO-led
Resolute Support mission, so, in the future, the Afghan people
can defend themselves.
At noon yesterday, President Trump delegated to me the
authority to manage troop numbers in Afghanistan. The
delegation of this authority, consistent with the authority
President Trump granted me 2 months ago for Iraq and Syria,
does not, at this time, change the troop numbers for
Afghanistan.
Together in the interagency, we will define the way ahead,
and I will set the U.S. military commitment consistent with the
Commander in Chief's strategic direction and his foreign
policy, as dictated by Secretary of State Tillerson.
This ensures the department can facilitate our missions and
nimbly align our commitment to the situation on the ground. Our
overall mission in Afghanistan remains the same, to train,
advise, and assist the Afghan forces so they can safeguard the
Afghan people and terrorists can find no haven in Afghanistan
for attacking us or others.
The revised Afghanistan strategy with the new approach will
be presented to the President for his approval in the coming
weeks.
A second concurrent force acting on the department is the
worsening global security situation, and here we must look
reality in the eye. Russia and China are seeking veto power
over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of
nations on their periphery. North Korea's reckless rhetoric and
provocative actions continue, despite United Nations censure
and sanctions, while Iran remains the largest long-term
challenge to Mideast stability. All the while, terrorist groups
murder the innocent and threaten peace in many regions while
targeting us.
A third force we have to deal with is adversaries actively
contesting America's capabilities. For decades, the United
States enjoyed uncontested or dominant superiority in every
operating domain or realm. We could generally deploy our forces
when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted, and operate how
we wanted. Today, every operating domain--outer space, air,
sea, undersea, land, and cyberspace--is contested.
A fourth concurrent force is the rapid technological
change. And among the other forces noted thus far,
technological change is one that necessitates new investment,
innovative approaches, and new program starts that have been
denied us by law when we have been forced to operate under
continuing resolutions.
Each of these four forces--16 years of war, the worsening
security environment, contested operations in multiple domains,
and the rapid pace of technological change--require stable
budgets and increased funding to provide for the protection of
our citizens and for the survival of our freedoms.
I reiterate that security and solvency are my watchwords as
Secretary of Defense. The fundamental responsibility of our
government is to defend the American people providing for our
security, and we cannot defend America and help others if our
Nation is not both strong and solvent.
So we in the Department of Defense owe it to the American
public and the Congress to ensure we spend each dollar wisely.
President Trump has nominated for Senate approval specific
individuals who will bring proven skills to discipline our
department's fiscal processes and to ensure we do so.
The first step to restoring readiness is underway thanks to
Congress' willingness to support the administration's request
for an additional $21 billion in resources for fiscal year 2017
to address vital warfighting readiness shortfalls. Your support
has put more aircraft in the air, more ships to sea, and more
troops in the field. However, we all recognize that it will
take a number of years of higher funding delivered on time to
restore readiness.
To strengthen the military, President Trump requested a
$639 billion topline for the fiscal year 2018 defense budget.
That budget reflects five priorities.
Our first priority is continuing to improve warfighter
readiness begun in 2017, filling in the holes from tradeoffs
made during 16 years of war, 9 years of continuing resolutions,
and Budget Control Act caps.
The second priority is increasing capacity and lethality
while preparing for future investment driven by the results
from the National Defense Strategy we are working on now. Our
fiscal year 2018 budget request ensures the Nation's current
nuclear deterrent will be sustained and supports continuation
of its much-needed modernization process.
The third priority is reforming how the department does
business. I am devoted to gaining full value from every
taxpayer dollar spent on defense, thereby earning the trust of
Congress and the American people. We have begun implementation
of a range of reform initiatives directed by the 2017 National
Defense Authorization Act, and we are on track to enter into a
full agency-wide financial statement audit, as required by
statute.
I urge Congress to support the department's request for
authority to conduct a 2021 base realignment and closure, or
BRAC, round. I recognize the careful deliberation that members
must exercise in considering this, but BRAC has proven to be
one of the most successful and significant efficiency programs
we have. We forecast that a properly focused base closure
effort could generate $2 billion or more annually, and over a
5-year period, that savings would be enough to buy 300 Apache
attack helicopters or 120 F-18s or four Virginia class
submarines.
The fourth priority in the fiscal year 2018 budget request
is keeping faith with servicemembers and their families.
Talented people remain the department's most valuable asset,
but we must continually balance these requirements of investing
in our people against other investments critical to readiness,
equipment, and modernization to ensure the military is the most
capable warfighting force in the world. Investment in military
compensation, blended retirement, the military health system,
and family programs are essential to fielding the talent we
need to sustain our competitive advantage on the battlefield.
Our fifth priority is support for Overseas Contingency
Operations. The fiscal year 2018 President's budget requests
$64.6 billion focusing on operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Syria; increasing efforts to sustain NATO's (North Atlantic
Treaty Organization) defenses to deter aggression; and global
counterterrorism operations. ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria) and other terrorist organizations represent a clear and
present danger, and I am also encouraged by the willingness of
our allies and partners to share the burden of this campaign
alongside us.
Moving forward, the fiscal year 2019 budget will be
informed by the National Defense Strategy. It will have to make
hard choices as we shape the 2019 to 2023 defense program. The
department will work with President Trump, Congress, and this
committee to ensure future budget requests are sustainable and
provide the Commander in Chief with viable military options
that support America's security.
In summation, first, I need the BCA caps lifted and a
budget, not a continuing resolution, passed on time, and
elimination of future sequestration cuts, so we can provide
that stable and adequate way ahead that is needed for the
budget.
For those who are concerned we are not asking for
sufficient dollars, please consider the following. For 2017, as
a supplemental, we asked for $30 billion and the Congress
provided $21 billion for our administration to address
readiness shortfalls.
Second, this fiscal year, President Trump has requested
$574 billion plus $29 billion in the Department of Energy
budget, plus $65 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations.
This is a 5 percent growth over what national defense has
funded for 2017.
This request is $52 billion above the Budget Control Act
defense caps. We have underway at this time a National Security
Strategy review that will give us the analytic rigor to come
back to you for the fiscal year 2019 to 2023 budget request
when we will build up our military to confront the situation
that the chairman and I have laid out in our written
statements.
I am keenly aware that each of you understand the
responsibility we share to ensure our military is ready to
fight today and in the future. I need your help to inform your
fellow Members of Congress about the reality facing our
military and the need for Congress as a whole to pass a defense
budget on time.
Specifically, I want to thank the members of this committee
for your strong support over many years, through good times and
bad, and for ensuring our troops have the resources and
equipment they need to fight and win on the battlefield. I
pledge to collaborate closely with you for the defense of our
Nation in our joint effort to keep our Armed Forces second to
none.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. And Chairman Dunford is
prepared to discuss the military dimensions of our budget
request.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James N. Mattis
Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Durbin, distinguished members of
the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2018.
I am pleased to be joined by Chairman Dunford.
This budget request holds me accountable to the men and women of
the Department of Defense. Every day, more than two million Service
members and nearly one million civilians do their duty, honoring
previous generations of veterans and civil servants who have sacrificed
for our country. I am mindful of the privilege it is to serve alongside
them.
We in the Department of Defense are keenly aware of the sacrifices
made by the American people to fund our military. Many times in the
past we have looked reality in the eye, met challenges with
Congressional leadership, and built the most capable warfighting force
in the world. There is no room for complacency and we have no God-given
right to victory on the battlefield. Each generation of Americans, from
the halls of Congress to the battlefields, earn victory through
commitment and sacrifice.
And yet, for 4 years our military has been subject to or threatened
by automatic, across-the-board cuts as a result of sequester--a
mechanism meant to be so injurious to the military it would never go
into effect. In addition, during nine of the past 10 years, Congress
has enacted 30 separate Continuing Resolutions to fund the Department
of Defense, thus inhibiting our readiness and adaptation to new
challenges.
I need bipartisan support for this budget request. In the past, by
failing to pass a budget on time or eliminate the threat of
sequestration, Congress sidelined itself from its active Constitutional
oversight role. It has blocked new programs, prevented service growth,
stalled industry initiative, and placed troops at greater risk. Despite
the tremendous efforts of this committee, Congress as a whole has met
the present challenge with lassitude, not leadership.
For much of the past decade, my predecessors and prior members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that sequestration and the
continued use of Continuing Resolutions would result in a steady
erosion of military readiness. In 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta, former Chairman of the House Budget Committee and the former
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, testified sequester
was ``guaranteed to hollow out the force.''
I retired from military service 3 months after sequestration took
effect. Four years later, I returned to the Department and I have been
shocked by what I've seen with our readiness to fight. For all the
heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy
in the field has done more to harm the readiness of our military than
sequestration. We have only sustained our ability to meet America's
commitments abroad because our troops have stoically shouldered a much
greater burden.
It took us years to get into this situation. It will require years
of stable budgets and increased funding to get out of it. I urge
members of this committee and Congress to achieve three goals:
--First, fully fund our request, which requires an increase to the
Defense budget caps;
--Second, pass a fiscal year 2018 budget in a timely manner to avoid
yet another harmful Continuing Resolution; and
--Third, eliminate the threat of future sequestration cuts to provide
a stable budgetary planning horizon.
Stable budgets and increased funding are necessary because of four
external forces acting on the Department at the same time.
The first force we must recognize is 16 years of war. This period
represents the longest continuous stretch of armed conflict in our
Nation's history. In more than a quarter century since the end of the
Cold War, our country has deployed large-scale forces in active
operations for more months than we have been at peace.
When Congress approved the All-Volunteer Force in 1973, our country
never envisioned sending our military to war for more than a decade
without pause or conscription. America's long war has placed a heavy
burden on men and women in uniform and their families.
In recognition of these demands, Congress devoted more resources to
recruiting and retaining members of the military. As a result,
personnel costs as a fraction of the defense budget have risen over
time.
Meanwhile, the war has exhausted our equipment faster than planned.
Congress and the Department could not anticipate the accumulated wear
and tear of years of continuous combat use. We have had to procure
replacement gear and spend more money to keep gear serviceable and
extend its service life. Due to this extensive use of our equipment
across the force, operations and maintenance costs have also increased,
rising faster than the rate of inflation during the past 16 years.
Worn equipment and constrained supplies have forced our personnel
to work overtime while deployed or preparing to deploy. That too has
placed an added burden on the men and women who serve and on their
families. This further degrades readiness in a negative spiral, for
those not in the fight are at a standstill, unable to train as their
equipment is sent forward to cover shortfalls or returned for extensive
rework.
My predecessor, Secretary Gates, stated annualized real defense
budget increases and efficiencies of two to 3 percent above inflation
are needed to sustain the All-Volunteer Force in a way that keeps
personnel, modernization, and readiness accounts in balance. In the 6
years since the passage of the Budget Control Act, a period of
declining, flat, or modestly increasing budgets, we have not kept this
balance.
Not long ago we convinced ourselves that when we pulled out of Iraq
and ceased combat operations in Afghanistan, we would take 2 or 3 years
to ``reset and reconstitute'' the force. Today's operations dictate the
best we can do is ``reset and reconstitute in stride,'' a reality that
imposes its own stress on the Force.
A second concurrent force acting on the Department is the worsening
global security situation. Our challenge is characterized by a decline
in the long-standing rules-based international order, bringing with it
a more volatile security environment than any I have experienced during
my four decades of military service.
The most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security is North
Korea. North Korea's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and the means
to deliver them has increased in pace and scope. The regime's nuclear
weapons program is a clear and present danger to all, and the regime's
provocative actions, manifestly illegal under international law, have
not abated despite United Nations' censure and sanctions.
We also look on the prospect of a new era, one governed by today's
economic realities and returning once again to a balance of powers. A
return to Great Power competition, marked by a resurgent and more
aggressive Russian Federation and a rising, more confident, and
assertive China, places the international order under assault. Both
Russia and China object to key aspects of the international order so
painstakingly built since the end of World War II. Both countries are
making their objections known by challenging established international
norms, such as freedom of the seas and the sovereignty of nations on
their periphery.
Moreover, the breakdown of the broader Mideast order has given rise
to terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria (ISIS). Security vacuums have allowed a revolutionary Iranian
regime to sow violence, provoke wider Sunni-Shia confrontation, and
pursue regional hegemony. More broadly, this need to preserve our
security also requires us to sustain the international presence in
Afghanistan to help stabilize the South Asia region and deny terrorists
a safe haven.
Instability in the Middle East spills over into other regions.
Extremists and extremist ideologies have spread to Europe, Africa, and
Asia. Numerous countries are dealing with forced migration of people
seeking to escape violence and despair, reminding us that problems
originating in ungoverned or combat torn areas don't remain there. The
United States is engaged in the Middle East to help restore order and
give the people who live there a more hopeful future, building a better
security situation for Americans who want a safer and more prosperous
world for our future.
As one observer of the world has noted, we are ``faced with two
problems: first, how to reduce regional chaos; second, how to create a
coherent world order based on agreed-upon principles that are necessary
for the operation of the entire system.'' That observer, Dr. Henry
Kissinger, and his fellow members of the Greatest Generation witnessed
first-hand the costs of military unpreparedness. They learned the
paramount need to prevent hostile states from gaining dominance. And
they understood that while there is no way to guarantee peace, the
surest way to prevent war is to be prepared to win one.
Under any circumstances, however, reducing regional chaos in tandem
with our interagency partners and international allies to help foster a
coherent order requires adequate diplomatic and military resources.
Adversaries contesting the United States constitute a third force
impacting the Department. For decades the United States enjoyed
uncontested or dominant superiority in every operating domain or realm.
We could generally deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them
where we wanted, and operate how we wanted. Today, every operating
domain is contested.
Outer space, long considered a sanctuary, is now contested. This
creates the need to develop capabilities and capacities for more
resilient satellites designed to withstand persistent kinetic and non-
kinetic attack.
Our dominance of the air is challenged by the proliferation of
advanced integrated air defense networks and 5th-generation aircraft.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, longer range weapons, and
unmanned systems will help us impose our will on potential adversaries
while preserving our aircraft and crews in combat.
Our command of the seas is threatened by long-range, land-based
guided munitions battle networks designed to attack our ships at
increasingly longer ranges. Our undersea superiority, unquestioned
since the end of the Cold War, and a key competitive advantage, is
challenged by both Russia and China.
Our dominance on land in conventional, high-end combined arms
maneuver is threatened by the introduction of long-range air-to-surface
and surface-to-surface guided weapons, advanced armored vehicles and
anti-tank weapons, and tactical electronic warfare systems.
Cyberspace is now a contested operating realm at the strategic,
operational, and tactical levels of war.
Finally, our air, naval, ground and logistics bases are all under
threat of accurate, all-weather, day-night guided munitions
bombardment. This will complicate our operations and make passive and
active base defenses more necessary and urgent.
A fourth concurrent force acting on the Department is rapid
technological change. Among the other forces noted thus far,
technological change is one that necessitates new investment,
innovative approaches, and when necessary, new program starts that have
been denied us by law when we have been forced to operate under
Continuing Resolutions.
Rapid technological change includes developments in advanced
computing, big data analytics, artificial intelligence, autonomy,
robotics, miniaturization, additive manufacturing, meta-materials,
directed energy, and hypersonics--the very technologies that ensure we
will be able to fight and win the wars of the future.
Many of these advances are driven by commercial sector demands and
research and development. New commercial technologies will change
society, and ultimately, they will change the character of war. The
fact that many of these technological developments will come from the
commercial sector means that state competitors and non-state actors
will also have access to them, a fact that will continue to erode the
conventional overmatch our Nation has grown so accustomed to.
In this competitive environment, the Department must pay much more
attention to future readiness, and regaining our Joint Force
conventional overmatch over time. We must be willing and able to tap
into commercial research, recognize its military potential, and develop
new capabilities and the operational and organizational constructs to
employ them faster than our competitors.
We must also be prepared to deal with technological, operational,
and tactical surprise, which requires changes to the way we train and
educate our leaders and our forces, and how we organize for improved
Departmental agility.
Improving our future readiness, rapid adoption of off the shelf
technologies, and preparing to deal with surprise are critical to
modernization efforts, but constrained budgets and acquisition
regulations have limited our ability to keep pace with rapid changes
and sustain our competitive advantage.
In response to these realities, the Department must develop new
weapons and capabilities, adjust concepts of operations, adapt our
training, and spend more time war-gaming and exercising to improve our
ability to fight and win.
Each of these four forces--16 years of war, the worsening security
environment, contested operations in multiple domains, and the rapid
pace of technological change--require stable budgets and increased
funding to provide for the protection of our citizens and for the
survival of our freedoms. Because as expensive as it is for the
American people to fund the military, it is far less costly in lives
and treasure than a conventional war that we are unable to deter
because we are seen as weak.
I reiterate that security and solvency are my watchwords as
Secretary of Defense. The fundamental responsibility of our government
is to defend the American people, providing for our security--and we
cannot defend America and help others if our Nation is not both strong
and solvent. So we in the Department of Defense owe it to the American
public to ensure we spend each dollar wisely. President Trump has
nominated for Senate approval specific individuals who will bring
proven skills to discipline our Department's fiscal processes to ensure
we do so.
This first step to restoring readiness is underway thanks to
Congress' willingness to support the Administration's request for
additional resources in fiscal year 2017 to rebuild our most urgent
needs. Your support of $21 billion in additional resources allowed the
Department to address immediate warfighting readiness shortfalls and to
help fund the acceleration of the fight against ISIS.
This additional fiscal year 2017 funding addresses vital
warfighting readiness shortfalls, a necessary investment to ensure our
military is ready to fight today, by putting more aircraft in the air,
ships to sea, and troops in the field. Additionally, the funding
provided for more maintenance, spare parts, training time, flying
hours, munition stocks, and manpower.
We all recognize that it will take a number of years of higher
funding delivered on time to restore readiness. To strengthen the
military, President Trump requested a $639.1 billion topline for the
fiscal year 2018 defense budget. Of this topline, $574.5 billion
supports Department of Defense base budget requirements--warfighting
readiness and critical program requirements, including intelligence
community requirements. The balance, $64.6 billion, supports Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) requirements.
The Department's fiscal year 2018 base budget with its $52 billion
increase above the National Defense Budget Control Act cap is the next
step to building a larger, more capable, and more lethal joint force.
The fiscal year 2018 budget reflects five priorities: restoring and
improving warfighter readiness, increasing capacity and lethality,
reforming how the Department does business, keeping the faith with
Service members and their families, and supporting Overseas Contingency
Operations.
The first priority is continuing to improve warfighter readiness
begun in fiscal year 2017, filling in the holes from trade-offs made
during 16 years of war, and 6 years of continuing resolutions and
Budget Control Act caps. This budget request, as directed by the
National Security Presidential Memorandum ``Rebuilding the U.S. Armed
Forces'' issued on January 27, 2017, identifies and improves shortfalls
in readiness, specifically in training, equipment, maintenance,
munitions, modernization, and infrastructure.
The 30-Day Readiness Review, completed as part of the development
of the fiscal year 2017 Request for Additional Appropriations,
identified significant challenges to recovering readiness, including
budget uncertainty, high operational tempo, and the time required to
rebuild readiness properly. As a result of this review, the Department
submitted the fiscal year 2018 budget request to enable the Joint Force
to counter national security threats, fulfill steady-state demand, and
implement readiness recovery plans.
The Army remains globally engaged with more than 180,000 Soldiers
committed to combatant command deterrence and counterterrorism
operations. The fiscal year 2018 budget will restore a larger, more
capable and lethal modernized force to defeat emerging regional and
global near-peer adversaries. Combat Training Center rotations and home
station training will help the Army develop capabilities for full-
spectrum warfare. Additional Soldiers, training, and equipment will
enable the Army to make significant progress towards restoring and
sustaining readiness longer.
The Navy will continue implementation of its Optimized Fleet
Response Plan, reduce the long-term maintenance backlog, and train to
ensure the Fleet is ready to fight. Requested funding provides stable
and predictable maintenance and modernization plans, and forces trained
to a single full-mission readiness standard. Predictably building
readiness with continued implementation of the Optimized Fleet Response
Plan will increase aircraft carrier availability, fund ship operations
to the anticipated level of required operational days, and improve
quality of work and quality of life for Sailors.
The Air Force will restore funding to its Flying Hour Program,
increase aircraft sustainment, and grow training resource availability.
These steps will enable personnel to regain proficiency in critical
skill areas. Investments into training ranges will increase capacity
and modernize the simulated threats our young men and women need to
overcome to counter adversaries. The Air Force will also invest in home
station high-end training, reducing the requirement to deploy for
training.
The Marine Corps is committed to remaining capable of responding to
crises anywhere around the globe. fiscal year 2018 investments
emphasize readiness for deployed and next-to-deploy forces, maintenance
for aging platforms, and funding to maintain critical modernization
programs. Fully integrated Combined Arms Exercises for all elements of
the Marine Air Ground Task Forces will help recover full-spectrum
readiness.
The second priority is increasing capacity and lethality while
preparing for future investment in the fiscal year 2019 budget, driven
by results from the National Defense Strategy. The fiscal year 2018
budget request addresses resource gaps in the capabilities, readiness,
and capacity needed to project power globally in contested
environments, while emphasizing preparedness for future high-end
security challenges. The budget request supports this priority through
investment in advanced capabilities to reassert our technological edge
over potential future adversaries, while having more units ready to
fight.
The fiscal year 2018 budget request seeks to fill the holes and
achieve program balance before beginning to significantly grow capacity
in future years. Part of achieving a more capable force involves
pursuing innovative ways to develop the force and concepts of operation
to reverse unfavorable cost ratios adversaries would seek to impose on
the United States in future warfighting environments. The fiscal year
2018 investments include power projection capabilities, nuclear
modernization, a stronger missile defense, space-based systems, and
cyberspace operations. Several of these options will expand the
competitive space to our advantage vice allowing an adversary to define
a conflict. Our budget request also ensures that the nation's current
nuclear deterrent will be sustained, and supports continuation of its
much needed modernization process.
The third priority is reforming how the department does business. I
am devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar spent on
defense, thereby earning the trust of Congress and the American people.
The Department is committed to reforming the acquisition enterprise
to improve its ability to be innovative, responsive, and cost
effective. The Department has begun implementation of a range of reform
initiatives directed by the 2017 NDAA, to include disestablishment of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, and the establishment of the Under Secretaries for Research
and Engineering, and for Acquisition and Sustainment. Consistent with
section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2017, this change will be in effect by February 1, 2018, or sooner if
I'm able to set the necessary conditions.
The fiscal year 2018 budget request includes notable reform
efforts. I urge Congress to support the Department's request for
authority to conduct a 2021 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round,
a cornerstone of our efficiencies program. The Department currently has
more infrastructure capacity than required for operations--and
foreseeable growth scenarios won't appreciably change this. I recognize
the severity of BRAC's impact on communities and the careful
consideration that members must exercise in considering it. In order to
ensure we do not waste taxpayer dollars I would therefore greatly
appreciate Congress' willingness to discuss BRAC authorization as an
efficiency measure. That authorization is essential to improving our
readiness by minimizing wasted resources and accommodating force
adjustments. Waste reduction is fundamental to keeping the trust of the
American people and is a key element of the efficiency/reform efforts
that Congress and the Administration expect of us. Of all the
efficiency measures the Department has undertaken over the years, BRAC
is one of the most successful and significant--we forecast that a
properly focused base closure effort will generate $2 billion or more
annually--enough to buy 300 Apache attack helicopters, 120 F/A-18E/F
Super Hornets, or four Virginia-class submarines.
During fiscal year 2018 the Department is on track to enter into a
full, agency-wide financial statement audit as required by statute. As
part of this effort, the Department has established a Cost Decision
Framework that leverages commercial best practices. This initiative
will give decision makers the information they need to make a fully
informed, cost-based decision.
The fourth priority is keeping faith with Service members and
families. Military and civilian personnel are the foundation of the
Department of Defense. The Nation's commitment to these patriots
willing to serve our country is built into the fiscal year 2018 budget
request and is demonstrated by the number of initiatives and programs
to support their professional development and their personal and family
lives.
Comprising roughly one-third of the Department of Defense budget,
military pay and benefits are the single largest expense category for
the Department. I believe providing competitive pay and benefits is a
necessity to attract and retain the highly qualified people needed in
today's military. The right people are the Department's most valuable
asset, but we must continually balance these requirements against other
investments critical to readiness, equipment, and modernization to
ensure the military is the most capable warfighting force in the world.
Balancing resources is particularly important as the Department
reshapes the force needed to remain effective in an uncertain future.
Investment in military compensation, Blended Retirement, the Military
Health System, and family programs are essential to fielding the talent
we need to sustain our competitive advantage on the battlefield.
The fifth priority is support for Overseas Contingency Operations.
The fiscal year 2018 President's Budget requests $64.6 billion,
focusing on Operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, increasing
efforts to sustain NATO's defenses to deter aggression, and global
counterterrorism operations. Specifically, ISIS and other terrorist
organizations represent a clear and present danger. The U.S. remains
united and committed with the 66 nations of the Defeat-ISIS Coalition--
plus the European Union, NATO, Arab League, and Interpol--to destroy
ISIS. We will continue to support partner nations' diplomatic and
military efforts through a security cooperation approach. I am
encouraged by the willingness of our allies and partners to share the
burden of this campaign.
The fiscal year 2019 budget, informed by the National Defense
Strategy, will grow the All-Volunteer Force. The Department will work
with President Trump, Congress, and this committee to ensure the budget
request we present for fiscal year 2019-2023 is sustainable and that it
provides the Commander-in-Chief with viable military options in support
of America's security.
Judicious spending of America's public money is critical to
ensuring security while maintaining solvency. We already know we face a
dilemma between increasing personnel end strength and force structure
on the one hand, and investing in equipment as well as research and
development on the other hand. These challenges are compounded by the
pressing need to recapitalize the nuclear triad and the sealift fleet
in the 2020s. The President's Nuclear Posture Review will look at all
elements of U.S. nuclear forces to ensure that our nuclear deterrent,
including our command, control, and communication systems, are
appropriately tailored to deter emerging 21st century threats.
I know we will have to make hard choices as we develop our new
defense strategy and shape the fiscal year 2019-2023 defense program.
With the help of Congress, I am confident we can build a force that is
necessarily more lethal without placing an undue burden on the American
economy.
I am keenly aware members of this committee understand the
responsibility each of us has to ensuring our military is ready to
fight today and in the future. I need your help to inform your fellow
members of Congress about the reality facing our military--and the need
for Congress as a whole to pass a budget on time.
Thank you for your strong support and for ensuring our troops have
the resources and equipment they need to fight and win on the
battlefield. I pledge to collaborate closely with you for the defense
of our Nation in our joint effort to keep our Armed Forces second-to-
none.
Chairman Dunford is prepared to discuss the military dimensions of
the budget request.
Senator Cochran. The chair now recognizes the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford.
General Dunford, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, JR., U.S.
MARINE CORPS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF
STAFF
General Dunford. Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Durbin,
distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to join
Secretary Mattis in testifying before you today.
I am honored to represent your men and women in uniform,
and it is because of them and your support that I can begin by
saying, with confidence, that your Armed Forces remain the most
capable in the world.
However, that competitive advantage that the United States
military has long enjoyed is eroding. A number of factors have
contributed to the erosion.
Since 9/11, an extraordinarily high level of operational
tempo has accelerated the wear and tear on our weapons and
equipment. Meanwhile, budget instability and the Budget Control
Act have forced the department to operate with far fewer
resources than required to execute the strategy of record.
As a consequence, we prioritize near-term readiness at the
expense of replacing aging equipment and capability
development. We also maintain a force that consumes readiness
as fast as we can build it. And we lack sufficient capacity to
meet our current operational requirements while rebuilding and
maintaining what we describe as full spectrum readiness.
The Secretary and the service chiefs have been up and
addressed this dynamic in their testimonies, and I fully concur
with their assessments. But beyond current readiness, we are
confronted with another significant challenge that I assess to
be near term.
While we have been primarily focused on the threat of
violent extremism, our adversaries and our potential
adversaries have developed advanced capabilities and
operational approaches specifically designed to limit our
ability to project power. They recognize that our ability to
project power is the critical capability necessary for us to
defend the homeland, advance our interests, and meet our
alliance commitments.
As Secretary Mattis mentioned, today, Russia, China, and
Iran field a wide range of cyber, space, aviation, maritime,
and land capabilities. And those are specifically designed to
limit our ability to deploy, to employ, and to sustain our
forces. Russia and China have also modernized their nuclear
arsenal while North Korea has been on a relentless path to
field a nuclear-armed ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile)
that can reach the United States. Of course, that is well-
documented.
In just a few years, if we do not change the trajectory, we
will lose our qualitative and our quantitative competitive
advantage. And the consequences will be profound, in my
judgment. It will adversely affect our nuclear deterrence, our
conventional deterrence, and our ability to respond, should
deterrence fail.
Alternatively, we can maintain our competitive advantage
with sustained, sufficient, and predictable funding. To that
end, the fiscal year 2018 budget request is an essential step,
and it builds on the fiscal year 2017 supplemental that the
Secretary mentioned.
But this request is not going to fully restore readiness or
arrest the erosion of our competitive advantage. Doing that is
going to require sustained investment beyond fiscal year 2018.
Specific recommendations for fiscal year 2019 and beyond
are going to be informed by the Secretary's forthcoming
National Defense Strategy. However, we know now that continued
growth in the base budget of at least 3 percent above inflation
is the floor necessary to preserve the relative competitive
advantage we have today, not build the force of tomorrow, but
to maintain the relative competitive advantage that we have
today.
As we ask for your support, we recognize the responsibility
to maintain the trust of the American taxpayer. And we take
this responsibility seriously, and we will continue to
eliminate redundancies and achieve efficiencies wherever
possible.
Thanks again for the opportunity to appear before you this
morning, and, more importantly, thanks for all you do to ensure
that young Americans never find themselves in a fair fight.
With that, Chairman, I am prepared to take questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.
Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Durbin, distinguished members of
this committee, thank you for the opportunity to join Secretary Mattis
in appearing before you today.
The U.S. military's competitive advantage against potential
adversaries is eroding. Over the last decade, sustained operational
commitments, budgetary instability, and advances by our adversaries
have threatened our ability to project power and we have lost our
advantage in key warfighting areas. The fiscal year 2018 Budget Request
will allow the Armed Forces to meet operational requirements, continue
rebuilding warfighting readiness, and place the military on a path to
balancing the Defense program. However, without sustained, sufficient,
and predictable funding, I assess that within 5 years we will lose our
ability to project power; the basis of how we defend the homeland,
advance U.S. interests, and meet our alliance commitments.
strategic environment
In today's strategic environment, five key challenges--Russia,
China, Iran, North Korea, and Violent Extremist Organizations--most
clearly represent the challenges facing the U.S. military. They serve
as a benchmark for our global posture, the size of the force,
capability development, and risk management.
Over the past several decades, each of these state actors have
developed capabilities and operational approaches to counter our
strategic and operational centers of gravity. The United States'
decisive victory in DESERT STORM in 1991 was a wake-up call for our
adversaries. For Russia and China, specifically, the lessons-learned
spurred dramatic tactical, operational, and strategic adaptations.
Observing the power and efficacy of precision guided munitions and
combined arms maneuver, both countries accelerated modernization
programs to asymmetrically counter U.S. advantages. They adapted
operational constructs to incorporate anti-access technology and
employed new doctrines to leverage high-tech weaponry across all
domains. These efforts sought to limit U.S. freedom of navigation, deny
our ability to gain and maintain air-superiority, negate the capability
of our precision munitions, and limit our ability to employ
sophisticated command and control systems.
Today, Russia continues to invest in a full-range of capabilities
designed to limit our ability to project power into Europe and meet our
alliance commitments to NATO. These capabilities include long-range
conventional strike, cyber, space, electronic warfare, ground force and
naval capabilities. Russia is also modernizing all elements of its
nuclear triad and its non-strategic nuclear weapons. These capabilities
are intended to enable Russia to counter U.S. and NATO power projection
and undermine the integrity of the NATO alliance.
Similarly, China has embarked on a significant program to modernize
and expand strategic and conventional military capabilities. They have
expanded their nuclear enterprise and made investments in power
projection, space, cyber, hypersonic weapons, cruise missiles, and
ballistic missiles--even as they continue to build out their physical
presence in the South China Sea. China is also investing heavily in 5th
generation fighters, air-to-air missiles, air defense systems, and sea
and undersea anti-access technologies to limit our ability to project
power, operate freely, and meet our alliance commitments in the
Pacific.
Russia and China are not alone in these pursuits. North Korea's
nuclear weapons development, combined with efforts to develop a
nuclear-capable ballistic missile capability, is specifically intended
to threaten the security of the homeland and our Allies in the Pacific.
Over the past year, North Korea conducted an unprecedented number of
missile tests. Moreover, North Korea has demonstrated a willingness to
use malicious cyber tools against governments and industry. These
actions destabilize the region and pose an increasing threat to U.S.
and our allies.
Iran seeks to assert itself as the dominant regional power in the
Middle East. They continue to support international terrorist
organizations like Hezbollah, and support proxies in Syria, Iraq, and
Yemen to assert influence and counter the influence of the U.S. and our
Allies. They actively seek to destabilize their neighbors, and employ
naval capabilities that threaten freedom of navigation. At the same
time, they are modernizing an array of ballistic missiles, missile
defense, space, cyber, maritime, and cruise missile capabilities.
Finally, Violent Extremist Organizations such as ISIS and al Qaida
remain a threat to the homeland, our Allies, and our way of life.
Violent extremism is fundamentally a transregional threat and a
generational struggle that requires our military to work with
interagency and coalition partners to disrupt external attacks, and
dismantle their capabilities wherever they emerge. Even with the
success of our continued efforts to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq
and Syria, the threat of Islamic terrorism will remain.
A review of these five challenges demonstrates that the U.S.
military requires a balanced inventory of advanced capabilities and
sufficient capacity to act decisively across the range of military
operations. As a nation that both thinks and acts globally, we cannot
choose between a force that can address ISIS and other Violent
Extremist Organizations, and one that can deter and defeat state actors
with a full range of capabilities. Nor do we have the luxury of
choosing between meeting our current operational requirements and
developing capabilities that we will need to meet tomorrow's
challenges.
However, as a result of sustained operational tempo and budget
instability, today the military is challenged to meet operational
requirements and sustain investment in capabilities required to
preserve--or in some cases restore--our competitive advantage.
Sustained operational tempo and demand have forced the Department
to prioritize near-term readiness at the expense of modernization.
Additionally, a conscious choice was made to limit the size of the
force in order to preserve scarce resources necessary for essential
investments in immediate upgrades to critical capabilities. As a
result, today, demand for high-demand/low-density specialties often
outpaces supply. Particular stress is felt in specialties such as ISR,
missile defense systems, naval expeditionary forces, special operations
forces, global precision strike units, and cyber forces. Additionally,
over the past 2 years, munitions expenditures in ongoing operations
against Violent Extremist Organizations exacerbated existing
shortfalls.
Making matters worse, for the past 5 years, the Budget Control Act
(BCA) has forced the Department of Defense (DoD) to operate with about
$450 billion less than planned and required. These reductions have been
aggravated by repeated Continuing Resolutions (CR) which hamper long-
term investment and often result in increased costs. For nine of the
last 10 years, the Department of Defense has operated under some type
of CR, delaying critical new starts, deferring installation and
infrastructure modernization, and canceling major training events. A
year-long fiscal year 2018 CR would cut $33 billion from the
Department's request, further exacerbating these problems.
Based on these factors, the Army has been forced to prioritize
near-term readiness and now faces a shortage of critical capabilities
and capacities in armor, air defense, artillery, and aviation. These
deficiencies are made worse by manpower shortfalls in critical military
specialties and training resource constraints. Consequently, the Army
is limited in its ability to man, train, and equip fully-ready Brigade
Combat Teams (BCT) and other critical enablers required to deploy,
sustain, and protect service members operating around the world.
For similar reasons, the Navy faces readiness challenges in both
ships and aircraft. Operational requirements and capacity constraints
in shipyards and aircraft depots have increased the time and cost
required to conduct major repairs. Maintenance delays, low stocks of
spare parts, lack of training ordnance, and aging infrastructure impair
the Navy's ability to conduct integrated training. As a result, the
Navy is limited in its ability to meet operational demand for maritime
capability and power projection, especially in contested environments.
The Air Force is also challenged to balance operational demands and
invest for the future. Today, the Air Force is short almost 1,500
pilots, including 800 fighter pilots, and more than 3,400 maintainers
across all components. They lack sufficient resources to adequately
support both 4th and 5th generation training. And they have delayed
investment in 4th generation aircraft modifications while limiting the
fielding of 5th generation strike-fighters. The result is fewer trained
pilots available to deploy, over-tasked and aging aircraft, and delays
in modernization programs required to defeat near-peer adversaries.
Over the last several years, the Marine Corps has been forced to
delay planned investments in infrastructure, Command and Control, and
ground systems required to build, train, and launch combat ready
forces. Today, the Marine Corps lacks sufficient Ready Basic Aircraft
for training and deployments and has delayed procurement of the F-35,
CH-53K, MV-22, and KC-130J aircraft. These delayed investments limit
the Marine Corps' strategic flexibility and inhibit its ability to meet
operational demands.
If these trends continue, and the constraints of sequestration are
not lifted, the Department will have to cut force structure, as the
tradeoffs required to maintain the capability and capacity of the
current force are no longer sustainable. Going forward, the Department
of Defense requires sustained, sufficient, and predictable funding to
meet current operational requirements, restore readiness shortfalls,
and place us on a path toward restoring our eroded competitive
advantage.
Impact of Fiscal Year 2017 Request for Additional Appropriations (RAA).
Congress' willingness to support the Administration's request for
additional resources in fiscal year 2017 was a necessary first step to
reverse the impacts of under-investment over the last 5 years. The
fiscal year 2017 appropriation yielded improvements in immediate
warfighting readiness by providing funding for modest increases to end
strength that primarily filled holes in existing units, funding full
spectrum training, beginning to replenish depleted ammunition stocks,
and continuing the restoration and modernization of critical systems.
However, the fiscal year 2017 Appropriations Bill did not fully
address the Department's modernization and procurement requirements and
significant, long-term readiness challenges remain. The Services'
inability to fully fund procurement of key platforms continues to
hamper readiness by limiting the number and types of platforms
available for initial entry training, individual proficiency, and
collective training. Because of this, the military begins the fiscal
year 2018 budget cycle in a less healthy position than if the fiscal
year 2017 RAA was fully funded, making full and on-time funding of this
budget even more critical.
Intent of the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget: What Does it do?
The fiscal year 2018 Budget Request builds on the readiness
recovery started in fiscal year 2017, starts to fill the holes created
by the BCA, and begins to balance the program. It enables the
Department to meet operational requirements, begin rebuilding mid- and
long-term readiness, and begin restoring capability and capacity
necessary to improve lethality. These are essential first steps in
arresting the erosion of the military's competitive advantage.
In Afghanistan, fiscal year 2018 investments will reinforce
improvements in the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces. In
Iraq and Syria, the Budget Request funds emerging requirements and
provides sufficient funding and authority for the defeat-ISIS train and
equip fund. In Europe, the Budget Request provides a 40 percent
increase in funding for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) that
sustains ongoing assurance efforts, and improve the capability of the
U.S. forces and our Allies to deter potential Russian aggression.
To rebuild warfighting readiness, the Army will fully man its
combat formation, fund 19 Combat Training Center rotations in fiscal
year 2018, and increase resources for home-station training to ensure
units maximize full spectrum readiness. The Navy will provide flying
hours and increase depot maintenance to enable integrated air/sea
training. The Air Force will invest in training required to improve 4th
and 5th generation warfighting capability. The Marines will increase
funding for flying hours, logistics, and engineering units, and focus
training resources on amphibious and combined arms operations.
Maintenance resources included in the fiscal year 2018 Budget
Request also improve readiness. The Army will prioritize maintenance
for equipment coming out of theater in order to prepare it for unit
training and refill prepositioned stocks in Europe and the Pacific. The
Navy will add critical workforce capacity that reduces ship and
aviation depot maintenance backlogs. The Air Force will conduct overdue
weapons system sustainment, increase maintenance for inter-theater
airlift, and execute recapitalization of critical systems. The Marines
will prioritize maintenance for MV-22, rotary wing, and fighter
aviation to improve its survivability, mobility, and lethality.
To begin restoring capacity and lethality across the force, the
fiscal year 2018 Budget makes critical investments in Tactical Air
(TACAIR), ships, space, and cyberspace, and begins essential nuclear
recapitalization efforts. Investments in TACAIR enable the Air Force,
Navy, and Marine Corps to continue procurement of 5th generation
fighters and fund upgrades to 4th generation fighters that fill
shortfalls and begin to grow capacity. The Air Force will procure 46 F-
35As and begin upgrades to F-16s. The Navy will procure 4 F-35Cs and 14
F/A-18E/Fs to mitigate its strike fighter shortfall. The Marines will
procure 20 F-35Bs. These investments, coupled with investments in
modernization of depot maintenance facilities, allow us to begin
reversing the impact of delays in TACAIR modernization over the past 5
years.
The fiscal year 2018 Budget Request supports the Navy's growth by
supporting the procurement of 9 ships and continuing necessary
investments to upgrade and modernize nuclear aircraft carriers,
destroyers, littoral combat ships, TICONDEROGA-class cruisers,
amphibious assault ships, and submarines. These investments are
essential to enabling the Navy to project power, ensure forward
presence and deterrence, ensure access to the global commons, and
provide ballistic missile defense.
Continued improvement in space-based systems enables us to better
protect satellites, improve tracking/discrimination capabilities, and
continue domestic launch development. Cyberspace investments prioritize
hardening information networks, defending against cyber-attacks, and
continuing to build, train, and equip cyber mission forces and maturing
cyberspace command and control. These advances improve both offensive
and defense space and cyberspace capabilities and enhance the
resiliency of our systems and networks.
The fiscal year 2018 Budget Request also invests in upgrades to the
nuclear enterprise, including inter-continental ballistic missiles,
nuclear submarines, strategic bombers, and command and control systems.
Continuing to maintain a secure and effective nuclear deterrent is
essential to defending the homeland.
However, the fiscal year 2018 Budget Request alone will not fully
restore readiness or arrest the military's eroding competitive
advantage. Reversing the impact of the past 5 years of sustained
operational tempo and budget instability requires sustained investment
beyond fiscal year 2018.
What Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request Doesn't do: Areas for Continued
Investment.
Specific recommendations for fiscal year 2019, and beyond, will be
informed by the results of the National Defense Strategy. Today,
however, we know that continued investment is needed to execute
responsible growth in capacity, build advanced capabilities, and
restore the long-term readiness. These investments are essential to
ensuring our ability to project power and maintain a credible strategic
deterrent.
We continue to consume readiness as fast as we build it and lack
sufficient capacity to both meet today's operational requirements and
rebuild the competencies necessary to defeat near peer adversaries. As
a result, our units are training to meet their assigned missions at the
expense of training for their designed mission. To break this cycle, we
must increase capacity in critical areas such as C4ISR, fighter
aircraft, armored BCTs, amphibious ships, and special operations
forces. This additional capacity will allow us to meet today's
requirements and prepare for tomorrow's.
We must also invest in advanced capabilities required to defeat
near-peer adversaries. As we have prioritized readiness for ongoing
operations, our adversaries have prioritized investment in technologies
that exploit our vulnerabilities and limit our ability to project
power. To ensure our competitive advantage, we must accelerate
investments in systems that defeat adversary anti-access capabilities
at sea and under the sea, improve our ISR resiliency, guarantee access
to space and cyber, and enable us to defeat integrated air defenses.
These advanced capabilities are vital to maintaining the U.S.
military's competitive advantage in all environments and across all
domains.
It is also essential that we restore Comprehensive Joint Readiness,
the ability of the U.S. military to deploy, employ, and sustain itself
anywhere in the world, while maintaining the flexibility to transition
from one crisis to another, across the range of military options. This
requires sufficient capacity, the necessary capabilities, and iterative
training. Our Air Force must possess the right mix of 4th and 5th
generation aircraft and have sufficient capacity to conduct integrated
training. Our Navy must grow and modernize while preserving a globally-
present fleet, capable of sailing and operating anywhere in the world.
The Army and Marine Corps must fill unit short-falls and upgrade
ground tactical vehicles while expanding full spectrum training. These
investments are essential to projecting power in contested environments
against any adversary and operating across the spectrum of conflict.
Additionally, we must invest in maintaining a credible strategic
deterrent. Due to fiscal constraints, we have delayed modernization of
all three legs of the nuclear triad and are now approaching decision
points with no remaining schedule margins. Over the coming decades we
must recapitalize our inter-continental ballistic missiles, ballistic
missile submarines, strategic bombers, and many of our command,
control, and communication systems.
Recapitalization costs will be significant and can no longer be
delayed if the United States wants to maintain a safe, secure, and
effective nuclear deterrent.
conclusion
Today, despite the challenges facing us, our military is the most
capable military in the world. We need sustained, sufficient, and
predictable funding to grow sufficient capacity, develop the correct
mix of advanced capabilities, and ensure a ready force. These
investments are necessary to ensure our ability to defend the homeland
and project power when and where required. With your help and
commitment, we can preserve our competitive advantage and ensure that
we never send America's sons and daughters in to a fair fight.
Senator Cochran. The chair recognizes the distinguished
Senator from Illinois, Richard Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Mattis and General Dunford, thank you again for
being before the committee.
ADDITIONAL TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN
Secretary Mattis, I voted for you to be the Secretary of
Defense. We have some differences, but I respect you very much
and the service you have given this country.
But there was another reason. We have a President of the
United States with no political or military background
whatsoever, and he comes to this job with one of the most
awesome responsibilities in the world as Commander in Chief of
the greatest military in the world, from my point of view, and
I imagine you share that.
There may come a moment, I hope it does not, where he has
to make a fateful decision in a matter of minutes that could
involve the loss or jeopardy of thousands of lives. I am
hoping, in those few minutes, he picks up the phone calls you
and others like you who have seen war, who understand the brave
young men and women who serve our country, and have had the
terrible responsibility of sending them into battle knowing
that all of them would not come home.
That is why I voted for you, and that is why I still stand
behind you.
But I look at the situation in Afghanistan and the
President's recent delegation of authority to you, and I have
some questions, which I would like to address to you, because
they get to the heart of why we are in Afghanistan, what our
goal is, and how it impacts the budget that you put before us
today.
It was recently written the Afghan security forces have
fought bravely but lack adequate air power, leadership,
retention rates, and coalition support to stem the tide of the
resurgent Taliban. The Taliban now controls more ground than at
any point since this war began in year 2001. We are in the 16th
year of this, the longest war in American history.
I joined 22 of my colleagues in voting against the invasion
of Iraq, but I voted for the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/
11, going after those responsible for that terrible loss of
American life. We have given, as a Nation, and families have
given, 2,300 American lives in Afghanistan. We have spent
billions of dollars. We are now dealing with a government in
its third year that is universally viewed as corrupt, inept,
and too weak to govern. And yet, we hear this President and
others say it is time to send in more American troops.
I would like to ask you, at this point, what are the likely
prospects that sending more military troops, risking more
American lives, spending billions more in dollars will make any
difference 16 years from now than it has in the first 16 years?
Secretary Mattis. Senator, it is a fair question. I would
say that the reason that we have not been attacked over many
years from when that 9/11 attack originated is heavily due to
the sacrifices that we have made over the years. As we have
kept the enemy on the back foot, it is hard for them to conduct
external operations out of that former stronghold when they are
just trying to hang on to their own lives and avoid us.
I believe that we pulled out our forces at a time, as you
know, when the violence was lower, but we pulled them out on a
timeline rather than consistent with the maturation of the
government and the security forces. The result was that, as
security declined, all the other stresses have come to bear to
include heavy casualties on the part of the Afghan forces.
Other nations pulled their forces out as well. And further, the
Taliban was emboldened.
So why would I come to you and tell you there is some
alternative now where we put some forces back in? We would have
to change the priorities, and we would have to put it in a more
regional construct, any kind of force increase. By regional
construct, I mean we consider issues from India and Pakistan
all the way over to Iran, because of the bordering nations. And
ignoring those means you put in a strategy that has not taken
into account some of the most fundamental factors that will
impact on its success or failure.
Most importantly, we restore the high ground. And that is a
place where the NATO air forces are dominant overhead.
But at one point, when we reduced our forces there, I
believe, in what was probably in hindsight a misguided
application of our forces, we restricted them from using our
air support, with some idea that we would ween them off the
need of it. That meant, in the mountain country, these troops
were often fighting at a disadvantage.
So we changed the way we fight. We change the regional
construct. And we changed our approach to how we deal with this
government.
TROOP LEVELS IN COMBAT
Senator Durbin. I want to ask you this question, Mr.
Secretary. Just a few years ago under President Obama, we had
almost 100,000 American troops. We are now down to roughly
10,000 at the current time, counting NATO forces, I believe. Do
you see us returning to those troop levels of a few years ago,
100,000 or beyond?
Secretary Mattis. No, sir. I do not.
Senator Durbin. Could you give me some range of what you
expect us to commit?
Secretary Mattis. Sir, I need to equate the lines of effort
that we need under a refreshed, new approach, and then I will
come up and I will sit down with you. I am talking about within
weeks, not months. I will come up and brief you and any of your
colleagues.
I think right now what we have to look at is what kind of
capabilities we bring to them because the Afghans have proven
they will fight. They have suffered horrible losses, and they
keep fighting. They are not fighting as well as they could, if
we gave them the kind of air support, more intel support that
we could give them, and also if we brought more diplomatic and
economic pressures on surrounding nations, perhaps.
So it is a much broader whole-of-government approach that
Secretary Tillerson and I meet on every week as we put together
a State Department-led foreign policy with a military strategy
to help carry it out.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The distinguished Senator from Alabama, Richard Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
NAVY FLEET
General Dunford, I will start with you.
When Admiral Harris, who is commander of the Pacific
Command, recently testified in the Senate, he said that getting
to the President's stated goal of at least 350 ships would
enable him to meet what he called his steady state requirements
in the Pacific theater, in other words to keep the risk down
when responding to possible Chinese coercion or North Korean
aggression.
He also said that we need to grow the size of the Navy
fleet, and we need to make our ships more lethal.
Do you agree with Admiral Harris?
General Dunford. Senator, I participated, including my
previous assignment as a commandant in the Marine Corps, in
studies to assess the number of ships that are required for
security. And I think Admiral Harris' numbers are right to meet
his requirement.
Of course, our priorities that we provided to you this year
are within the topline that were given.
I think what is an important point, though, I just want to
reemphasize, when I spoke about the minimum amount of money
that we would need to maintain our competitive advantage at
about 3 percent, in order to get to the 355 ships and grow the
Army and the Air Force commensurately, those numbers are really
closer to five and beyond. So to get to a 355-ship Navy would
require significant more resources.
So what we tried to do in 2018 is maintain a ship profile
that we are on. You will see that it is the same as it was in
2017, in terms of number of ships in the program. While we
would want to grow, we simply have not had the topline that
allows us to do that.
LCS
Senator Shelby. In growing that fleet, is the LCS (littoral
combat ship) very important to that mission?
General Dunford. The LCS is very important, particularly as
the Navy looks for ways to increase the lethality of the LCS
and really have that perform a mission more like a frigate than
it had been envisioned.
INDUSTRIAL BASE
Senator Shelby. Along those lines, the industrial base of
the Navy and the Army is critical, I believe. Would you be in a
position to assess the existing opportunities in the Navy's
Seahawk helicopter manufacturing base that provides our ships
with the warfighting equipment that make the U.S. fleet
effective? I think that is important.
And also, Secretary Mattis, the U.S. Army's unfunded
requirements dealing with the Stryker, the upgrades and so
forth, Mr. Secretary, would you work with this committee to try
to protect that industrial base, also produce the best
equipment, too?
General Dunford. I would, Senator.
Secretary Mattis. Yes, sir. Absolutely. I have reviewed the
Army's unfunded priorities list, Senator. I think the
priorities we have in the base budget are right. If we got more
money, I think they have laid out a pretty good program.
RD-180 ENGINE/SPACE
Senator Shelby. Sure. To assure our access to space, which
is very important, as everybody knows here, could you provide
the committee with an update on the status of the department's
efforts to replace a Russian-made RD-180 engine. You know we
are working on that, with an American engine, rather than rely
on the Russians.
I know we are spending a lot of money in that area. We want
to finish it.
Can you give us an update on that?
Secretary Mattis. Sir, I can tell you that we are on track
to replace it. It is going to take some time, just because
these capabilities take time to rebuild.
Senator Shelby. We know.
Secretary Mattis. But we are on track for it, Senator, and
we can give you the timeline very shortly.
Senator Shelby. Can you furnish that for the record?
Secretary Mattis. Absolutely.
IRAN PERSIAN GULF
Senator Shelby. In my limited time, Mr. Secretary, would
you touch base with us right now on what we are doing in the
Persian Gulf area to counter Iranian influence in the Persian
Gulf, in the Middle East? And has our position, our posture,
changed since the agreement was signed regarding nuclear
weapons?
Iran seems to be pretty aggressive everywhere in the Middle
East and the Persian Gulf.
Secretary Mattis. Sir, I believe the nuclear arms agreement
is an imperfect arms control agreement, but it is not a
friendship treaty. There are four other threats: ballistic
missile, cyber, counter-maritime, and terrorist. They have
aggressively moved out on all of those.
And you saw President Trump's trip out there to try to
align the Arab nations and bury some of their differences as
they confront this growing threat, and also with Israel, whose
security is threatened by Iran.
We are working the issues across-the-board. We are gaining
interoperability with their forces through some of the arms
sales that brings interoperability that we would need in order
to deter Iranian influence.
But there is no doubt, sir, that they are the leading cause
of instability in the Middle East.
NORTH KOREA
Senator Shelby. Could you touch briefly on North Korea, the
threat there that we are all concerned with, as they have more
and more capability, it seems?
Secretary Mattis. Yes, sir. Preparing for the Senate
confirmation, I met with the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).
They told me this would be probably the earliest crisis I would
face, so that was my first trip, was to the Pacific. I met both
in Tokyo and Seoul with political and military leadership.
We, as you know, moved some ballistic missile protection,
THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), into South Korea
in a combined forces decision, political decision, by the South
Koreans. That is being reviewed by their new administration.
But more importantly, the President invited the President
of China to Mar-a-Lago, where we had extensive talks. There
were only two subjects. This was half of those subjects.
And right now, I think we are seeing assistance from China
in dealing with this growing issue. The military options are
uniformly very, very tough. They are very serious. And the
effort right now led by Secretary of State Tillerson under the
President's direction is to find a diplomatic solution, if
there is anything along those lines possible. It is full effort
on this by all the interagency working with Secretary
Tillerson.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. The time of the distinguished Senator has
expired.
The chair now recognizes the distinguished Senator from
Vermont, Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE REDUCTIONS
Secretary Mattis, we had Secretary Tillerson before the
committee, and I read back a quote of yours, when you said,
``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to
buy more ammunition. The more that we put into the State
Department's diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into
a military budget.''
And then in March before this panel, you said, ``America
has two fundamental powers, the power of intimidation and the
power of inspiration. Soft power is largely found in the power
of inspiration, and it is part and parcel of how we defeat the
enemy.''
I agree with you. A lot of people here on the Hill agree
with you. In fact, a number of former Secretaries of Defense
and State from both parties agree with you.
The proposed 30 percent cut in the budget for diplomacy and
development is called by some at the White House a way to
improve efficiency and put America's security first. Which of
the various proposed cuts at the Department of State and USAID,
which of those cuts strengthen our national security?
Nothing like giving you a tough question at the beginning.
Secretary Mattis. No, I enjoy testifying, sir, because you
get it straight up here.
I have not looked, though. I have a pretty heavy load just
trying to get my own budget under control. I have not looked at
where the line item cuts come.
I will tell you this, Senator Leahy, that when I read about
it in the paper, I called Secretary Tillerson. We meet weekly.
We talk several times a day, most days. And I told him that I
was willing to take whatever development money I get, and as
you are aware, I do get some for the various efforts, and we
have a high level, the highest level, except for he and I,
conference going on, where we are going to set priorities for
the United States Government, and our monies will be used to
jointly go after this. Now, we will maintain the separation and
answer to each of the right committees.
But I will be able to show you how we have set these
priorities in league with the State Department, as we try to
get the most response for the money that you give us by working
best together.
READINESS
Senator Leahy. Over the years, I have visited a number of
war zones, nowhere near as many as you or General Dunford have.
But I have seen the obvious necessity of our military power.
But I have also heard almost universally from our commanders in
the field how necessary it was to have also the soft power
handled by the State Department and USAID.
Now, the President's budget requests $52 billion over the
caps established by the Budget Control Act. If we do not lift
the budget caps from 2 years ago, effectively, we are robbing
Peter to pay Paul, because spending above the budget caps will
trigger sequester across-the-board in defense, which will mean
cutting readiness.
You do not agree with us finding ways to cut readiness, do
you?
Secretary Mattis. No, sir. I do not. I think the budget
control caps have to be repealed.
CR/SHUTDOWN
Senator Leahy. You testified earlier this week before the
House Armed Services Committee that sequestration coupled with
adopted continuing resolutions rather than full appropriations
bills hurts the Department of Defense.
I have been on this committee for an awful lot of years. I
like it a lot better when we do each one of the appropriations
bills, vote them up or down, and work it out.
Now we were going to pass an omnibus spending bill last
November. The President-elect asked us to have a 5-month
continuing resolution, which was done.
Now there has been a tweet saying we need a good shutdown
of the government. I would assume you are not in favor of a
shutdown, that you would rather see us reach a budget
agreement. Is that correct?
Secretary Mattis. That is correct, Senator.
NATIONAL GUARD FUNDING
Senator Leahy. Let me ask what may sound parochial, both
the Army and Air Force rely on our National Guard to fulfill
missions. We are proud of our Guard in Vermont. General Dunford
met with the head of it when he was up there.
But we just deployed to the Middle East to cover a carrier
gap. The Air National Guard was in the field literally in a
matter of hours after arriving, having flown the F-16s to the
Middle East, heavy combat.
The Vermont Army National Guard is now integrated with the
10th Mountain Division. I had pictures of that send to Senator
Bob Dole, who was so proud of his action there.
Now, I think there has to be a commitment, though, if they
are going to get the funding they need.
That money, General Dunford, will that be in the budget?
That is my last question.
General Dunford. It is in the budget, Senator. And we
absolutely are sensitive to the fact that the Guard and Reserve
really has transformed into an operational Reserve over the
last decade.
We certainly could not have done what we have done in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere without the
contribution of the National Guard. And we are committed to
making sure that they have the same modern capabilities as our
Active Duty force, because as you suggest, they are employed in
exactly the same way.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
We now recognize the distinguished Senator from Tennessee,
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we have 83 years of Marine experience at the table
in front of us. I thank you both for those distinguished
careers.
NATO
Mr. Secretary, does President Trump unequivocally support
NATO?
Secretary Mattis. Absolutely.
Senator Alexander. Does President Trump unequivocally
support Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty?
Secretary Mattis. He has stated so, and I am certain he
does.
EUROPEAN REASSURANCE INITIATIVE
Senator Alexander. And you have stated so, and I believe
Secretary Tillerson has stated so.
I would like to talk with you about the Baltics and that
area and Russia for a moment.
Visiting with the President of Finland a few days ago, he
said they have a saying about Cossacks. They take everything
that is loose.
You have in the budget money for the European Reassurance
Initiative and the enhanced forward presence. While several
Senators, including Senator Blunt, were there, it seemed to me
that that relatively small commitment of rotating troops in the
Baltic countries was having a desired effect of making it clear
to Russia that if they moved into Lithuania, for example, that
they would be running into troops from a number of NATO
countries. Or in Poland, for example, they would be running
into American troops with the rotating force.
What is your opinion of the effectiveness of this forward
lean? And is the money in your budget sufficient to provide the
deterrence that we need?
Secretary Mattis. Senator, we have $4.8 billion. It is
sufficient. It is a growth of $1.4 billion over last year.
I was up in the Lithuania forests here myself a couple
weeks ago. What you see are framework nations, Canada, the
United Kingdom, the Americans, and Germany, each providing the
core element of four battle groups in Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland. Around those core elements, we add other
forces.
So we, in effect, have probably two-thirds of NATO forces
now arrayed up there in the Baltics and Poland under these
various battle groups. They are working well together. They
understand why they are there. And I think they are sending a
very clear message, an unambiguous message, to Russia that NATO
does not tolerate any moves against those nations.
RUSSIAN EXERCISE IN THE BALTIC SEA AREA
Senator Alexander. I have two more short questions.
You have been quoted as saying you are not concerned about
the Russian exercise in the Baltic Sea area, although the
United States apparently will have an increased presence in the
Baltic Sea with ships and with air flights.
Is there some risk of an accident or a mistake that could
provoke a problem this August or September during that Russian
exercise?
Secretary Mattis. Sir, there will be increased activity,
training activity, by the Russians and by the NATO forces up at
that time. We are taking active efforts to try to deconflict,
to try to avoid that sort of situation.
The chairman is in contact directly with his counterpart,
General Gerasimov, not just on our relations in Syria and
deconfliction there, but also more broadly.
But it is something we always watch for. We are not
complacent about it. But right now, I believe that it is not in
their interests to provoke something.
Every once in a while, they cause me to wonder about that.
But so far, I think we are okay.
HYBRID WARFARE
Senator Alexander. In Finland, we met with the Center for
Hybrid Warfare, a little NATO organization just starting up,
who told us about a warehouse in St. Petersburg with hundreds
of Russians whose job is to use social media to try to disrupt
and destabilize the countries in that area.
Can you talk a little about that or about hybrid warfare,
what they are facing and what we are doing about that?
Secretary Mattis. We have watched Russia try to change the
character of what they were doing, whether it be in Crimea or
up in the area that you are referring to here, using fake news.
For example, as fast as the German battle group got on the
ground in Lithuania, there was a completely made up story put
out by that organization about the rape of a Lithuanian girl by
one of the German soldiers--completely fabricated. It had
nothing to do with reality.
So it is a very real and present effort by the Russians. We
are aware of it. And you see it in everything from fake news to
mucking around in other people's elections. It is a very broad-
based effort that they shift the focus on from time to time.
Senator Alexander. My impression is that the President's
firmness on his NATO support helps send the message to Putin
that destabilizing those countries is a stupid thing to do, and
he should not miscalculate the United States' attitude. I
appreciate your comments on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
The next Senator to be recognized is the distinguished
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate that.
And welcome, gentlemen.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Secretary Mattis, I wanted to speak with you briefly about
our nuclear weapons. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) cost
of modernizing our nuclear arsenal and weapons infrastructure
is expected to be $1.2 trillion over 30 years. To date, we have
not prioritized which nuclear weapons are necessary for
maintaining deterrence and which are not.
The Nuclear Posture Review, I hope, will prioritize nuclear
weapons investments. It is my understanding you are the lead in
that.
Will it, in fact, give us some enlightenment as to which
nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence, since there is no
limited use of nuclear weapons?
Secretary Mattis. First, I just agree 100 percent. There is
no limited use. I want to be clear on that. The Nuclear Posture
Review will address that.
I am also going back and basically interrogating Dr.
William Perry and Ms. Rose Gottemoeller and other experts to
make certain that we start from a position of knowledge, and we
are not rediscovering the wheel to answer that very question.
We are looking at each leg of the triad, and we are looking
at each weapon inside each leg. What I am looking for is a
deterrent that will be most compelling to make certain these
weapons are never used.
NUCLEAR CRUISE MISSILE
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Let me ask you, then, that
you take a good look at the new nuclear cruise missile. I have
had an opportunity when Secretary Moniz was Secretary of Energy
to look at the classified mockups of the old and the new. And I
believe it is, in fact, a new nuclear weapon, and that is for
another discussion in another place.
It has features which concern me greatly. I do not see it
as an effective deterrent weapon. I see it as Russia taking
action to counter it.
And with the cost and the fact that we have new ballistic
missile submarines, new bombers, new intercontinental ballistic
missiles, and new warheads, I wonder why we need to develop
this specific weapon. The cost is going to be inordinate. And
it has some attributes, which if we have a classified session,
or perhaps I could talk with you about, that concern me very
greatly.
So if you could respond to that, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Mattis. I can, Senator. Coming into the job that
was one of the weapons that I focused on initially. I have not
yet completed my own review. I would say, though, that we have
to make certain the bombers can get through, if they are to be
a valid deterrent from these weapons ever being used.
So how can we keep the bombers survivable and still have
the standoff? That is a issue I am grappling with.
But I register loud and clear the potential destabilizing
view that some people see this weapon bringing, and I am taking
that onboard. But I have to do more study.
Senator Feinstein. And you will look at its range, as well
as the ability to abort it?
Secretary Mattis. I will look at that, Senator.
We also have to look at an issue that Secretary Tillerson
and I are dealing with right now, which is the pretty clear
violations of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty by the
Russians. And what does that change? Basically, what are the
implications of that?
And also some concerns we have about the Open Skies Treaty,
not that we want to walk away, but if Russia is, in fact,
walking away, what are the implications to our deterrent
posture, despite all the efforts by Russian and American
leaders some years ago to try to get these treaties in place
and make this part of the deterrent, in effect? And if they are
walking way, I have to consider that as I look at this system.
LRSO
Senator Feinstein. I had the privilege, along with Senator
Kyl, of going to Geneva when the Russian military was there on
the agreement that we just approved a short time ago--I just
got a block in my mind--with Russia, the last agreement, the
New START Treaty. I saw the reduction and the reductions agreed
to, and I felt we were on a very good track.
I have talked to people in the military about the LRSO, and
I would like to talk to you about what they tell me, not here,
about the philosophy that they think is behind it, which I am
not sure, for the cost, that we will end up with a practical
deterrent.
Secretary Mattis. I need to come up and see. I would be
eager to get that perspective, ma'am, because I want to give
the right kind of guidance to this posture review.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Cochran. The time of the distinguished Senator has
expired.
The chairman recognizes the distinguished Senator from
Missouri, Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
MILITARY FAMILY STABILITY ACT
Secretary Mattis and General Dunford, very quickly I want
to thank you for the attention you both have given to an effort
I have been making, along with Senator Gillibrand, for the
Military Family Stability Act. Both of your offices have worked
with us to the point that I think we are now confident we can
do this with virtually no budgetary impact but lots of
flexibility for families that they do not currently have.
My first meeting with Secretary Mattis after he was
nominated for this job, he quickly got how important it was to
do something for families.
I think, General Dunford, when we discussed this earlier,
you said your family has moved 20 times during your career. So
if anybody would understand the challenges of moving and timing
and how much difference flexibility would make, you certainly
would as well.
But I think we have worked to a point that we are hopeful
to see that in the national defense authorization bill and have
it in a way that it really will have no impact here.
But if either of you would like to make any comments on
that, I would be pleased.
Secretary Mattis. Senator, we have looked at it. Initially,
I was told it could not be cost-neutral. I said that is not
good enough, go back and find a way to make it cost-neutral.
With personnel costs continuing to rise, we have to keep
them under control. I think we have a way forward on it. We may
need a little legislative relief about an entitlement that
appears to say we cannot do it this way, but we will work with
you on this, sir.
Senator Blunt. General Dunford.
General Dunford. Senator, first, I just want to thank you
for your advocacy for military families. At a time when the
economy is improving and it is difficult to recruit and retain
high-quality people, initiatives like this are going to send a
very powerful message that we actually do care about them, and
I hope that we encourage them to stay, despite some of the
challenges associated with family life in the military.
NGA WEST FACILITY
Senator Blunt. Well, I appreciate what you both have done
to help us get to the point that I think we can solve that
problem, not only the commitment of families but our investment
in people who are serving and everything we can do to encourage
them to continue to serve and to solve problems that we can
solve. And I think this is one of them, and I hope we have
found a way to do that.
Secretary Mattis, and actually this could relate to both of
you, I want to turn to a project that is vital to our national
security. It is the construction of the NGA West facility in
North St. Louis.
The budget request this year includes robust funding to
begin that construction. I know you have been supportive of it.
I think there is one final area that we need to resolve.
Department of Defense officials, particularly the Air
Force, and the city of St. Louis, have been working on an
agreement that would determine what environmental standards are
necessary for the land transfer. I think we need to be sure we
make this happen.
Now, the Air Force tells me that they have teams of lawyers
working around the clock to finalize this agreement. I think
that is probably a stretch of how many people are working on
this and how hard they are working on this. But we were
supposed to have a final agreement by the end of April, and
then a final agreement by the end of May. I would hate to miss
another month.
This is just simply, there was a change in who would
actually be responsible for the property after every other
decision was made, and then previous commitments about
standards seem to get into conflict with what the new custodian
and the Air Force thought they needed.
We need to get this solved. Secretary, I know you are
working on this. I know you do not want to have a meeting in
your office about this with Senator McCaskill and I, and we do
not want to come over either. But we need to get this solved.
Secretary Mattis. On that score, I wouldn't want to see
you, sir. I would want to see you any other time.
But knowing I was going to be asked this, I checked on it.
And they told me it was on track now for the latest timeline.
But I am going to go back and double check here, so I can avoid
the need for you to come see me.
Senator Blunt. Well, if we want to see you, we want to see
you on other topics.
And this is an important facility. There is a lot of money
in the budget request to get this started this year. But to get
it started this year, we have to resolve this one last issue,
which is highly resolvable. And I hope we see that. We need to
see that happen before the end of this month.
Secretary Mattis. Yes, sir. I am surprised that it has slid
this far. Let me go back at it, sir. I thought this was the
schedule, so I did not realize it slipped twice.
On this one, sir, I do not have stress. I create it. Let me
work on this for you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Secretary.
Secretary Mattis. This shouldn't be, frankly. We have dealt
with this for a long time.
Senator Blunt. I agree. I agree.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The chair recognizes the distinguished Senator from
Montana, Senator Tester.
TROOP LEVELS IN AFGHANISTAN
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Secretary Mattis and General Dunford for being here today. I
very much appreciate your service.
I also want to start by associating myself with the remarks
of the ranking member, that both of you are proven. Both of you
are adults. And I support you for the same reasons, that you
are the adult in the room. And I want to thank you very much
for being there and offering some common sense.
Secretary Mattis, the VA has just announced that they are
going to be using the DOD (Department of Defense) platform on
electronic medical records. I have no question around this. I
just ask that you do what I think you would do anyway and make
sure that we facilitate good communication between the DOD and
the VA so this happens as quickly and as seamlessly as
possible. That's all.
You had talked in your opening remarks, Secretary Mattis,
about the President giving you the authority to determine troop
levels in Afghanistan. I think that is a good thing.
You also concluded, I think yesterday, maybe in Armed
Services Committee hearing, that we are not winning in
Afghanistan right now. We are not winning in Afghanistan right
now. The question is, how do you define victory? And how do you
define when we get to a point where we can leave Afghanistan?
Secretary Mattis. Senator, I believe what we have to do is
get to a point that the Afghan security forces working for a
government that can win the affection and respect of its people
can carry out the security, so there are no havens for
terrorists. And that is the bottom line.
They are law enforcement. We still help them. I can imagine
Interpol intimately engaged and us training, mentoring, even
years from now. But that is what it would look like.
Senator Tester. So is that achievable? Is that achievable?
It has been 15 years in.
And I always think back to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Some people say the reason they went down as they did was their
involvement in Afghanistan on the other side.
The question is, is it achievable? This country has been at
war for God knows how many centuries.
Secretary Mattis. That is not the full history of the area,
sir. For some of us who are my age, this was part of the hippie
trail. Believe it or not, hippies used to hitchhike there, it
was such a haven of agricultural peace and pastoral peace.
I would tell you that the Soviet invasion completely had
shaken that society to pieces. And putting it back together, we
deal with implications from those days, plus a lot of other
pressures on them now.
But, yes, it is achievable. But the international community
is going to have to hold with it. And when we reduce, we reduce
based on conditions on the ground, not on an arbitrary
timeline.
NATO AND ARTICLE 5
Senator Tester. In that vein, and it was brought up earlier
in some of the questions, the President's relationship with
NATO, and I think that either--well, I think it was
intentional, that he failed to recognize Article 5 of the NATO
agreement.
What is your advice to him on that? I mean, it looks to me
as I look around that a lot of our traditional allies are being
pushed aside. And in his particular case--not yours, his--that
there is more of an embracing of folks who really want to do us
harm.
Secretary Mattis. That is not my impression, Senator. His
trip to NATO was meant to send a message of the priority he
placed on it.
More recently in the Rose Garden, he stated clearly that
Article 5, we are with it 100 percent. In front of both the
House and Senate, he made a very clear statement of support for
NATO. I think he said he was 100 percent for it there.
I believe that, right now, NATO does not have any doubt
about this.
Senator Tester. Okay, so being 100 percent for NATO and
being willing to step up when one of our allies is attacked,
you feel confident that the President is on board with that.
Secretary Mattis. Yes, sir.
DOD NOMINATIONS
Senator Tester. Okay.
Look, we have a number of positions that have not been
filled, the Under Secretary of Intelligence, the Under
Secretary for Policy, the list goes on and on. I believe that
there are 53 Senate-confirmed positions at DoD, only five are
filled. Eleven are nominated. The rest are empty.
Have you spoken to the White House about filling those
positions? Have you made recommendations on those positions?
Secretary Mattis. Yes, sir. And if you read the newspaper
as I read it, it looks more dire. I think, in terms of what is
coming down the pike very, very shortly here, there are a lot
more people in process.
As you know, the Senate Armed Services Committee puts
extraordinary attention to the ethical requirements to be
there, probably the most challenging ethical standard in terms
of removing even the appearance that someone could have a
conflict of interest. Part of this is simply people having to
divest of finances.
It took me, and I was in the Marines for 40 years, sir, it
took me an accountant and a lawyer and a stack of paper this
thick to show that I did not have ethical conflicts. And I am
pretty boring when it comes to my economic situation.
So I will just tell you that it is a challenge, but we do
end up with some varsity-level draft picks. I just point to
Under Secretary Comptroller David Norquist sitting here with
me. I am getting some varsity players on how to discipline this
budget, sir.
Senator Tester. Good to hear.
Thank you for your service to both of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
The distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is
recognized.
SOUTH KOREA
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Mattis, I recently received a truly alarming
briefing about North Korea. I was, therefore, very concerned
about the news last week that you mentioned in passing, that
the new government in South Korea will apparently be delaying
the implementation of the THAAD missile defense system.
How important is this missile defense system for defending
both South Korean and American servicemembers, as well as the
300,000 Americans living in Seoul?
Secretary Mattis. Senator Collins, the THAAD system is a
topline, superb system. It, I believe, is critical.
It was a combined decision. It was taken by a previous
administration. South Korea went through a bit of political
turmoil. I believe there were campaign statements made that
have impacted.
But at the same time, we have not been asked to remove the
system or its two launchers. We have several other launchers in
country, in theater right now, or in Korea, and they have not
been deployed.
There are inside Korean Government concerns. They do not
have concerns with us. They have made that very clear to our
combined commander on the ground, General Brooks.
However, they do have some questions about whether or not
their environmental law was followed correctly, so they want to
get the environmental impact statement done.
But this is an internal administration--their body politic
having an issue. It is not a military-to-military issue. And I
think we are going to find a way forward. As you know, the
President of South Korea is visiting here shortly, and we are
trying to resolve this, just so we have clarity on the way
ahead.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I certainly hope that will be
resolved soon.
I want to associate myself with your imploring Congress to
avoid continuing resolutions, do away with sequestration, and
have more realistic budget caps. I believe that is absolutely
essential to your ability to restore readiness to the level
that is needed.
In your five priorities, you mentioned reforming how the
department does business. GAO (Government Accountability
Office) has been critical of the department for proceeding with
weapons systems before most of the design work is completed.
And GAO points out that when the department proceeds before the
design work is relatively stable, that it almost inevitably
leads to cost overruns and other difficulties.
Is that the kind of reform that you are considering as you
look at the way that the department does business?
Secretary Mattis. There is a host of reforms. That is one
of them.
For example, we may say that the technological maturity
rate of something is simply not sufficient to gamble on it
maturing as we build an aircraft carrier, for example,
something like this. At the same time, we have to take some
risk, because we do not want to turn something out that takes a
year, 2 years, 3 years, and find it has already been outdated
because we tried to kind of stop the clock on technological
advances while it is going on.
So it is a balancing act, but we have to do a better job, I
think, of calculating the risk and making certain we are just
not gambling.
There is a difference in taking a risk and taking a gamble,
and that is where we are taking this. And there are other
reforms as well.
EUROPEAN REASSURANCE INITIATIVE
Senator Collins. And finally, I just want to follow up on
Senator Alexander's comments about the importance of the
European Reassurance Initiative.
Montenegro became the 29th member of the NATO alliance
earlier this month. The Maine National Guard has a long-time
State partnership with Montenegro and actually helped them get
ready for ascension into NATO, something I am very proud of.
And yet, the Russian reaction was very hostile and very
provocative. Not only did they try to interfere with
Montenegro's elections, but the Russians put out a statement
saying that, in light of the hostile course chosen by
Montenegrin authorities, the Russian side reserves the right to
take retaliatory measures.
That is truly provocative language, and I just want to
encourage you to keep sending the right signals to our NATO
allies. And I think the funding in the budget request for the
European Reassurance Initiative, as well as continuing the
State Partnership Program, is absolutely vital.
And if you have time in 23 seconds to comment, that would
be great.
Secretary Mattis. I endorse everything you said. I think it
points to, Senator, NATO is growing. If anyone wondered about
NATO's relevance in this age, in the free market of nation
ideas, they see this as a value to join NATO. And I think that
that says a lot about why, if we did not have NATO today, we
would create it, because it is fit for its time.
Senator Collins. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The chair recognizes that the distinguished Senator from
Hawaii, Senator Schatz.
FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION OPERATIONS
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General, thank you for being here.
The United States Navy had not conducted freedom of
navigation operations in the South China Sea for more than 6
months from October 2016 to May 2017. I am glad that we have
resumed them, but I worry about fits and starts and what kind
of signaling that sends about our resolve, as China continues
to violate and challenge international law.
So two questions. Why was there a 6-month pause? And,
secondly, what is our current policy regarding freedom of
navigation operations?
Secretary Mattis. Thank you, Senator.
I cannot speak to the pause before January 22, obviously.
But I can tell you that when I came in, I received from the
chairman a recommendation to conduct a freedom of navigation
operation in the South China Sea. I was the one who rejected
it, and I said I want to see the plan for how we do this, not
each one of them coming up as a standalone. I wanted to see a
strategy.
He provided that on very short notice. I authorized the
freedom of navigation, those voyages to continue and get
underway, and that is what you saw with the first.
Now there is a program inside a coherent strategy to
support Secretary Tillerson's view of foreign policy engaging
in that part of the world.
Senator Schatz. You do not anticipate any additional
pauses?
Secretary Mattis. This is our policy, sir. We will continue
this. Could it change, if circumstances change? Of course.
But right now, Secretary Tillerson and I, I give him the
military factors, and we are in league together on this, so I
do not think anything is going to change.
ENHANCE DEFENSE COOPERATION AGREEMENT
Senator Schatz. Okay, thank you.
On the U.S.-Philippine relationship, I think you will agree
that the Philippines is one of our most important allies in the
region, and we continue to make clear to the Filipino people
that the United States-Philippines relationship is strong, and
we cherish our personal and historical bonds, but we are
worried about the tactics of President Duterte.
I am wondering if you could talk about the tension that you
have right now as you are trying to implement EDCA (Enhanced
Defense Cooperation Agreement) and you have the challenges
related to President Duterte's illegal crackdown under the sort
of guise of counterterrorism, counterdrugs, that there are
extrajudicial killings, which are contrary to American values
and contrary to international law.
So how do we continue our defense cooperation, which is
absolutely necessary, but wall off any assistance that we may
be providing, either technical assistance or real resources, so
that we know that we are not a party to any of those
atrocities?
Secretary Mattis. Well, we will ensure that we are not a
party to any of those atrocities, Senator. It is a matter of
how we execute on areas where we have shared interests and
requirement.
You know that ISIS has moved against a city of 200,000
people there in the southern Philippines, Marawi. We are
providing surveillance support to the Philippine military as
they go in to free the people there.
But at the same time, we are very clear about where we
stand on the issues you brought up, and we maintain the
military-to-military relationship in clearly demarcated areas
having to do with security.
And we are working, by the way, with Indonesia, Malaysia,
and the Philippines in a broader area of a maritime domain
awareness effort to try and limit how much of this kind of
terrorist activity can get into the Philippines with what we
call the Sulu Sea area there.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
ASIA-PACIFIC STABILITY INITIATIVE
The last question, since we last met, you have had a chance
to learn more about the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative
proposed by Admiral Harris to have the munitions and equipment
that they need to defend our allies and to fund additional
exercises and build infrastructure throughout the Pacific AOR
(Area of Responsibility).
I know you mentioned it briefly at Shangri-La. I wonder if
you could state for the committee how you view this initiative
in the context of our Asia-Pacific strategy.
Secretary Mattis. I will even put it in a global strategy,
Senator, where this is a priority theater. We have to stand by
our allies. We do not trade off allies for any single
initiative with another country. And we make certain that what
we are doing breeds a degree of confidence among our allies,
our partners, builds partnerships.
We have a number of exercises going on this week, actually,
with navies from Japan, Australia, elsewhere, France, in the
Pacific, just to send a reassuring, stabilizing message that it
is a priority theater for our department.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE REVIEW
Senator Murkowski. The Chairman has stepped out for just a
moment and has recognized me to go next, so I will thank you
both for your leadership. Thank you for your words here this
morning.
Secretary Mattis, you characterize in your testimony, not
only today but previously, you characterize North Korea as the
most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security. Its
nuclear weapons program is a clear and present danger to all,
and its regime's provocative actions have not abated.
Pretty strong words. As you know, we keep a pretty close
eye on things in North Korea, given its proximity to Alaska. I
know my colleague from Hawaii is equally attentive.
But also in Alaska, as you know, we host Nation's ground-
based missile defenses.
The Missile Defense Agency has a strong plan in place to
improve our missile defense capabilities by 2020. That includes
44 ready-to-fire ground-based interceptors by 2017, as well as
the land-based discrimination radar.
And we have had some good conversations about the strength
of the program that we have in place. I am encouraged that the
Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR) has commenced, but I am
also concerned that we may have a lag between the review, the
policy, and of course, the budgeting and appropriations, and
then, ultimately, the construction.
So if you can speak for just a moment this morning about
your views as to how we can provide for that robust defense
that we have based at Fort Greely? So whether within the
confines of the BMDR or outside, do we need additional silos
there at Fort Greely to provide our missile defenders with
greater capability against the threats that, as you have
clearly admitted, are not abating at this time?
Secretary Mattis. Senator, this is a situation that is
developing, in terms of our adversary's capability and the
capacity. Right now, I am confident that we have the right
number. I am also confident we do not have the right number for
the future.
The review will help us come to you and say here is what we
can justify. As you know, we are coming in this year asking for
$700 million more dollars for this area, and I want to be able
to justify every one of these dollars. I think this is going to
be an area that, when we get done, the Ballistic Missile
Defense Review will make a strong argument that we have to have
more capability here.
Is it more launchers as well? Or is it a rapid reload
capability? So I have to go through some work first before I
bring you simply a large bill.
But I am very confident this threat is not going to get
less in the future.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. We will look forward
to the outcome of that review.
Do you also worry about this lag, recognizing that we do
want to be responsible and ensure that we are doing this right?
But I am concerned that things around here just take a little
bit longer than we would like or how they are laid out on
paper.
Secretary Mattis. I will ask the chairman to comment. We
also have a naval leg of this, as you know.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Secretary Mattis. Let me ask the chairman to give some of
the military flavor. If that does not answer your question, I
will get you more a detailed answer.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
General Dunford. Senator, a couple things.
One is, we are confident that the projected capability that
we have will deal with the North Korean projected threat for
the foreseeable future. As you know, it is also part of a
layered defense system that includes the radar systems and the
naval capability that the Secretary alluded to.
I also would say that dealing with the North Korean threat
has to be about more than just the defensive capabilities as
well. So we continue to develop other capabilities that we can
talk about in a classified venue, to help us deal with these
challenges.
ARCTIC
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
And then, very quickly, I always bring up the Arctic. I
think you are used to that by now. But I continue to press the
question of whether the United States is capable of projecting
military force and maintaining domain awareness in the Arctic.
My purpose in raising the subject is not to identify any
vulnerabilities out there but to really ensure that the focus
in this very important part of the world is not lost as we are
making very difficult defense choices.
We had General Scaparrotti in the Military Construction
Subcommittee a few weeks ago. I asked him about Russia's
intentions in the Arctic. He said our concern is that rather
than the Arctic being a place that is for commerce, stable
freedom of maneuver, in accordance with the international laws
as adhered to, that they could position themselves in a place
to control the Arctic and that sea lane.
So I do not have any idea whether we are in a position to
counter Russia's ambitions, but I am trying to make sure that
we can get the department's attention on identifying our
strengths, our weaknesses, and any gaps that may exist. We have
asked for reports. So I do not know whether we need to ask for
an unfunded priority list of Arctic-related needs, but know
that I am going to continue to press and hope that we can get a
little greater clarity here.
Secretary Mattis. Senator, I appreciate you keeping an eye
on this, because with the number of priority theaters and
problems we have around the world, we could lose track of it.
I share General Scaparrotti's concern. It is not all one
way. As you know, we have an undersea force, a submarine force
that can operate anywhere, to put it bluntly. But we also work
closely with either allies, NATO, Canada, all the way across
from Europe over, and that has a significant Arctic layer to
it.
It is actually an area where we can do some cooperation
with the Russians. You have to go all the way up there to find
a place where you can do anything with them, but on search and
rescue or something.
But so far, we have not found the Arctic to be a place
where we can make much progress with Russia either, like
everywhere else.
So for right now, we have to consider the military
capabilities necessary for what is becoming a year-round
transit route with the warming up there.
Senator Murkowski. I look forward to more conversations on
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. The distinguished Senator from South
Carolina--oh, sorry. The Senator from Rhode Island is next.
Senator Reed. We are often mistaken for each other, Mr.
Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cochran. I apologize to both parties.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
TROOP LEVELS
Mr. Secretary, you indicated that you have received
delegated authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan, and I
am trying to understand what that means. That you can make
adjustments to forces without the President's permission? Or
you will make a recommendation to the President and he will
approve it? Usually, these numbers have not been set by
delegated authority.
Secretary Mattis. Senator, the President delegated the
authority to me to turn the numbers up and down, as necessary.
But this came at the end of a very long discussion, months of
discussion with the President, as we looked at what the
strategy is that would then guide how those numbers are
decided.
In other words, it is not that I have been given some carte
blanche to draw up a strategy or a number that is out of step
with the strategy. The strategy, we are working on the
interagency. We will present that to the President probably
within the next several weeks, and that will guide me.
But you will notice I had the same authority in Iraq and
Syria, and I would see it handled in the same way, consistent
with the State Department-led foreign policy that carries out
the President's foreign policy. And the military factors and
the security aspects of it will be my responsibility to answer
to the President on.
NATO
Senator Reed. Afghanistan is a NATO effort. Will NATO
increase their forces?
Secretary Mattis. I am confident that some of the NATO
nations will add, if we do. Yes, sir. They respond to our
leadership.
Senator Reed. Have you made that request?
Secretary Mattis. I want to get our strategy right first. I
have been meeting with my counterparts in the NATO nations. And
a number of them, the men and women who lead those military
departments, have indicated they are--and not just NATO
nations, other nations as well that are troop contributors,
have indicated they will add, if we do.
Senator Reed. Has Secretary Tillerson been given delegated
authority to control his resources in the region?
Secretary Mattis. I do not know. He seems to control the
State Department resources.
We meet weekly, sir. And when we talk, he is not looking
over his shoulder. We carry out the President's foreign policy,
obviously, me with the military aspects. But he appears to have
all of the authority--I defer to him.
REGIONAL APPROACH
Senator Reed. As you point out, and again, the question
reflects there has to be unity of effort, particularly since
one of the issues, among so many, are the behaviors of adjacent
countries, where particularly the fact that some countries
provide sanctuary for forces, particularly the Haqqani network.
Part of the strategy is going to take steps to limit these
sanctuaries?
Secretary Mattis. Senator, part of the frustration that you
heard yesterday in the hearing was that we are including a
regional approach, or implementing a regional approach, and
that is more difficult. The complexity goes up significantly
when we do that. But, yes, sir. That is exactly----
Senator Reed. Just a comment. It seems to me that these
issues are of such importance, with all due respect, and
include an across-the-government approach, that a delegation,
in this instance, of authority, would that inadvertently or
unwittingly take the President out of critical decisions that
he should make? Or deny him information he should have, since
he is not in that immediate loop?
Secretary Mattis. I do not keep any secrets from the
President, Senator. Further, everything I have seen so far
between Director Pompeo, Director Coats, Secretary Tillerson,
and myself, there are frequent meetings. We go into a great
deal of detail. And the President is keenly interested, not in
all the tactical details, but in getting the strategy right,
and knowing enough of the tactical details that he is informed.
He is a very active participant when we sit down with him.
AMERICAN PUBLIC SUPPORT
Senator Reed. And, Mr. Secretary, you pointed out that we
have been at war for 16 years, the first instance that we have
never relied on conscription to involve the greater American
public in this effort. The burden has been borne by hundreds of
thousands of men and women in uniform and their families, the
essential burden.
You are a historian. Have we ever been engaged in an
extended period of warfare when we have not asked the American
people to support it with revenue?
Secretary Mattis. I think the engagements after the Civil
War for 40, 50 years between the U.S. Cavalry and the Native
Americans. I think to some degree, except for conscription, the
Vietnam War, I think, was run as a guns and butter, not a guns
or butter, event.
Senator Reed. But we were paying for both the guns and the
butter.
Secretary Mattis. That we are, sir.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Secretary Mattis. Yes, sir.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The chair now recognizes the distinguished Senator from
South Carolina, Senator Graham.
TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to congratulate the President for
having the vision and, quite frankly, good judgment to allow
Secretary Mattis, in consultation with a very good military
leadership team, to set the troop levels. What a novel idea for
the Commander in Chief to turn to his commanders and say, what
do you need to win? Senator Durbin started this off with, I am
glad you are there because Trump does not know a whole lot. I
am glad that Trump is smart enough to understand that you know
more than he does, and he is empowering use to make us safe.
General Obama was a pretty lousy general. He withdrew all of
our forces against sound military advice in Iraq. He got to
8,600 because he just picked a number. He could have helped the
Free Syrian Army when they needed our help the most, and there
would have been no massacre of the Syrian people. So that is
just my 2 cents worth. I am really pleased that this President
is listening to those who actually understand the war and are
dedicated to winning it.
So let's dig in a little bit. Do you agree with me, General
Dunford, that every American in Afghanistan is an insurance
policy against another 9/11 originating from Afghanistan
against the American people?
General Dunford. I do, Senator. I suggest the fact we have
not had another 9/11 to be due to the pressure that we put on
the Al Qaeda network that has been in that region since 9/11.
Senator Graham. And unfortunately, the international
terrorist footprint in Afghanistan has grown over time, right?
General Dunford. It has become more diverse, for sure,
Senator.
Senator Graham. And that is why we need more
counterterrorism operations to protect the homeland?
General Dunford. That is right. Our mission in Afghanistan
is balanced between a counterterrorism mission and growing the
Afghan----
Senator Graham. Can you see a scenario, General Dunford and
Secretary Mattis, where the Afghan people lose to the Taliban
and we win?
Secretary Mattis. No, sir. We saw that circumstance in the
months, year, before 9/11, and we saw the outcome.
Senator Graham. Do you agree with that?
General Dunford. Certainly not, Senator.
Senator Graham. And both of you are dedicated to making
sure that never happens again, as much as possible?
Secretary Mattis. We are sworn to defend this country, sir.
Senator Graham. And so you are going to make this decision
based on what is best for America, and it is best for America
for us to succeed in Afghanistan? Is that correct?
Secretary Mattis. It is, sir, and for the international
community that our economy depends on.
Senator Graham. And all of the people going are volunteers.
We do not have conscription.
Secretary Mattis. Yes, sir.
SEQUESTRATION
Senator Graham. We should be grateful for these men and
women who have been there multiple times. I think everybody
here is grateful, but being grateful is not enough.
General Dunford, you said that we are losing our advantage
against enemies throughout the world. Do you agree with me that
the main reason has been sequestration?
General Dunford. It has been a combination of things. I
think the main reason is sequestration, but I would also say
that the enemy has taken advantage of our focus on violent
extremism and our budget difficulties to grow their own
capabilities, so----
Senator Graham. As we are looking one way, they are growing
the other way.
General Dunford. That is exactly----
Senator Graham. It has nothing to do with the caliber of
the men and women. We are not losing our advantage because our
soldiers have deteriorated. It is quite the opposite. We have
the best force we have ever fielded in the history of the
United States. Do you agree with that?
General Dunford. I do, Senator. It has been about our
investment portfolio, not about our quality of people.
Senator Graham. So Congress can fix this, if we choose. Do
you agree?
General Dunford. Senator, I can. And not only that, today,
we still retain a competitive advantage over any single
adversary. We have time to turn the trend around.
But I would assess that, by the end of this 5-year program,
we are going to find ourselves in a position where we are at a
competitive disadvantage in several areas.
Senator Graham. So if we go to 603 that is a step in the
right direction. Is that right, Secretary Mattis?
Secretary Mattis. With more assets, we do more, yes, sir.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Senator Graham. Okay. There is an unfunded request,
priority request, of $30 billion. Would it be wasteful spending
if we gave you that additional $30 billion?
Secretary Mattis. I believe it is actually $33 billion,
sir, just to round it off a little bit there.
Senator Graham. That is what I like you.
Secretary Mattis. But the priorities are excellent, sir.
The priorities we have in the base budget are the right ones.
If we get more money, that is the right place.
Senator Graham. Well, we have a chance to go beyond 603.
Based on the priority needs of the military, I hope we will
take that chance.
RESIDUAL FORCE
As we look out over the coming 5 to 10 years, General
Dunford, very quickly, after we defeat ISIL, and we will, in
Iraq, with our Iraqi security partners, do you believe it is in
our interests to leave a residual force this time, if the
Iraqis will accept it?
General Dunford. I do, Senator. I think it is important to
point out, not only for enduring commitment in the region to
advance our interests, but I also believe that, one, there is
more fighting to be done and the Iraqi security forces will
continue to have to develop their capabilities.
Senator Graham. Finally, you are not looking for a fair
fight. I am not either. So do you both agree that modernization
has been neglected because of operational needs, and now is the
time to modernize the force to win the fights of the future and
deter war if we can?
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The chair recognizes that the distinguished Senator from
Washington, Ms. Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Thank you both for being here.
HANFORD CLEAN-UP
Secretary Mattis, greetings from your home State of
Washington. Good to see you again.
Secretary Mattis, let me start with a Washington State
question. Communities in our home State are no strangers, as
you know, to long-term environmental cleanup efforts.
Nuclear weapons production at Hanford helped our country
win World War II and later the Cold War. But after years of
cleanup, much work still remains to fulfill our government's
legal and moral obligation to our Tri-Cities community.
Today, communities in our State from Oak Harbor to Airway
Heights, are concerned that they too will be dealing with
groundwater contamination associated with firefighting foam
used as the military aviation facilities for years to come. Oak
Harbor, Coupeville, Airway Heights, and communities actually
around the country are being directly affected by groundwater
contamination today, and I am worried about not getting enough
resources to address this problem.
So I wanted to ask you, while you are here today, can you
work with me and our communities in Washington State to take
the steps necessary to investigate and clean up this
contamination?
Secretary Mattis. Absolutely, Senator. Those are all names
of towns I either grew up in or have a close affiliation with,
so I understand the human dimension very well.
Senator Murray. It is of deep concern to us. If you could
provide us quarterly updates to this committee regarding the
department-wide response to groundwater contamination, I would
really appreciate it.
Secretary Mattis. Okay. We will do so, ma'am.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
RECRUIT MEN AND WOMEN
Let me ask a broader question. I will start with you,
Secretary Mattis.
As we begin to expand the end-strength of the military
services again, I want to take a minute to focus on the
eligibility of the general population our services are drawing
from. There have been several reports in recent years,
including one released in May by the Council for a Strong
America, that estimate that the percentage of 17- to 24-year-
olds ineligible for military service to be as high as 70
percent.
Military ineligibility, as you know, for this group
collectively stems from obesity, drug abuse, academic
ineligibility, criminal history. And these are not problems the
defense budget, of course, is intended to or generally
permitted to address.
But let me ask you, talk to us a little bit about the value
in making sure we are investing in domestic priorities like
education and healthcare to help make sure that we have young
men and women ready to serve in our military.
Secretary Mattis. I think it is essential that, for the
military and for the health of the society just in general, we
address these issues, Senator.
In terms of the military, I wonder sometimes if it is not
nonquantitative aspects we have to enhance, that there are
other things that we should be doing. I have gone back in
history to find what they did about the inability to recruit
people, young men, because their teeth had rotted out back
before World War I. I mean, there is a whole raft of history
lessons that we can look at here.
But I agree with you. Society has to breed enough young men
and women who are fit enough in body, mind, and spirit,
physically and mentally agile, and spiritually, I would call
psychologically strong enough to take on the extraordinary
efforts that we know we are going to require of them if we send
them into the battlefield.
Senator Murray. General, can you comment?
General Dunford. Senator, I think what you are alluding to
is a really important point, and that is the strength of the
United States military is a direct reflection of the strength
of U.S. society.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much. This is
something that I think we need to continue to focus on, to make
sure that we have a strong military in the future.
As we see decreased budgets here and decreased investments,
it is something I am deeply worried about, so I appreciate
that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
The chair recognizes the distinguished Senator from Kansas,
Mr. Moran.
BRIGADES
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Chairman and Secretary, thank you very much.
I was able to visit in this setting not too many days ago
with General Milley. I wanted to start this conversation by
talking about the unfunded requirement list that includes $3.1
billion to increase your end-strength levels beyond the fiscal
year 2017 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) mandate. I
want have a conversation about how those brigades will be
divided. What kind of brigades do we need?
I asked this of General Milley, and his indication, and my
paraphrase is, we are probably going to need to rebalance the
force with additional armor capabilities. Assistance brigades,
we are going to introduce those. The new threat environment I
assume in your assessment means that we are going to need to
rebalance those brigade structures.
With the Russian aggression, our reassurance efforts, the
conversation this morning about Afghanistan, I do know that
back-to-back armor brigade combat team deployments to Europe is
occurring. I know that the Big Red One in Kansas is part of
that. We will have 4,000 of those soldiers with the second BCT
to Europe this fall.
What do you believe, I guess, Mr. Secretary, is the right
mix of light armor, light attack armor, advise and assist
brigades? And consequently, where will the BCTs acquire
training?
Secretary Mattis. Those brigades will be joining the
general-purpose force. So what we do is we look at what is a
threat, at best we can determine.
I will ask the chairman to give his thoughts. I will
probably have to take this one for the record, Senator.
But I will just tell you, sir, that as we put this proposal
forward, if we do not remove the Budget Control Act caps, and
we bring those troops in, the only way we will be able to pay
them 2 years from now is by stopping, again, modernization. So
there is a danger here to even discuss this, if we do not look
at the broader budgetary horizon.
But to specifically answer your question, chairman----
Senator Moran. You were very successful in using my
question to make your point one more time.
General Dunford. Senator, when we talk full spectrum, what
we are really saying is that the United States of America,
given our security challenges, cannot prepare for Russia and
China or violent extremism. We have to prepare for all of those
challenges.
So General Milley and I have had this conversation about
what the Army ought to look like. General Milley has sat down
with the Secretary and spoken about that.
The two areas that he highlighted in the conversation with
you are the two areas that we have found now to be very
stressed.
One is armor brigades. Even the rotation now, as you know,
it is a pretty tight turn. What that impacts is the amount of
time our soldiers are home. But it also affects the amount of
training that they are able to do across the spectrum. Right
now, even our armor brigades have been probably more singularly
focused on violent extremism and the challenges in Syria and so
forth than we would like to have.
So increasing the armor capacity is something that General
Milley has spoken about.
In terms of the advise and assist brigades, that is an
initiative that the Army has been working on now for a couple
years. General Milley's leadership has kind of pushed it over
the goal line. He briefed the Secretary on it very shortly
after the Secretary came in, so that the Army had specific
units to meet what we believe to be an enduring requirement to
grow partnership capacity.
Our methodology for dealing with the violent extremism
problem, in particular, is to train local forces, so they can
assume responsibility for security in their countries. Those
advise and assist brigades are designed exactly to do that.
I would emphasize one point the Secretary made, and that is
our caution in growing capacity now without certainty about
what the next several years will be. In other words, the worst
thing we could do now is grow capacity and then not have the
funds available to properly train and equip those units.
I do believe that we will have to grow. I think the defense
security review that the Secretary will lead will indicate a
need to grow in capacity. I think the areas that General Milley
identified are certainly going to be reinforced by that study.
But the one experience that both Secretary Mattis and I had
was, when we both served as lieutenants and captains, we had
bigger forces than we were able to provide adequate leadership,
adequate training, and adequate equipment.
So I would just say balance means two things. It means
being prepared to deal with threats across the spectrum. It
also means that we have a balance in our training, equipment,
and personnel to make sure that the units are whole.
NEW ATTACK FIGHTER
Senator Moran. Let me just highlight, in the 20 seconds I
have remaining, I want to be able to say this, because I
recently took a backseat ride in a light attack fighter, the
Scorpion, over the skies of Kansas. And I want to highlight for
you this issue that we are going through a process of a new
attack fighter developed by the private sector and would want
you to respond, perhaps take one for the record, about its
value to the entire military.
At the moment, there is a bit of a focus by the Air Force,
but I have the view that it has a value to a broad array of our
military efforts.
Secretary Mattis. Yes, sir. We are on board with it. The
first test was done out at CENTCOM, and I am keenly aware of
that test. We are watching it closely. It has a lot of promise.
Senator Moran. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Cochran. I really
appreciate this hearing.
Thank you both for your service. I really appreciate you
being here today.
AMUF
As both of you know, U.S. troops are now deep in Syrian
territory, and the last time you testified before this
committee, Secretary Mattis, you stated that we had not invaded
Syria. You stated correctly that ISIS does not honor these
borders, and our forces are in pursuit of ISIS.
But since then, U.S. troops continue to operate within the
internationally recognized borders of Syria and now have even
launched attacks against the Assad regime itself.
Without an AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force),
aren't we risking further mission creep and involvement in the
Syrian civil war? If another country, imagine the United
States, if another country had troops in the U.S. without our
permission and was training military groups to attack our
government, wouldn't we obviously consider that an invasion and
a declaration of war?
Section 9019 of the defense appropriations bill that
governs fiscal year 2017 includes language prohibiting the use
of funds in violation of the War Powers Act ``for the
introduction of United States armed or military forces into
hostilities in Syria.''
We need to seriously consider whether our troops are in
Syria legally. And if not, Congress needs to consider an AUMF
so that the people of the United States have a say through
their elected representatives whether U.S. forces should be
deep in Syrian territory.
And my question, Secretary Mattis, is, is there a risk of
U.S. forces becoming involved in further engagement with Assad
regime forces in Syria? And if so, do you believe that
congressional authorization is needed?
And I would just note there, Reuters just reported an hour
ago that, in a southeastern desert hotspot in Syria, we have
expanded our forces. So we are dealing with a very fast
developing situation.
Secretary Mattis. Senator, our forces in Syria are engaged
in advise and assist missions, as you know, with the Syrian
Democratic Forces and moving against Raqqa.
There is a legitimate reason for us to be there. Syria, the
regime, lost control of this area to an enemy that has pledged
to come after us, has conducted attacks against Brussels,
against Paris, against Istanbul.
This enemy, I think, has to be confronted. I think the
Commander in Chief has the authority to do that. I cannot get
into whether or not, the legality--I am not a legal scholar,
sir. I do not want to make believe I have an expertise that I
do not.
However, the only time we have ever engaged Assad's forces,
other than for the use of chemical weapons, the only time we
have engaged them is in legitimate self-defense. And we believe
that the Russians did the best they could to dissuade the
Iranian-led Assad forces from doing what they did on those
occasions. The Russians were unable to prevail.
We maintain a very good deconfliction line with the
Russians, which shows that this is understood that we are there
for one reason, and we will simply continue to try to avoid
this.
But you are right. There is always the potential for
something like this, and we do our best to avoid it and reduce
the chance of it, and work with the Russians deconflicting this
sort of thing, not coordinating, but deconflicting.
Senator Udall. And I believe, Secretary Mattis, you said
several times in testimony the necessity for an AUMF, and the
Congress should play a role here, which I think----
Secretary Mattis. I have no reservation about that, but I
am a separate----
Senator Udall. I am sure General Dunford feels the same way
on that, I imagine. Yes?
General Dunford. I do, Senator. I am on record several
times as saying that I think that would be a very powerful
message to the force, that they had the full support of the
American people through the Congress.
AFGHANISTAN
Senator Udall. While I was gone, you answered--and sorry to
have to shuffle committees--several questions on Afghanistan,
about winning and what it looked like, and all of that. And I
hope, and this really is not a question, but in how you are
approaching that with Secretary Tillerson, that we try to find
a solution, because I think many times various generals have
said this is not going to be a military solution. We are going
to need to have military action and then follow up with a
political solution.
So it seems to me that the two working together are going
to have to come up with something there. I hope we do not just
focus on a surge, as that is going to be it.
Secretary Mattis. Senator Udall, we have a strategy that
will involve reconciliation as fundamental, knowing that all
wars have to end sometime. And what can we do to use the
military and all other means to hasten that end?
That is our goal. But, as you know, it takes two to tango,
and we are up against a pretty vicious enemy in terms of their
willingness to sit down at a reconciliation table, unless they
are disabused of the idea they can win through violence.
Senator Udall. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
Senator Cochran. The time of the Senator has expired.
The chair now recognizes the distinguished Senator from
Montana, Mr. Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NUCLEAR TRIAD
Gentlemen, thank you both for appearing here today.
Today happens to be Flag Day. On this day in 1777, our
Founding Fathers chose this symbol to represent freedom and
liberty around the world. Over the past 240 years, more than 41
million servicemembers have carried that symbol in harm's way
as a beacon of hope in the face of tyranny and oppression. As a
son of a marine, I value the sacrifice of every man, every
woman, who wears our Nation's cloth and serves under our flag.
Anytime someone desecrates our flag, they exploit the
protections of our Constitution. I agree with President Trump
that the law should prohibit such conduct. This afternoon, I am
going to introduce legislation setting our Nation's flag apart
as a protected symbol worthy of honor and respect. I carry this
forward on behalf of many, many of my veterans back in Montana.
Thank you both for your service and leadership under our
Nation's flag to protect all for which it stands.
Gentlemen, when you appeared before this committee in
March, we discussed the strategic importance of maintaining a
fully modern nuclear triad. I am very pleased the Air Force is
taking action to replace our aging infrastructure across
missile fields, such as the 50-year-old weapon storage area at
Malmstrom Air Force Base.
You reflect on the aging infrastructure. President Kennedy
would have been 100 years old in the last part of May, May
29th. Alpha-06, which you can still drive by today,
affectionately known as Ace in the Hole that Kennedy had during
the Cuban Missile Crisis that was October 1962.
I won't tell you how old I was in October 1962. I will just
tell you, I was not very old. You can measure it in weeks. It
has been a long time.
So I am glad to see the infrastructure upgrading that we
planned here with GBSD.
This new nuclear weapon storage facility meets 21st century
security and logistical requirements necessary to sustain the
force for decades to come. It is going to be in close proximity
to an 11,500-foot runway, which is able to support current or
future nuclear bomber flying missions and is protected by 341st
Security Forces Group.
Secretary Mattis, I will tell you, I am a bit concerned
about a round of BRAC that is built in the budget here at this
time, until we have a clearer picture of how the emerging
capabilities like GBSD, as well as the B-21, will be fielded.
At this juncture, how would a commission account for
acquisition decisions that have not yet been made to ensure the
investments that we are making today are not wasted?
Secretary Mattis. Senator, the first thing we would do is a
lot of this can be forecast with a fair amount of precision,
but we would also have to have a shock absorber that we would
not sacrifice. In other words, we would accept there would be
some excess capacity simply as an insurance policy.
So what we would propose is perhaps places that are now
surrounded by residential areas in the East where you can no
longer train, you can simply no longer use them, places like
that that we would not use even if we expand the military
significantly under mobilization, those would be the areas that
we look at first.
Also, we would look at areas where we could accrue a
benefit earlier than 10 or 20 years. We would want to try to
find places where, if we got rid of them within 5 years, we are
accruing an annual benefit from them.
HELICOPTER
Senator Daines. You know, we have a great MOA there, by the
way, east of Great Falls across the northern part of Montana
that we do not have to worry a lot about a lot of residential
areas. Mostly it is mule deer, antelope, and elk.
So anyway, it is a great treasure and asset here for
protecting our national security.
Secretary, in March, you recognized the need for a proper
helicopter to provide lift for our security forces in the
missile fields, an estimated 2021 delivery date based upon
funding availability in the budget. Since then, Congress has
provided the Air Force a $75 million increase in procurement
funding.
Yet I understand Secretary Wilson recently testified that
the Air Force will stick to the 2021 timeline with a
solicitation to develop a new aircraft sometime next month.
My question is, Secretary, I firmly believe we can do
better than 2021 to provide our security forces with a proper
helicopter. Could you provide an update on the UH-1N
replacement and why the department might not be pursuing a more
ambitious goal?
Secretary Mattis. Let me get back to you for the record,
sir. I share your belief that that helicopter has to be
replaced. I would like to replace it sooner. Obviously, we
compete against a whole lot of priorities. But let me get you a
better answer than an in general or in theory answer, sir.
Senator Daines. Okay.
Gentlemen, thank you both for your service.
Senator Cochran. Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. You have not spoken yet.
Senator Baldwin. That is correct.
Senator Cochran. The floor is yours.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Thank you both for your service and for spending a lot of
time on Capitol Hill this week. Maybe I will be the last
question for a while.
COUNTER-ISIL FIGHT
Secretary Mattis, when you last appeared before this
committee in March, you talked about where the administration
was in terms of putting together its strategy for our counter-
ISIL fight. Now it is 3 months later, and you are asking for
$13 billion in fiscal year 2018 funding for that effort.
My question remains, what is the overarching strategy here?
I have a couple central concerns in that regard that I want to
ask you about.
First, as you both noted, this fight cannot be won by
military force alone. So how can you assure Wisconsinites and
other Americans who have legitimate concerns about terrorism
that the administration has a properly resourced plan not only
to destroy ISIL's capability and ability to conduct external
operations but also focused on creating a durable political
solution in Iraq and Syria that addresses the root causes of
terrorism and instability?
The second concern is about the potential for repeating
mistakes of the past. I want to associate myself with the
comments of Senator Udall a few moments ago, but I would like
to know if the administration has a strategic framework that
clearly lays out measurable goals, operational limitations, and
benchmarks for success of our counter-ISIL effort, and what
guardrails are in place to avoid dangerous escalation in a
region with so many actors and so many competing alliances.
Indeed, the lack of a regional strategy looks more
concerning every day. The latest example being the situation in
al-Tanf, Syria, where U.S. forces have already engaged
militarily multiple times with pro-Syrian regime elements, to
possibly include Iranian and Russian personnel.
So, Secretary Mattis, how do we keep this from spiraling
out of control?
Secretary Mattis. Your explanation or your overview of a
very complex situation is one that former Secretary of State
Kissinger advised us on by saying it is the most complex that
he has ever seen. As you know, he is a pretty big standard-
bearer on having to deal with diplomatic complexity.
Our overarching strategy is to destroy ISIS's physical
caliphate. That has to happen. That is from where they have
launched the external attacks that you have seen in Brussels
and Paris, and I can go on and on. It is also building--it was
building their finances and their recruiting. People were
rallying to them.
By the way, they are now having a higher desertion right,
it appears, than they have a recruiting rate, which is
indicating, when we go after them in the physical caliphate,
what impact that has on their duration as a terrorist outfit.
In that regard, we have changed our tactics and our
operational arc to surround them first. You see that now in
west Mosul. They are surrounded in Tal Afar. Raqqa was
surrounded, as of about 10 days ago. And the SDF crossed the
line of departure in the assault last Thursday, I believe it
was.
And as we push them out of there, we surround them first.
The foreign fighters cannot get home. So part of this, because
the foreign fighters are the strategic asset that worries
people in Paris, in Tunisia, in Detroit, in the Philippines,
and elsewhere, make certain they do not get out.
Diplomatically, the Secretary of State ran a conference
here 2 months ago. Sixty-six nations showed up, plus Interpol
with a key role of tracking people who try to travel around the
world to do these kinds of acts, passing information to police
forces, plus European Union, Arab League, and NATO now. In that
conference, we got commitments. I would say 85 percent of it,
Senator Baldwin, was focused on post-combat. What do you do
after the combat? We do have 24 nations that are contributing
combat forces as well.
But Secretary Tillerson is setting the conditions that we
do not simply get rid of this outfit, and we have another
problem coming up.
Internationally, we also have additional efforts going on
from the Philippines. You saw President Trump's trip to the
Middle East where he is trying to align a number of disparate
states into a coherent counterterror organization. It includes,
by the way, deprogramming, basically using religious leaders to
disabuse people that the way to carry out their religion is
through violence. That is a very well-resourced now, finally, a
very well-resourced effort that they basically laid out to him.
In the broader area, what we have to avoid is when--I
mentioned before I am from the American West, and if you take
the fire crews off a forest fire early, sometimes the worst
fires break out again.
If you are in a post-combat phase, which we will get to
vis-a-vis ISIS, we have not regained one inch of ground, the
Iraqi forces or the forces we are supporting, Syrian Democratic
Forces have taken, they have not regained one inch.
But once you get to the post-combat phase, you have to go
into reconciliation. That will become a main effort this time.
It will also include some forces left behind, most likely in a
training role and mentoring role in Iraq, if we work that out
with the government.
As far as al-Tanf goes, again, these forces that came
inside an established and agreed upon deconfliction zone
against our warning and against the Russians who tried to
dissuade them, at that point, they became vulnerable only to
legitimate self-defense fire.
We did not chase them down. Once they were beaten back,
they were done. And they have now hovered outside the
deconfliction zone, having learned the lesson that, if they had
listened to the Russians, they would not have learned the hard
way.
But we are not engaging in a broadened war at all. That was
purely self-defense.
I hope that gives some context.
Senator Cochran. Are there any further members seeking
recognition?
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
If not, the chair announces that we will reconvene on
Wednesday, June 21, at 10:30 a.m., to receive testimony from
the United States Air Force.
Until then, you may receive requests for answers to
questions that we would like to have included in the record. We
would appreciate you providing that information to us, and we
will see that, within a reasonable time, it will be included as
part of the hearing record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. James N. Mattis
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
support for fort campbell servicemembers and families
Question. As you know, servicemembers at Fort Campbell have been on
a near-constant cycle of deployment in support of the Global War on
Terror, and many servicemembers at Fort Campbell have been deployed
multiple times. It is critical that in these circumstances DoD provide
adequate support for spouses and families of servicemembers. What
resources, specifically, does DoD provide to support spouses and
families of servicemembers at Fort Campbell, as well as other military
installations, while servicemembers are deployed and when they return
home? Additionally, what programs are in place within DoD to help
servicemembers successfully transition back into civilian life?
Answer. Soldier and Family Programs are an investment in the Army's
most valuable asset--its people--and remain a top priority for Army
Senior Leadership. The Army provides a balanced portfolio of Child and
Youth; Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR); and Army Community Service
(ACS) programs at Fort Campbell and across all Army installations.
Child and Youth programs reduce the conflict between parental
responsibilities and mission requirements. MWR programs provide work-
life balance and increase physical and mental well-being, unit morale,
and esprit de corps by delivering activities such as sports, fitness,
aquatics, library services, outdoor recreation, recreation centers,
arts and automotive skills, entertainment, and leisure travel. Army
Community Services strengthen a Family's family's ability to meet the
unique demands of the military lifestyle by building life skills,
mitigating stress, and improving well-being by addressing important
issues such as domestic violence, substance abuse, financial readiness,
spouse employment, and other key Family family issues. These programs
support Soldiers soldiers and their Families families before, during,
and after deployment, regardless of component or geographic location.
Collectively, they build strength and self-reliance and improve overall
readiness. The Army continuously reviews these programs to ensure the
most efficient, cost-effective delivery of services. Commanders have
flexibility to prioritize and adjust programs to suit the needs of
their installation's mission and population. In addition, the Army
continues to collaborate with its sister Services and local communities
to fill service gaps and provide alternatives to government-provided
programs and support geographically dispersed Soldiers and Families.
MWR services are resourced through a combination of Appropriated and
Non Appropriated Funds. DoD standard directs that CAT A services (such
as Physical Fitness Facilities, Aquatics Centers, and Libraries) are
resourced by a minimum of 85 percent appropriated funds and CAT B
services (such as Outdoor recreation programs, Warrior Zones, and
Automotive Skill Centers) are resourced by a minimum of 65 percent
appropriated funds. While MWR programs at Fort Campbell were funded to
74 and 64 percent CAT A and B respectively in fiscal year 2017, Fort
Campbell continued to deliver high quality MWR programs for the
population they serve. Over 100,000 eligible patrons made more than 1.3
million contacts in community recreation activities and non MWR Army
Community Service Family programs at Fort Campbell in fiscal year 2017.
Over 3,700 children and youth also participated in Child, School Age
and Youth Services and of those 2,300 participated in CAT B MWR Youth
Sports activities. The Army's transition program, Soldier for Life--
Transition Assistance Program, offers a wide-range of transition
services to prepare Soldiers for civilian opportunities. The program
offers services in entrepreneurship training through the Small Business
Administration, technical career training, civilian career options,
resume assistance, job interview skills training, financial counseling,
and VA benefits information for transitioning Soldiers. Over 4,800
Soldiers utilized the SFL-TAP program at Fort Campbell in 2017. These
services are also available to spouses through ACS. DoD also offers
support through Military OneSource.mil, the Department's 24/7call
center and website. Military OneSource.mil serves as a resource for
servicemembers, spouses, and families at installations world-wide, by
providing comprehensive information, resources and assistance on every
aspect of military life including deployment support and transition
from the military. DoD provides confidential non-medical counseling
through the Military and Family Life Counseling Program, through which
counselors provide in-person support at installation family support
centers, child development centers, schools, and within military units.
Additionally, DoD offers education and career support to military
spouses through the Spouse Education and Career Opportunities program,
or SECO. The SECO program provides military spouses with expert
education and career guidance and offers comprehensive information,
tools and resources to support career exploration, education, training,
and licensing, employment readiness, and career connections.
fort campbell facility updates
Question. Given the ongoing sacrifices that servicemembers
stationed at Fort Campbell make in support of our Nation's defense, it
is important their facilities are modern, safe, and efficient. What
plans does DoD have to ensure that Fort Campbell's Korean War-era
barracks are brought up to date? What plans does DoD have to update
other Fort Campbell facilities, including, but not limited to, the
facilities of the Logistics Readiness Center?
Answer. Ft Campbell does not plan to improve/update their Korean
War Era (KWE) barracks for use as barracks. There are NO permanent
party Soldiers living in Korean War era barracks. Specific plans for
these barracks are: 10 KWE barracks buildings are scheduled for
demolition (Fiscal Year 2017--Fiscal Year 2024). 4 KWE barracks
buildings are currently under construction/contract to convert into
administrative space. Fort Campbell currently has 12,224 Unaccompanied
Housing Spaces. 95.8 percent of these are in Installation Status Report
ratings of Q1 (Good)/Q2 (Adequate) condition. Fort Campbell requires
8,492 spaces, therefore excess 2,947 spaces. To address the Logistics
Readiness Center maintenance facility issue, an fiscal year 2020
Military Construction (MILCON) Project--Project Number 69347, ``General
Purpose Maintenance Shop''--with a programmed cost of $53 million is
currently in the MILCON program. Additional Fort Campbell MILCON
projects in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) 19-23 MILCON program
are: fiscal year 2019 PN 64296--Vehicle Maintenance Shop, $32 million,
expected completion: APR 22. Fiscal Year 2020 PN 71725--Automated
Infantry Platoon Battle Course, $7.1 million, expected completion: JUN
21. Fiscal Year 2020 PN 78217--Easements, Purchased, $3.2 million.
fort campbell airfield improvement project
Question. Can you please provide an update on the Fort Campbell
airfield improvement project and the anticipated date of completion?
Answer. In fiscal year 2016, Fort Campbell was provided $29.9
million to perform repairs to the Campbell Army Airfield. The primary
runway underwent a 105 day shut down for repairs and reopened on July
25, 2017, which was on schedule. Additional work awarded on this
contract will be completed by 31 Dec 2017. The airfield improvement
project included runway and taxiway lighting upgrades, precision
approach upgrades as well as concrete repairs to ramps and holding
areas that had been degraded from years of deployment and operational
requirements. There still exists over $15 million of lighting and
concrete repairs at CAAF that are currently being designed and will be
submitted for fiscal year 2019 R&M funding. The rotary wing heliport,
Sabre Airfield, has undergone minor sustainment projects over the last
18 months, such as some concrete repairs, costing less than $100,000. A
$4 million lighting and signage project will be required for Sabre Army
Airfield.
opioid abuse in the military
Question. As you may be aware, the opioid and heroin epidemics have
hit Kentucky particularly hard. What programs have been implemented by
DoD to treat substance use disorders, and particularly opioid abuse, in
the military? What programs have been most effective in providing
successful treatment to servicemembers?
Answer. DoD is committed to limiting Service members' risk of
addiction and improving treatment for all substance misuse, including
opioids. DoD is therefore expanding access to treatment, working to
reduce addiction, and exploring alternative pain management methods.
DoD has taken comprehensive steps to reduce addiction. We have improved
controlled substance prescriber training: three-quarters of DoD-
controlled substance prescribers have now completed our mandatory
safety training. We have also partnered with the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) to improve how well Federal clinicians understand and
address pain management. In addition, we continue to conduct outreach
programs about substance misuse for Service members and their families.
Finally, in 2016, we codified the Drug Take Back Program in policy,
which works to remove all addictive medications from circulation that
have potential use for suicide or suicide attempts, misuse, diversion,
or accidental poisoning. DoD has expanded the drug testing panel for
the required urinalysis drug demand reduction program to include
widely-abused opioids, such as hydrocodone (Vicodin) and hydromorphone
(Dilaudid) and other prescription drugs that are often used with
opioids (benzodiazepines). Consequently, through aggressive drug
testing, the DoD is able to assess and deter opioid use and draw
attention to the same such that commands can adjudicate with immediacy.
military sexual assault prevention and response
Question. What action is DoD taking to prevent sexual assault and
misconduct in the military? What systems are in place to encourage
reporting of sexual assault and to ensure that victims do not face
retaliation for reporting?
Answer. The Department applies a strategic approach to combatting
sexual assault and other sexual misconduct. Actions are guided by five
focus areas: prevention to foster a culture that prevents sexual
assault; victim assistance to deliver consistent, high-quality care and
support that restores resiliency and empowers survivors to report;
investigations to yield timely and accurate results; accountability to
hold offenders appropriately accountable; and assessment to effectively
analyze, assess, and report on the state of our progress. The
Department seeks to prevent sexual assault through the application of
evidence-based approaches throughout the military population. This
includes providing tools to commanders to regularly assess and improve
the climates in which Service members work and live; providing
education and training to Service members to help enhance their
relationships, communication skills, and healthy alcohol choices; and
promoting a culture where all Service members understand what
acceptable behavior is and are empowered to intervene in situations
where others are at risk. Over the past 10 years the Department has
fielded a response system to promote reporting of sexual assault.
Service members are informed on how to report a sexual assault, receive
assistance by certified Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim
Advocates, access specialized medical and mental healthcare, and obtain
legal representation from Special Victims Counsel (called Victims Legal
Counsel in the Navy and Marine Corps). Victims may also request an
expedited transfer or assistance with obtaining military and civilian
protective orders. In April 2016, the Department issued a comprehensive
strategy, ``DoD Retaliation Prevention and Response Strategy: Regarding
Sexual Assault and Harassment Reports,'' focused on addressing
retaliation related to reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
The reforms are being implemented to give everyone who elects to report
a sexual assault and sexual harassment the ability to do so without
fear of reprisal or some other form of retaliatory behavior. Overall,
reporting of sexual assault allegations involving military members has
increased from 2,947 reports in 2006 to 6,172 reports in 2016. It is
important to note that during the same time period, the occurrence of
sexual assault has decreased significantly. A greater percentage of
Service members are now choosing to report sexual assault allegations
than ever before, from 1 in 14 in 2006, to 1 in 3 in 2016.
mental health treatment and care
Question. Mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) continue to affect a
large number of our Nation's servicemembers. What programs are in place
to assist and support servicemembers with these issues? Is DoD focusing
on strategies for prevention as well as treatment?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DoD) is committed to providing
Service members and their families access to quality mental healthcare,
as well as resources and programs for all mental health conditions,
including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Current DoD efforts
address mental health issues across the continuum of care, from
prevention to treatment, and ensure care is available and accessible to
all Service members and their family members--even in rural and remote
locations. Moreover, DoD funds a robust portfolio of research on
prevention and treatment of psychological health conditions. Since 9/
11, with the support of Congress, DoD has roughly tripled the mental
healthcare provided to Service members and their families. DoD's
prevention and treatment efforts also focus on traumatic brain injury
(TBI). Key among these efforts is early identification of Service
members with mild TBI to ensure effective treatment for the physical,
cognitive, and emotional effects of the injury. Furthermore, DoD
conducts public prevention campaigns that strive to promote education,
awareness, and prevention about TBI.
fort knox hospital replacement
Question. Please provide an update on the new facility that will
replace the Ireland Army Community Hospital at Fort Knox.
Answer. The Fort Knox Ambulatory Care Center project, which will
replace the 60-year old Ireland Army Community Hospital, was awarded as
a Design/Build construction contract on 23 March 2017 at a cost of
$54,767,000 to M.A. Mortenson Company. A groundbreaking ceremony for
construction is scheduled for November 9, 2017. The Louisville
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is managing the construction
contract. The new Ambulatory Care Center (Clinic) is projected to open
for patient care in 2020. The new clinic will provide a world-class
primary care and behavioral health environment for America's
Warfighters and their families. The new facility is one-quarter its
previous size, supporting effective resource management and sustainment
cost savings.
blue grass army depot chemical demilitarization
Question. What is DoD's timeline for chemical agent and munitions
destruction at the Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD)? What steps are being
taken by DoD to ensure the safety of facility personnel and Madison
County residents during testing and operation of the facilities?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DoD) is on track to complete
destruction of all chemical agents and munitions destruction by the
December 31, 2023, deadline which was set by the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). DoD is
taking steps to ensure the safety of facility personnel and Madison
county residents before, during and in case of emergency operations.
Prior to operations, the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness
Program (CSEPP) protects the health and safety of the public by
enhancing/augmenting the existing emergency preparedness capabilities
of the installations and nearby communities. During operations, the
DoD's contractor, Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass, has taken responsibility
by forming a joint venture of Bechtel National, Inc. and Parsons
Government Services Inc. together with its teaming subcontractors. The
Occupational Safety & Health Administration has certified Bechtel
Parsons as a Voluntary Protection Program ``Star Site,'' which
recognizes the facility's continued commitment to safe practices. The
team was first awarded this status in 2011, becoming the first
construction site in Kentucky to achieve the honor. Only contractors
who implement excellent safety programs that systemically protect
employees, with emphasis on grass roots, employee-driven programs
strengthened by engagement from site management receive Star status. In
case of emergencies, CSEPP, FEMA and the Army protect the health and
safety of the public. The Defense Authorization Act of 1999 (Public Law
105-261) assigned the Army responsibility for on-post CSEPP and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) responsibility for off-post
CSEPP. Through CSEPP, FEMA and the Army's efforts, local communities
have expanded emergency plans and capabilities to meet the slight but
real threat of a chemical agent emergency. These efforts are done to
meet the requirements set forth in the Defense Authorization Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-145). This act required the Secretary of Defense to
provide maximum protection for the environment, the general public, and
the personnel involved in the destruction of lethal chemical agents and
munitions.
blue grass army depot non-chemical demilitarization operations
Question. In addition to its chemical demilitarization operations,
the BGAD operates as a traditional army depot, supporting military
operations by providing services associated with the storage and
maintenance of conventional munitions. Could you please provide an
overview of the non-chemical demilitarization operations of the BGAD,
including current employment numbers? What are DoD's long-term plans
for the conventional, non-chemical demilitarization operations of the
BGAD, and does DoD have any plans to bring new operations to the
facility?
Answer. BGAD provides non-chemical demilitarization to conventional
munitions through three main functional areas: open and contained
detonation, open burning, and munitions disassembly. BGAD's non-
chemical conventional demilitarization operations employs between 21--
27 government wage-grade personnel. The Army intends to continue using
BGAD's capabilities to perform demilitarization of conventional
ammunition. There is no current intent to add additional capabilities
at BGAD.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
tuition assistance funds
Question. After the confirmation hearing for Secretary of Veteran
Affairs David Shulkin, he was asked in writing whether Department of
Veterans Affairs Post 9/11 GI Bill and Department of Defense Tuition
Assistance benefits, paid for by Federal taxpayers, are Federal funds.
He replied simply ``Yes'' that they are indeed Federal funds. Do you
agree with Secretary Shulkin that these benefits are Federal funds?
Answer. With respect to the Department of Defense Tuition
Assistance benefits, yes, the Department agrees that these benefits are
Federal funds approved by Congress. I defer to Mr. Shulkin's response
concerning the Department of Veterans Affairs Post 9/11 GI Bill
funding.
responding to congressional oversight
Question. The Justice Department has told Federal agencies that
they have the legal authority to ignore written questions and requests
for information from Democrats. Regardless, do you plan to respond
promptly to all oversight letters and questions, regardless of party?
Answer. Yes
continued protection of civilians and adherence to rule of law
Question. A number of press reports raise questions about whether
our Nation's strong commitment to protecting civilians in areas of
active conflict will continue to the same extent. For instance, the
Presidential Policy Guidance, which governs counterterrorism operations
outside of active conflict zones, is under review. A new study by the
Columbia Law School documents that drone strikes under President Trump
have quadrupled to 1 every 1.25 days (compared with 1 per 5.4 days
under Obama). In addition, the Administration apparently will no longer
publicly say how many civilian casualties were caused by our
operations--rather we may publish ``Coalition'' numbers that conceal
which party was responsible and in doing so may hinder a fully
transparent understanding of mistakes and how they are being corrected.
What assurances can you provide this Subcommittee that military
operations in this administration will continue the previous
Administration's significant efforts to safeguard civilians, and remain
as transparent as possible about our activities? In addition, will you
ensure that all of the Department's components, including the Joint
Staff, the Combatant Commands, and OSD remain robustly resourced to
safeguard this critical mission? Finally, will you keep Congress fully
informed about changes to rules of engagement and other policy
guidance?
Answer. Protecting civilians is a fundamental part of U.S. and
Coalition objectives for defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS). No force in history has taken more care to mitigate the loss of
innocent life than U.S. forces, and we will continue to do so. It is
inherent in what we do; it is an important part of how we train and
fight. We will always adhere to the law of armed conflict while doing
what is necessary and right to defeat this brutal enemy. Civilian
casualties are an unfortunate reality of war, even more so when the
enemy purposefully endangers civilians as part of its tactics. We must
be careful that our emphasis on precise, casualty-averse warfare
doesn't result in a misunderstanding of the nature of war and set
expectations that incentivize the enemy to endanger civilians further
as a tool to undermine our legitimacy as a fighting force. The
Commander of Combined Joint Task Force--Operation INHERENT RESOLVE
(CJTF--OIR) will continue to ensure appropriate investigations are made
of credible claims of civilian casualties, and we are committed to
transparency about our operations. We must ensure that a distortion of
the facts by our adversaries does not perpetuate a narrative that
undermines our operational effectiveness. Reporting of civilian
casualties from Coalition strikes, rather than only from strikes by
U.S. aircraft, is meant to increase the transparency of operational
matters by more accurately reflecting the Coalition nature of CJTF--
OIR's mission. CJTF--OIR will continue to take all feasible measures to
reduce the risk of harm to civilians in our operations, consistent with
the law of war and our ethos as a fighting force. We do not anticipate
any changes to the rules of engagement for CJTF--OIR that would change
this fundamental responsibility. We will keep the Congress fully
informed on these matters.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
investigation of russian influence campaigns
Question. All 16 members of the U.S. Intelligence Community jointly
released a declassified report in January that included their shared
conclusion that Vladimir Putin personally ``ordered an influence
campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election'' and that in
the course of that campaign the Russian government and President Putin
``developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.'' The
consensus also concluded that ``Moscow will apply lessons learned from
its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election to
future influence efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies and
their election processes.'' Will you commit that funds appropriated to
the agencies of the intelligence community under your supervision will
be spent to prepare for, investigate, mitigate, respond to, and recover
from foreign influence campaigns, including any that may be perpetrated
by the Russian government, according to the intent of this Committee
and by law, regardless of any order from the President or anyone else
to the contrary?
Answer. Russia's efforts to influence our democratic process are
part of a broader integrated Russian campaign to spread disinformation
and undermine global security. We will counter Russian activities
wherever Russia chooses to act contrary to U.S. interests. In
countering foreign influence campaigns, we will faithfully execute the
law and will properly employ funds appropriated for this purpose.
evidence-based, preventative mental health care
Question. The U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine has
developed an innovative approach focused on providing greater
operational support mental healthcare to special operations forces. By
focusing on providing mental health shaping, screening, and
strengthening, their initial results show great success in improving
airman and unit readiness. Furthermore, by treating mental health as an
aspect of readiness, the approach should make the most of the
investment the U.S. Government makes in each individual it trains and
empowers. When can the USAFAM approach or a similar evidence-based,
preventative mental healthcare approach be expanded into other
communities?
Answer. Two efforts are underway to expand these programs into
other communities. First, six-person medical Operational Support Teams
have been developed to provide prevention services within line units to
reduce musculoskeletal injuries and mental health issues. These teams
will be piloted at two locations in 2018, expanded to additional bases
in 2019, and later to a programmed schedule. Second, five-person
Embedded Mental Health Teams have been designed to provide mental
health counseling, treatment, and education within line units. In 2018,
we will begin a pilot program at four locations where these Mental
Health Teams will be assigned to line units that contain both
maintenance and support personnel. The data from this pilot project
will be examined carefully to initiate plans for expanding embedded
mental health support operations.
The Army developed a capability similar to the US Air Force School
of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) program with its embedded Behavioral
Health (EBH) teams. Beginning in 2012, the US Army Medical Command
(MEDCOM) initiated EBH fielding and training and achieved full fielding
across all operational units in December 2016. EBH teams appear to be
meeting the goal of early identification of BH concerns leading to
early resolution or diagnosis for subsequent care.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is committed to supporting
evidence-based, innovative methods to ensure Service members bolster
coping skills and to enhance long-term thriving. DoD is eager to
examine the evidence of effectiveness behind the USAFAM efforts of
providing greater operational support for mental healthcare to special
operations forces. This will allow us to better understand the current
outcomes of this program and also the cost effectiveness for scaling up
such a program beyond the special operations community. Over the past
few years, DoD has increased the presence of operational mental health
support by embedding providers in line units, with a goal of decreasing
the stigma of help-seeking and increasing access to mental healthcare
as a critical component of operational readiness. DoD engages in a
robust program of mental health research and program evaluation to
study resilience, mental health prevention, and optimal human
performance to ensure government resources support the most innovative
advances in mental healthcare.
development assistance
Question. I think we agree that military force, diplomacy, and
development each play important roles in protecting U.S. national
security interests. The President has proposed deep cuts in the fiscal
year 2018 budget for the State Department and USAID. You testified that
you told Secretary Tillerson you were willing to carry out development
programs if funds are provided to you for such purpose, and that you
would ensure the State Department and DoD coordinate on the use of such
funds. I believe that although DoD has a role to play in some
development contexts, its track record for administering development
programs is poor and that it should not be responsible for doing so.
The Department of Defense is simply not organized or equipped to
effectively design and implement development assistance because it is
not its core mission, and no amount of coordination with State or USAID
can compensate for that fact. That is why I do not believe it makes
sense for Congress to provide funds to DoD instead of the State
Department or USAID to address known requirements for development
programs, or to fail to provide the necessary resources to State and
USAID for such purposes, effectively forcing DoD to fill gaps in
programming overseas. Do you agree that it is in the interest of DoD
that Congress provides State and USAID the funding necessary to carry
out their responsibilities as the lead agencies for administering
development assistance?
Answer. Yes, I agree that it is in the interest of the Department
of Defense (DoD) for Congress to provide the Department of State and
USAID the funding necessary to carry out their responsibilities as the
lead agencies for administering development assistance. The main
context in which DoD plays a role in this area is providing assistance
during stabilization efforts, as stabilization is an integrated
civilian and military process. Effective stabilization efforts can
counter subversion; prevent conflict; build communities and security
forces that can contain violent extremism; and consolidate military
gains to achieve strategic success. Although the Department of State
and USAID lead stabilization efforts (often with DoD in support), they
face challenges operating in recently liberated, unstable, hostile, or
conflict-affected areas. It is in these areas where DoD has a role to
play in stabilization.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
military accessions vital to the national interest
Question. M office has been increasingly contacted by soldiers
enrolled in the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest
(MAVNI) program who are experiencing extreme delays in the processing
of their security clearances. The last time I inquired, I was told the
MAVNI program was under review and all processing was put on hold. Is
the MAVNI program still under review and if so, is there an estimated
time of completion for this review?
Answer. Since 2010, successive MAVNI program extensions implemented
procedures to mitigate against security and counterintelligence (CI)
threats associated with the MAVNI program; these procedures largely
aligned with those applied to persons under review for a security
clearance in the Department of Defense (DoD). In September 2016, in
response to growing security concerns, the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, in concert with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence, instituted enhanced eligibility, security,
and suitability requirements for MAVNI applicants and enlistees. The
Military Services were also directed to suspend recruiting of new
applicants until all those previously enlisted or contracted had
completed enhanced security screening requirements. These enhanced
requirements rely upon specific expertise from both DoD and DoD's
security clearance investigation service provider. Their limited
resources are prioritized against the most significant risks. The
vetting for MAVNIs, as with other background investigations, has
experienced significant delays and is a labor-intensive process. As
such, we are unable to estimate the completion of vetting for any
specific individual or for the program as a whole.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
bullets and missiles
Question. You stated that you would have to purchase more bullets
and missiles if the State Department wasn't strong enough. How many
more bullets and missiles (and aircraft, tanks or any other military
equipment) will you need to purchase given the President's proposed
cuts to the State Department's budget?
Answer. There is no amount of ammunition, aircraft, tanks, or other
military equipment that could replace the nuanced diplomatic work the
women and men of the State Department do on behalf of the President and
the American people. I was making an illustrative point that the State
Department is a critical element of the National Security Enterprise
and by underfunding the State Department, the military may be the
default instrument of national power when diplomacy, economics, or
informational elements could have solved the problem.
hypersonic testing
Question. Both the Russians and Chinese are testing hypersonic
missiles, capable of reaching the United States, relatively speaking,
in a moment's notice. What are the Department of Defense's plans to
accelerate our own hypersonic testing currently being carried out by
Sandia National Labs? What are our plans for hypersonics once testing
is complete?
Answer. The hypersonic testing supported by Sandia National Labs is
being conducted under the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) program. CPS
is pursuing full scale flight tests to mature critical technologies in
a manner that is open to all basing options. Overall, the path of the
current CPS effort with its upcoming flight tests is aligned to
established requirements from the Joint Requirements Oversight Council,
Combatant Commanders, and Department of Defense guidance. The
Department's plans are to continue with CPS and other on-going
hypersonics-related efforts while formulating a roadmap which
incorporates results of technology developments and DoD strategic
reviews (e
plutonium production
Question. The NNSA is currently finalizing an analysis of
alternatives with regards to the plutonium mission at Los Alamos
National Labs. In your opinion, how important is it that the timeline
to begin plutonium production remain on schedule, and is both cost
effective and meets mission requirements for strategic deterrence? Will
the Department of Defense and the Nuclear Weapons Council support any
changes which would change the schedule and cost of pit production at
the NNSA?
Answer. Ensuring a capacity to build pits on schedule is critical
to address stockpile requirements. There are two enduring drivers for
this requirement: age/condition of legacy pits and mitigation of
technical/geopolitical risks. Failure to meet the current schedule will
increase risk and reduce long-term confidence in our strategic
deterrence and assurance capabilities. The Department supports a
Plutonium Strategy that includes a number of investments intended to
sustain the capabilities necessary to support stockpile requirements.
These include a combination of line-item projects and resource
investments that help reduce mission dependency on aging facilities,
modernize our infrastructure, and help NNSA meet statutory pit
production requirements, including achieving 80 war reserve pits/year
production capacity beginning in 2030. This investment is required
regardless of the stockpile modernization plan. Ensuring an enduring
capability to produce pits is a core function of maintaining a safe,
secure, and effective stockpile.''
urban warfare
Question. The Modern War Institute at West Point recently released
a series of reports on urban warfare. Many of them pointing towards
demographic trends showing increased urbanization in countries where
resources and infrastructure are scarce. Many of these cities are also
located on the coast, and are vulnerable to hurricanes and other
disasters . . . increasing the likelihood of violence and chaos in
these urban areas where political and security vacuums may develop.
While not desirable to fight in an urban area, we may not have a
choice. I understand that some special operations training for urban
warfare is carried out today in multiple locations in New Mexico such
as White Sands and Melrose Range. White Sands is also notable because
of its complete control of the electromagnetic spectrum enabling more
comprehensive training. How are the service branches training for urban
environments and are any of the service branches considering a
dedicated urban warfare school that will include the ability to control
the electromagnetic spectrum?
Answer. Across the force, the Air Force employs small, medium, and
large training areas designed as urban training sites. They vary in
sophistication, density, size and vertical development. These training
sites integrate all Air Force mission areas to prepare air and ground
forces for mission success in urban environments. We regularly exercise
our Battlefield Airman and Joint Terminal Attack capabilities with
Intelligence, Reconnaissance, and Surveillance; Survival, Evasion,
Resistance, and Escape; Electronic Warfare, and joint kinetic
capabilities, to ensure our integrated forces are prepared for all
likely scenarios. The most capable special operations urban training
facilities are located at the Eglin Test and Training Range Complex in
Florida and the Melrose Air Force Range in New Mexico. Non-kinetic/
sensor training in urban terrain, involving both aircraft and ground
maneuver units, is sometimes accomplished off-range in accordance with
DoDI 1322.28 Realistic Military Training Off Federal Real Property. The
Air Force is not considering a dedicated urban warfare school which
includes the ability to control the electromagnetic spectrum, at this
time. Existing infrastructure, such as Eglin AFB and Melrose Range,
provide the training environment necessary to equip warfighters with
the experience necessary to dominate the urban and electromagnetic
fields of battle.
Army units use our combat training centers (the National Training
Center, Fort Irwin, CA; the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk,
LA; and the Joint Multinational Training Center, Hohenfels, Germany) as
well as Military Operations on Urban Terrain (MOUT) capabilities
available at Fort Knox and Fort A.P. Hill, and other home station
training events. The combat training centers at Fort Irwin and Fort
Polk currently create a training environment with a contested
electromagnetic spectrum as part of the operational environment. Units
conducting home station are encouraged to train for and include
degraded electromagnetic spectrums in their training environments.
Urban terrain is included in all Warfighter exercises. The Army
continues to address training in a contested electromagnetic spectrum
through the Army Lesson learned Forum and the Persistent Cyber Training
Environment Program. The urban environment will be addressed in the new
version of Army Field Manual 3-0, Operations and is in Army Techniques
Publication (ATP) 3-06, Urban Warfare just published in March 2017. The
Army is also developing a Dense Urban Terrain (DUT) Strategy and will
evaluate our capabilities and needs when the strategy is complete. The
Army is not currently considering a separate and distinct urban warfare
center.
The Marine Corps' service level training programs include both
individual and collective urban warfare training. At the individual
level, the Marine Corps Tactics and Operations Group (MCTOG) executes a
training and certification program for all operations and intelligence
officers and chiefs in the ground combat element regiments and
battalions. This program includes an urban operations exercise against
a real world adversary. At the collective training level, the Marine
Corps conducts urban warfare training during five integrated training
exercises (ITX) at the Marine Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC); three
regimental-level and 12 battalion-level battle staff exercises also at
MCAGCC; and two Weapons Training Instructor Course/Talon Exercises
(WTI/TALONEX) at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona. ITX
urban warfare training includes an eight day battalion-level urban
operations package. The package has two days of academic instruction on
urban assault fundamentals, patrolling fundamentals, tank/infantry
integration and tactical control point and entry control point
operations. This is followed by a three day force-on-force lane
training package that focuses on platoon level attacks, squad level
patrolling and counter IED training. The package concludes with a three
day force-on-force battalion field exercise at the range 220 urban
complex that focuses on integrating supporting arms and attachments.
ITX urban warfare training culminates with a live-fire company level
attack at range 230. Urban warfare training at ITX is enhanced through
the use of a hybrid threat opposing force of 60 Marines and 200
civilian role players representing the indigenous population. Units
attending ITX receive 627 hours of academic instruction and practical
application on electronic warfare, cyber warfare and information
operations, including the integration of counter small unmanned aerial
systems (C-SUAS) training. At WTI/TALONEX, the Marine Corps conducts
urban warfare and close air support training during the Non-Combatant
Evacuation Operation Exercise in Brawley, Arizona. WTI/TALONEX also
uses several urban range complexes aboard, MCAS Yuma, Yuma Proving
Ground, and MCAGCC. The infantry battalion that supports this exercise
also receives a 3-5 day urban lane training package that focuses on
urban patrolling and counter IED training. Three times per year, MCTOG
conducts a nine day exercise (SPARTAN FURY) for regimental and
battalion staffs that focuses on planning and executing a major combat
operation which includes an urban assault. The exercise enables each
staff to conduct 9 of its 13 evaluation coded (e-coded) readiness
events in offensive, defensive, stability operations and urban
operations mission essential tasks (METs). In the operating forces, the
Expeditionary Operations Training Group in each Marine Expeditionary
Force (MEF) coordinates with law enforcement agencies to conduct
training in major U. S. urban areas. At several bases, home station
counter-IED ranges support instrumented urban training opportunities.
The 1st Marine Division has an urban package in their Division Schools.
Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command (MAGTF TC) has initiated
discussions with the United States Army Asymmetric Warfare Group on
establishing a dedicated urban leader's course and urban operations
center of excellence. Once a service level center of excellence is
established a wider synchronization can occur, raising the bar in urban
training (including electromagnetic spectrum challenges) across the
Marine Corps. Current training in controlling the electromagnetic
spectrum focuses on protecting the electronic signatures of units.
Looking to the future, the Marine Corps needs to revitalize its ranges
and urban facilities and improve its ability to more realistically
challenge forces in the electromagnetic spectrum in order to better
prepare our Marines for future threat environments.
diux
Question. Does the Department of Defense support an expansion of
the Third Offset to include a DIUx office located near a national
security lab and military research lab working on military solutions
such as machine learning, directed energy, space, and other
technological research? How would the service branches benefit from
such an expansion and how would the Pentagon utilize a new DIUx office?
Answer. The mission of DIUx has been and will continue to be
focused on facilitating better relationships with non-traditional
companies to connect these sources of innovation to the Department.
These connections will help our Services and Agencies to maintain and
expand their lethality and field offset capabilities. I recently
granted greater authorities to DIUx to hire staff, negotiate contracts
and promote its efforts. These authorities will also enable DIUx to
continue to strengthen relationships and leverage work currently being
performed at the National and Service Laboratories.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
afghanistan
Question. You said earlier this week that ``we are not winning in
Afghanistan.'' I'd like to ask both of you, what does winning look like
and what will it take to get there? In particular, what's the plan for
finally getting the training piece right? Building up the quality,
quantity, and self-sufficiency of the Afghan security forces so they
can effectively take the lead in the fight has been a central pillar of
U.S. policy in Afghanistan for 15 years. Yet here we are talking about
needing thousands of more U.S. and allied troops to support and train
the Afghans.
Answer. My staff and I are working with the State Department,
Treasury, and the Intelligence Community to finalize a strategy for
Afghanistan and the South Asia region, which will be presented to the
President. This strategy will be used to inform decisions on troop
levels That said, the United States continues to have strategic
interests in Afghanistan that depend on a supportive Afghan government
and viable Afghan military and police forces that protect the
population. The Afghan Government and the Afghan National Defense and
Security Forces (ANDSF) have been fully responsible for the security of
Afghanistan and have been in the lead of the fight against the
insurgency for the last 3 years. U.S. and NATO train, advise, and
assist efforts have enabled the ANDSF to deny the Taliban and terrorist
organizations their strategic objectives. However, continued
international support is needed to develop key ANDSF capabilities more
fully, including aviation, special operations, command and control, and
logistics capabilities.
______
Questions Submitted to General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.
Question Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
title 5/32 conversion of national guard
Question. Much of the theme of the Department's budget testimony
this year has related to increasing and rebuilding readiness, and one
readiness concern I have deals with the proposed conversion of Title 32
dual-status military technicians in the National Guard to Title 5
civilian employees. The fiscal year 2016 NDAA required a 20 percent
conversion rate, while DoD reported in December that any conversion
greater than 4.8 percent would hurt the Guard's readiness and ability
to accomplish its missions. With readiness being your top priority, do
you share this concern?
Answer. Yes, I share this concern. The Adjutants General provided
their best military advice in the Report to Congress directed by NDAA
2016. Given both NDAA 2016 and 2017 direct a conversion of not less
than 20 percent, which is 15.2 percent greater than the Adjutants'
General recommendation, the National Guard Bureau has developed plans
to make every effort to mitigate impacts to readiness. The Chief of the
National Guard Bureau believes 20 percent will have a negative impact
and has testified that smaller conversion rates are better for the
readiness of the National Guard.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
rebuilding readiness and additional commitments overseas
Question. The military is engaged in a multi-year process of
getting ready for any sort of threat--we often talk about ``full
spectrum threats''--after over a decade of being focused largely on
conflicts against adversaries not as powerful as us, like Iraq and
Afghanistan. But neither of those missions are scheduled to end, and
the President has hinted they may expand again. Does this budget
submission reflect both rebuilding full-spectrum readiness and
increasing commitments to the Middle East and Afghanistan? What will be
the impact to rebuilding readiness if those increases occur?
Answer. The President's budget 2018 base budget continues the
progress started in fiscal year 2017 toward restoring and improving
warfighting readiness, and achieving program balance by addressing
pressing shortfalls. The requested amount for fiscal year 2018 reflects
known requirements for the D-ISIS campaign and meets our current
operational needs in Afghanistan.
evidence-based, preventative mental health care
Question. The U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine has
developed an innovative approach focused on providing greater
operational support mental healthcare to special operations forces. By
focusing on providing mental health shaping, screening, and
strengthening, their initial results show great success in improving
airman and unit readiness. Furthermore, by treating mental health as an
aspect of readiness, the approach should make the most of the
investment the U.S. Government makes in each individual it trains and
empowers. When can the USAFAM approach or a similar evidence-based,
preventative mental healthcare approach be expanded into other
communities?
Answer. The USAF is currently conducting a pilot program with the
Air National Guard to determine if this program can effectively be
expanded to a larger cohort. The USAF School of Aerospace Medicine is
leading the effort and I am told that we should have a preliminary
report of viability with 12 to 18 months. During the analysis, the
requirements, programming modifications, and resources necessary to
expand and sustain the program will be determined, so if the results
are positive we will minimize any further delays.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
regional war
Question. In early June, an Iranian drone the size of a Predator
Remotely-Piloted Aircraft, was shot down by U.S. forces. In addition,
an F-18 reportedly shot down a Syrian aircraft over Syrian airspace.
There is a potential for a drone strike or other attack leading the
United States to a Gulf of Tonkin situation or worse yet, a Franz
Ferdinand type situation in the Middle East. This type of situation may
lead to U.S. troops or possibly Russian troops being killed. Does the
Department of Defense have plans to de-conflict a potential situation
that could spiral to a wider regional war?
Answer. The United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding with
Russia in October 2015 to deconflict operation of military manned and
unmanned aerial vehicles in the course of military operations in Syria.
Since then, we have expanded the understanding to include ground
operations as well. Our military forces have maintained continuous
contact with Russian Forces through various communication channels to
deconflict situations in advance, de-escalate when necessary, and
communicate future plans to avoid potential situations such as you
describe. We make every effort to deconflict Coalition forces from
Syrian Regime and pro-Regime forces to avoid escalation of hostilities.
The deconfliction process is well established and will remain
successful so long as all parties focus their efforts on defeating
ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and
worldwide peace and security.
syria
Question. What role has Steve Bannon played in developing strategy
in Syria? Do you speak with him? Have any of his opinions overridden
the professional military advice given by yourself or others at the
Pentagon?
Answer. I have no knowledge of Mr. Bannon's role. I have only
spoken to him briefly in passing.
syria su-22
Question. Please provide the legal justification and opinion
supporting the Department of Defense's contention that the shootdown of
the Syrian Su-22 by U.S. military forces on 18 June 2017 was justified
by the 2001 AUMF.
Answer. The April 7, 2017 missile strike taken by the United States
against Syrian military targets was a justified, legitimate, and
proportionate response to Syria's illegal use of chemical weapons on
April 4. These military targets were directly connected to Syria's
indiscriminate use of chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun. The June 18,
2017 strike taken by the United States against the Syrian Su-22 in the
vicinity of Tabqah, Syria, was a limited and lawful measure to respond
to an immediate threat to partner forces engaged in the campaign
against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The efforts of the
U.S.-led Coalition are aimed at the defeat of ISIS, acting in the
collective self-defense of Iraq and in U.S. national self-defense, and
are consistent with the U.N. Charter. Additionally, the 2001
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorizes the use of
force in Syria against ISIS and against al-Qa'ida and associated
forces. To the extent the use of force is necessary and appropriate to
defend U.S., Coalition, and partner forces engaged in the ISIS
campaign, the 2001 AUMF provides such authority.
climate change
Question. How concerned is the Department of Defense about the
implications of climate change on our national security? With more
people moving to the coasts, is the DoD concerned that this could
create new security dilemmas as the climate changes? Please list which
regions the Department of Defense believes could suffer from political
instability and violence as a result of resource scarcity tied to
climate change in the next 10 years.
Answer. It is DoD policy that we must be able to adapt current and
future operations to address the impacts of climate change in order to
maintain an effective and efficient U.S. military. That policy directs
that mission planning and execution must include: (a) Identification
and assessment of the effects of climate change on the DoD mission, (b)
taking those effects into consideration when developing plans and
implementing procedures, and (c) anticipating and managing any risks
that develop as a result of climate change to build resilience. The
dynamics that are happening in our climate contribute to uncertainty
and to sources of conflict around the world. Because there is no one
region or nation that will suffer from global climate change, we must
be prepared for the implications drought, floods, fires, and other
environmental phenomena on sources of instability and conflict that
impact our national security everywhere.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
u.s. sanctions on russia
Question. This week the Senate will continue consideration of Iran
sanctions legislation, which hopefully will also include a
strengthening of sanctions on Russia. I strongly support tightening the
screws on both of these bad actors. I'm not asking you to comment on
the specific legislation before the Senate, but in general. Given
Russia's actions in Ukraine, its support for Syria and Iran, its
interference in the 2016 U.S. election, and its global aggression in
the cyber and information domains, in your judgement, would
strengthening sanctions on Moscow increase U.S. national security?
Conversely, do you believe it generally would harm U.S. national
security to lift or waive sanctions related to this behavior before
Russia fully implements its international obligations and ceases its
destabilizing activity?
Answer. The formulation of economic sanctions does not fall within
my area of responsibility, and with regard to the question of whether
Russian sanctions should be strengthened or waived, I will defer to
those agency officials responsible for formulating and executing these
policies. It is important to note, military considerations are but one
component of our comprehensive approach to address Russian behavior.
afghanistan
Question. You said earlier this week that ``we are not winning in
Afghanistan.'' I'd like to ask both of you, what does winning look like
and what will it take to get there? In particular, what's the plan for
finally getting the training piece right? Building up the quality,
quantity, and self-sufficiency of the Afghan security forces so they
can effectively take the lead in the fight has been a central pillar of
U.S. policy in Afghanistan for 15 years. Yet here we are talking about
needing thousands of more U.S. and allied troops to support and train
the Afghans.
Answer. As we pursue our national interests, we want the Afghan
security and police forces to be capable of providing general security.
The efforts and investments made by the U.S. and other NATO allies and
partners have allowed the Afghan forces to take the lead for security
throughout their country. Continuation of the training efforts will
facilitate increased Afghan capability, decreased levels of violence,
and an eventual reduction in U.S. and NATO force contributions.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. The subcommittee
stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., Wednesday, June 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, June 21.]