[inaudible conversations]

this to make the committee comes to order melanesia reminding of the asia-pacific region with those words and actions on the north korean regime will concerns the decades the self-impoself-impo sed isolation of north korean leaders especially the cruel and erratic behavior of the current leader makes the confrontation more viable in my view we must work even

more closely with the allies and continue to encourage china to help put correa on a different path and must increase the military presence and capability in the region with enhanced missile defense. of course, none of us want another military conflict. . .

north korea is not the only concern in the area. china continues to build islands in the south china sea and to militarize them.the future direction of the philippines is unclear and we're moving toward a closer relationship with new and developing allies like vietnam. all of this and more are on the plate of our k comp commander and harris who we are happy to have your say. the first i yelled to mr. smith for any comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you admiral harris for being here in your leadership in the pacific. and i agree with the importance of the region. us presence in the region has never been more important. our presence working with our allies can be a calming influence in what is a very unstable place as a jammin described. most disturbing and most concerning obviously is north korea. i would say i don't think we

are ignoring at this time. this is not like the first korean war. there is been a great deal of attention paid to this problem in north korea. for several administrations. and i think it is helpful. the number one biggest thing that we need is a clear deterrent to north korea. we are not going to make kim jung-un our national leader, we're not going to make north korea anything other than a state anytime soon? or will we have the from having military capability. but the one thing that we can do is make it clear that we stand with our allies with south korea and japan. in particular and we will be a credible deterrent to any military action in north korea. i think that is the most important thing to do. to make it clear that if he does anything, we have the power and the will to respond and destroy him. because the only positive thing i can think about north korea

is that there is no evidence that the regime is suicidal. they do not want to be taken out. we have to make sure that we maintain a credible deterrent. and china gets into this as well. china wants increased influence in asia and uncertain level that is understandable. they are growing power. they want to have influence but we need to work with them to make sure the influence is positive instead of for ill and north korea is very good place to start. they can be helpful than -- and it is in their best interest. they do not want want to break out north korea anymore than anybody else does. it would be far more devastating impact on their interest. there are a lot of challenges and i will close by saying i think there were also a lot of opportunities that the chairman eluded. we have a lot of allies in the region and a lot of those relationships are growing. i would also mention well, i'm

not sure india and south asia is certainly an ally and one that can become even more so. australia. there are a lot of countries not part of the world that want to work with us and give us an opportunity to work together to make that place and the world a more peaceful place. with that i look forward to the admirals testimony.i think him for his leadership and attendance today. >> admiral again, thank you for being with us. you are recognized for any comments you would like to make. >> thank you, sir. thank you distinguished members. it is an honor for me to appear again before this committee. there are many things to talk about since my last testimony 14 months ago. i do regret that i am not here with my battle by the us forces commander general brooks but i think you all agree that he is where he is needed most right now. on the korean peninsula. unfortunately for limited means my opening statement will be just a tad longer. thank you, mr. chairman for

this, i request in my written statement that it be submitted for the record. >> admiral, without objection it would part of the record.i have to say not to you, but to other folks, we got out about 9 o'clock last night and no one has read it. and so again not direct achievement to all of the layers that such written statements have to go through, they need to be more timely for this committee if they are going to be relevant to our hearing. if it is just putting words on paper, then fine. but we need to do better in the future. i needed to say that again not directed to you but not have

5000 soldiers sailors marines coast guardsmen, airmen and dod civilians serving our nation around half the world. these dedicated patriots are really doing an amazing job. and thanks in america remains a security partner of choice in the region. that is important because i believe in america's future security and economic prosperity are linked to the region and it is a region that is poised as strategic nexus where opportunity meets the challenges of north korea china russia and isis. it is clear to me that isis is a threat that must be destroyed now. the main focus of our coalitions effort is rightfully in the middle east and north africa. but as we eliminate isis in these areas some of the surviving fighters will likely repatriate to their home countries in the asia-pacific. and what's worse there will be radicalized and recognized

fears of must eradicate isis reversals in the take-home area of responsibility. as north korea which remains the most immediate threat to the security of the united states and our allies and the asia-pacific. this week that the industry with a nuclear strike. the powerful reminder to the entire international community and north korea's missiles pointed in every direction. the only nationhood tested nuclear devices in this century north korea has vigorously pursued an aggressive weapons test schedule with more than 60 listed missile events in recent years. with every test, kim jong-un moves closer to his goal with a strike against american cities. and he is not afraid to fail in public. defending the homeland is my top priority. i will must assume that the nuclear claims are true. i know his aspirations certainly are. and that should provide all of us a sense of urgency to ensure pay common us forces korea are

prepared to fight tonight with the best technology on the planet. that is a general brooks and i are doing everything possible to defend the american homeland and our allies in the republic of korea and japan. that's why they decided to deploy sad -- thad . -- that is why the uss carl vinson's carrier strike group is back on patrol in northeast asia. that is why we must continued to debut the newest platforms. we continue to emphasize to the lateral corporation between japan and south korea and the united states. a partnership with a purpose if there ever was one. in the bible contains upon trying to exert the influence to stop the unprecedented

weapons tested. while recent actions by beijing are encouraged and welcomed, the fact remains that china is as responsible for where north korea is today as north korea itself. and reckless north korean regime, it is critical that we are cited by a strong system of resolve. as president trump and secretary mattis have made clear, all options are on the table. we want to bring to the senses, not knees. we also challenge asia-pacific by an aggressive china and russia. neither of whom seem to respect the international they signed onto. for instance there -- the claim is illegal under the law of convention. despite being a signatory to the convention china ignore the legally binding peaceful arbitration. in fact china continues a methodical strategy to control the south china sea.

i testified last year that china was militarizing this critical international waterway in the airspace above it by building air and naval bases on evan chinese man-made islands in the disputed area. they said they would not militarizing spaces. today they now have facilities that support long-range weapons and placements fighter aircraft hangars, radar attires and barracks were troops. china's militarization of the south china sea israel. i am also not taking my eyes off of russia.which just lastly flew missions near alaska on successive days for the first time since 2014. russia continues to modernize its military and exercise its considerable conventional and nuclear forces in the pacific. so despite the regions for significant challenges as well as report we strengthen america's network of alliances

and partnerships. working with like-minded partners on shared security threats like north korea and isis is a key component to our regional strategy. the five bilateral defeat treaty alliances anchor the joint force efforts in the endo asia-pacific. so i continue to rely on north korea for their capabilities across all domains in the leadership and global operations. as vice president mike pence and secretary mattis reaffirmed their recent trips to northeast asia our alliance with south korea remains steadfast and our alliance with japan has never been stronger. even with some turbulence this past year with the philippines. i am pleased that we are proceeding with enhanced defense cooperation agreement and are looking forward to conducting an exercise with our filipino allies next month. this past february i visited thailand to reaffirm our alliance and communicate that will forward to the reemergence as a flourishing democracy.

we also advance our partnerships with regional powers like india and indonesia. malaysia and new zealand singapore sri lanka vietnam and bent many others. all with reinforcing security order that has helped underwrite case and prosperity throughout the region for decades.but there is more work to be done. we must be ready to confront all challenges from a position of strength and credible combat power. so i ask this committee to support the investment to have our military capability spirit any weapon systems to increase with precision speed and range that are networked and cost-effective. restricting ourselves with funding and certainties reduces the fighting readiness. i urge congress to repeal this and approve the proposed defense department budget. finally i would like to thank the congress for proposing and supporting the asia-pacific stability initiative. this effort will be a short all

regional partners and send a strong signal to potential adversaries of our persistent commitment to the region. as always, i thank congress for your support to the men and women in pay, and for the families who care for us. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you admiral. let me just remind all members that immediately upon the conclusion of this open hearing we will have a closed classifieds session with admiral harris. and it will happen immediately after this open hearing has concluded. i know when we have done this before there has been some confusion about time apparently. whenever we finish here it will be upstairs as we usually do. admiral, i appreciate her strong comments about budgets. obviously that is a key importance to us this week. and no one suffers the

consequences of our failure to do our job they need you on the front lines. i want to ask my questions on defendant against missiles. actually want to ask into the. you describe some regional forces that we are putting into the region. i know there have been some press reports that say that bent against missiles launched north korea to me just ask american military forces in that region defend themselves against missiles launched from north korea? >> mr. chairman, absolutely. there was an article that came out this morning from one of the outlets that suggested that

the firm carl vinson strike group with this incredible capability can include -- that somehow, the carrier strike group would not be able to defend itself against ballistic missiles.i believe that article and articles like that are both misleading and they compare apples and oranges if you will. we have missile ships in the sea of japan that are capable of defending against missile attacks. north korea does not have a ballistic missile anti-ship weapon that would threaten carl vinson strictly. the weapons that my three would put against the carl vinson strike group were easily defended by the capabilities in

the strike group. if it flies it will die. if it is flying against the carl vinson strike group. i'm confident that this cannot only defend itself but to protect our that is the call that we received from the president for secretary of defense. >> let me ask you more broadly about missile defense. we have some limited interceptors in alaska and california. you mentioned some ships, we are with the south koreans and so there are several pieces of this but would you agree with my proposition that we probably need to amp up to increase our missile defense capability in this region? >> i agree with you completely mr. chairman. i believe that across the range of integrated air missile

defense i.e. md, that we can and need to do more. i believe that the interceptors that we have that defend our homeland directly in alaska and california are critical. i have suggested that we consider putting interceptors in hawaii that defend hawaii directly. and that we look at the defensive hawaii radar to improve hawaii's capability. i believe that the flight nine bdg's, destroyers coming online are exactly what were needed in the ballistic missile defense space. if you will. and those are coming online grateful to the congress for funding those. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on the chairman's question in terms of domestic defense and missiles and alaska and california. what capabilities do we need in

those missiles? three not have enough were not confident that the ones we have are going to work? what capabilities is it that you are specifically focused on? >> there, and going out of my range of expertise because that is a question that norad concerned more with. but i do believe that the numbers could be improved. in other words we need more interceptors. and then i believe that for the defense of hawaii which is covered also by those interceptors could stand strengthening itself. that is in terms of the defenses why you and potentially interceptors. that is something you need to study deeply but i think it certainly merits further discussion.we have another key systems deployed civic.

the x-band radar that is on an old platform that has self-propelled. we only have one of those. and we use it a lot. and we have to be concerned about the condition of the platform itself which is old and the civilian crews that meant it. >> what actions do you potentially see north korea and kim jong-un taking that are most concerning? and by that, will capability, what will they do defensively militarily? a few years back i believe this ain't a south korean vessel. they launched some missiles at a south korean controlled island. you see similar things that north korea could do. i mean i'm think any of us anticipate they're just going to do a full-scale war because they know the cost of that. but in places where they would try to push the envelope?

and if so, what are your concerns against either our region or our allies? >> sir, i am not certain about this as you are. that north korea won't do something precipitous because - >> i'm nothing answer -- >> it could be what we have seen it work. which provocations like the sinking of the cheonan or the attacks on an island and the continuing evolution of their nuclear and ballistic missile testing. all of that. >> just to be clear, i am not at all certain that they're not going to do so. i am confident admiral. i'm not certain of anything at this point of my life is just the nature of the world. but i am reasonably confident that north korea sees the

threat of launching a full on war. against south korea or japan and the consequences of that. what i am worried about is that they will do these sort of little small things thinking they can get away with it. and be wrong. and i'm trying to get a greater clarity of what those small things are which is why i cited those previous examples. in the current environment, what are you worried about? are they likely to once again think a south korean ship? are the disputed territories that they might try to take over? where should we be looking for that small thing that could lead to the larger much more dangerous more? >> first officer, i don't share confident that north korea is not going to attack either south korea or japan or the united states or territories or the states. or parts of the united states was to have the capability. >> unprovoked. >> i don't, i won't say that

they will. but i don't share your confidence that they won't. with absolute certainty that they will not do that. >> not absolutely certain.but go ahead. >> i believe that we have to look at north korea as if kim jong-un will do what he says. and there is, right now there is probably a mismatch between kj use rhetoric and his capability.he is threatened by name manhattan, washington, colorado, australia, hawaii. and there is a capability gap probably and whether he can or not. >> i want to get into some other people but he has threatened those things in the context of don't mess with us. has he, are you saying he simply threatened them as he is

going to do it no matter what we do? >> sir, i cannot read his mind. >> i am not asking you to read his mind. >> i can do is understand what he says and when he threatens, he threatened the united states and then that is one level. but when he threatens the united states with the capability of realizing that threat, that is a different place. and when that happens it is a point that we have to deal with that. >> this is probably more for a classified setting but understanding why he threatens the united states. i think is enormously important. and again, granting you point that there is no certainty. there is still things that we have learned to understand why the threats were made and it would definitely inform how we would respond. to those threats. so we can do that more in a classified setting.i'll get back to the committee. thank you. >> admiral thank you for being here and for your service to our country.

if this needs to wait until the classified session please say so. but one of the needs that you highlighted in your written statement was more munitions. we are running short of some critical munitions.when you want to elaborate on that or should we be more specific when we go up to the classified? >> sure, i can elaborate on it in general here. in them what has to, details will be reserved for the classified session.in general, we are short on things like small diameter bombs. these are not exciting kinds of weapons comedies on monday and sort of weapons. but there absolutely critical to what we are trying to do. not only north korea. against north korea but also in the fights in the middle east. and so we have a shortage of small diameter bombs throughout the inventory. the stockpile of small diameter bombs that they have for

example we send them to the fight we are in. and rightfully so. to central command in africa. and so that is definitely an end they need them. so we send them there. and they use them. which is a good thing. that means that they will be short and we will send more. that is a fight we are in. we are also short in "a" w anti- air warfare weapons like a 9x and weapons that our fighter aircraft used in the air. i can use more of this. and in a bigger sense the submarine issue itself. i think the submarine numbers are low and are getting smaller. so the number of submarines without going into the precise detail here, the navy can only meet about 50 percent of my stated requirement for attack summaries. these are ssn'sup.

-- the requirement i have will not get smaller but that requirement will be exacerbated. because of it. and so those are the kinds of munitions that i worry about. also torpedoes and all about. >> thank you. hope we can address those issues seriously in the upcoming fiscal year. and appropriations bills. lastly, what kind of leverage does china have over north korea? i don't think it is well understood how much, and they don't think admit to having a lot of leverage but to outsiders i think we can benefit from your insight. >> sure. north korea is china's only treaty ally.

so that says one thing right there. we have five bilateral defense treaties. they are all in the endo asia-pacific. china has north korea. so they are obligated by treaty to have this kind of a relationship in north korea. 80 percent of north korea's economy is based on china. exports primarily. so 80 percent of their economy is based on china. i believe that is a significant leverage that china can employ if it so chose to against north korea. >> thank you. i appreciate your service once again mr. chairman. >> mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you were able to come talk to several of us lester and i appreciate that. i want to explore a little more

based on the comments made. specific to the military said. we discussed the state department's role, the treasury's role in with regards to north korea. i am wondering do you have any assessment about china's relationship with dp rk on the military side. if there is influence or if you are aware of any influence that the pla can play in regards to pursuing more advanced - and testing. >> i'm not aware of the various -- >> okay. related as well to our relationship for what we are trying to achieve in or on the peninsula, are you having for do you have any advice on

whether or not you feel like you're in the position to sort of play every role that is not just a pacific commander but also somewhat of a diplomatic role. because we have a secretary state position but we do not have debbie terry or secretary. with ambassadors without having one so there is a gap in that policymaking structure. are you having to fill that gap? >> i have been accused of many things but never as being diplomatic. >> all of us hereto. >> part of the role of the commander is to have relationships with not only our military counterparts but also the leadership and the countries in the regions over which we exercise some degree of authority and influence. i do have relationships with our partner nations, our allies in the region.

but you know, i think the state department has a key role to play here. and you know i would defer in every case to secretary tillis. and my point is that you want to fill that role is much as for whatever reason, the senate hasn't confirmed the administration has not put up folks to fill in the spots. >> sure. >> and therefore your left having to fill the gap. >> i'm happy to do what i can in that regard. just recently i was asked to deliver some messages about the return to democracy which i was happy to do. and i think it is part and parcel of one of the rules of a geographic commander in today's military structure. >> it is also the role of ambassadors and secretaries of state in place. so - i do not know if you can answer this here but, which is

probably a prelude that you can't answer here. but, i have to ask. there is the issue of the nuclear test and the issues of the missile test. both of them obviously very concerning. i guess i would like to hear maybe a little later about is there one, is a more conservative missile test on nuclear tests? what is the difference between a nuclear test in north korea based on the fifth nuclear test as opposed to advancing and missile testing. >> i view them both very seriously. and the difference between the sixth nuclear test and the fifth nuclear test, if we know is improvement between the two. as i said in my opening statement, they are not afraid to fail in public. and he felt a lot. but i think edison failed a thousand times before he got

the lifeboat to work. and so here we are. he is not afraid of failing in public. and he continues to try. and he is developing missiles that have solid fuel propellants. and i can talk and have a hearing about that. we had that weapons development going on, longer-range weapons going on, he has a ballistic missile submarine and ssb is troubling and he is doing nuclear testing. so if you put all that together, it puts it on and - that he is testing over here. then he figures out a way to have that thing survived reentry. and then we have a serious problem on our hands to the back to the comments earlier.

>> thank you your assessment is very important i appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. could you, admiral cain talk about the value of a joint military exercise with south korea. it seems like whenever we do them, it seems to excite north korea.is there an advantage in terms of doing those? >> absolutely. i would say it is critical. we are obliged to defend south korea by treaty. and so south korea is one of those treaty partners. they have a very strong and capable military as we do. but if we are going to defend them or fight with them, on the peninsula, the we have to be integrate with their military. we have to be able to work with their military.

we have to understand their military and vice versa. so we share a lot of common systems. antisubmarine warfare aircraft. their destroyers and our destroyers and cruisers. and on and on. so we have to be able to operate together in peace times so we can operate together in war times if it comes to that. so right now this is what we have to do.we have to maintain our degree of readiness. not only unilateral readiness but also our combined and joint readiness with our brothers and sisters in the military. >> would you say that there is pressure on them not to except the thad system? >> there is peer pressure from china economic pressure against companies like the corporation that owns the place that thad

will go into. samsung and other companies. big corporations south korea. and so you know, i find it preposterous that china would try to influence south korea to not get a weapons system completely defensive against the very country that is in line with china. if they want to do something constructive they made to focus less in my opinion on south korea's defensive preparations and focus instead, more on north korea's offense of preparations. and i think we are in a good place. i'm reasonably optimistic now that china is having an influence and they are working in the right direction with regards to north korea thanks

to the efforts by our president and bears. >> do think china holds all the cards in any kind of negotiated settlement to diffuse tensions on the korean peninsula? >> i don't think they hold all of the cards. they hold a good number of them and important cards. regardless of whether i think that china's influence on north korea is waning, it still is the country that has the most influence on north korea during peace time. and i think if it came to a harder place than we would have the most influence. but in peace time, china has the most influence on north korea. >> am i correct that the south korean or i guess republic of korea security forces have taken operational control of joint military operations and that we do not have forces on the demilitarized zone?>> no,

sir. the contrast for the transfer of operations control.that is now pushed to the right and it is condition space transport. so they do not have operations control of our forces. but general brooks was the us forces commander is also the united nations commander and the combined forces commander. so he is the commander of all of the forces on the peninsula including the korean forces. in terms of war. >> is not a goal though? >> ultimately, the transfer is a goal.but it has to be condition space. has to be when they are ready. and all of the other conditions. >> do.>> guest: whether or not we have if you can speak in this setting, do we have conventional forces on a demilitarized zone?

>> we have commissioned forces along the demilitarized zone. i can go into more detail in the other session. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and thank you admiral harris.i enjoyed meeting you recently. on guam you know we are directly and uniquely impacted by national security and foreign policy decisions in the region. so we seek to understand what if any strategy this administration has for the indo asia-pacific. we are in the process of realigning marines from okinawa rough the pacific what you know in your testimony is critical for modernizing our posture in the region. can you briefly discussed the military necessity particularly the movements of marines to guam for which the japanese are contributing. over one third of the cost. you highlighted funding levels

but i'm especially interested in not just the financial but also the political capital for the government of japan has expended for this. >> thank you congresswoman. the whole issue of moving marines from okinawa elsewhere is important to our alliance relationship with japan. and so the movement involves, today we have roughly 20,000 or so marines and okinawa and ultimately want to get to a point around 10 or 11,000 or so. part of that is to move about 4000 marines to guam and some to hawaii and australia. we are looking at as you know, the movement, the bulk of the

marines to would occur in 2024 to 2028. and then hawaii after that. we are also rotating forces to australia now. japan has invested a lot in this. this is all about everyone else's benefit to reducing the footprint and okinawa and also closing the airbase. it is airbase that in an incredibly populated area. so the japanese have asked us to move that airbase. it is a key base of operations for us in the region. what we told the japanese back in the 90s that we would do that. but their obligations under the treaty is to provide us a place for which to operate. our obligations in the treaty are to protect japan. and so their obligation is to provide a place that they selected, a place called -- outside of camp schwab.

and that is kind of where we are. ultimately when they are ready we will shut down and moved to the other area. until then we have to operate somewhere. and that is where we are also learning from. part of the agreement was to remove a large number of forces from okinawa. that is where the relocation - >> i think admiral what i'm trying to get, everything is on target, is that correct? >> yes i think things are on target. i think -- is delayed a little bit. but they said that they would have it ready by 2022. i testify last year that felt it was in questions and now i'm going to have to defer to the japanese for a better estimate. >> while we waited a long time for this. so we wanted to continue and we do have a problem there on guam

now. a labor shortage. i'm working on that. what importance would you give to the fifth ssn and guam? your forces be better enabled by ship repair facilities in the western pacific? just a yes, sir a no. >> on the ssn and guam. i am a big fan of moving the fifth ssn to guam. it is a decision and i am - i believe it is important we move the capability forward because it gives it closer to the fight. on the ship facility i certainly do not know. i would do for the pacific fleet commander as a navy issue. on whether they need a ship repair facility and guam or if the facilities in hawaii and eastward are adequate. >> i have one last question admiral. as you know a decade ago paid, issued -- for antiship weapons

to keep pace with evolving threats. with significant ammunition short goals, i presume the requirements continue to grow. would that be accurate and can you discuss the risk we take with the shortfalls in a standup weapons like the long-range antiship missile? could you just briefly. >> sure, i believe that this is relevant today as it was when one of my predecessors issued a decade ago. i am pleased and grateful to for the life long-range antiship missiles putting money against advanced tomahawk and so the good and i'm grateful. thank you and thank you, mr.

chairman i believe number about 95. in other words nine percent of china's land-based crews and ballistic missiles, 95 percent are falling in that range and would be concluded by the forces treaty. everyday world to that treaty. question how many land-based crews and missiles of the range do you have in the arsenal? >> sir, i have none in that range in my arsenal. in your does the us military at large have that because we are the majority. with all of those. question your opinion should we consider renegotiation of the treaty and withdrawing declaring russia and reach of

the treaty? >> that is a question that i know is being looked at and i believe that there are aspects of the treaty which, the nuclear part of it that reduces the nuclear weapons in all of that. i am concerned that on the conventional side both in terms of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, we are being taken to the cleaners by countries that are not -- to the inf. because there is no expectation. >> we should have no expectation that china follow, on the other hand, they recently testified that russia has violated the conventional part of the inf. the treaty is just us and russia and a few other soviet successor states.

it is really about us and russia. and so russia doesn't adhere to it as strictly as we do. china and other countries i ran for example, do not have an obligation to follow it. they are proceeding a pace and their weapons development -- here we are without a weapon in this 5500 kilometer range. a critical range to be able to conduct warfare in the asia-pacific. >> so you are saying we are basically unilaterally disarmed and it comes that capability? >> we are an transport unilaterally not being creative. >> i yelled back. >> thank you admiral, good to see you again. i want to follow up on your comments regarding the need for submarines to fill requirements

you have out there.again you mentioned we have a fleet today 52 going down to 41 in 2020. your testimony on page 16 actually tallied the number of submarines between russia, north korea and china today which is 160. which again i think helps sort of frame your comments even more sharply. last december secretary mavis came out with his for structure assessment which again called for an increase in the fleet size to 355. mr. whitman and i just got back a report a few days ago that talked about the fiscal challenge of trying to achieve the goal. if you had to prioritize again fleet architecture as we find our way forward to hit that target, what end of the fleet would you want to emphasize in

terms of new platforms to be available? >> i am not a fleet guy anymore. but from a joint commander perspective i need more submarines. and so, the navy's plan to build up to 355 ships, 65 of those are seven marines. right now we are at 52 going to 42. completely wrong direction. and if we go from 52 to 42 to 66 i would think then that in that number of 66 that i would be able to meet more of the requirements that i'm able to have met now. right now i am at 50 percent of my requirement. it will be worse, it will be exacerbated when the going down to 42. but if we go up to 70 it will be better. but that number is an important number. because it highlights the shortfalls that we are out.

that we are currently in with regards to not only submarines but other aspects. so in that number is a wealth aircraft carrier. and all of the ships to go with it. >> i think these are really important as we move out to face stress that will confront us beyond those that are there now. and while we are doing this, china and russia are significantly improving the submarine capabilities. so today i mean, today there is no comparison. it would be like comparing a model t to a corvette. there is no comparison between a us virginia class submarine and anything that china can steal. that is not the point. the point is that in 20 years or so, china will work hard to close that technological gap. and if we do not continue to resource our submarine fleet

and no military in general, and they will be able to close that gap. and that will put us in a bad place. >> another point in your testimony on page 10 was again, talking about russia and the more aggressive posture in asia-pacific. again, the pacific fleet now is a new development in terms of again, this whole question of your ability to meet requirements. isn't that correct?they are now back in business. >> yes, sir it is. >> thank you. last week i had an opportunity to go out and visit one of our sons which is the uss connecticut. i raise the point because the submarine was supposed to be a two-year job ended up being four years and again is because of the whole question of the

navies strain in terms of the public shipyards could again that is another part of the story in terms of your ability to get your requirements met when again the pipeline in terms of repairs is just not moving. fast enough. again, obviously that was key platform that you can use right now i am assuming. >> it is. the numbers are affected, the numbers i get as opposed to the numbers i have asked for in terms of submarines are driven not only by the number of submarines, that is the easy answer. 52 spread out across the commanders. but it is also driven by availability. the availability is driven by the base and its capacity to repair the submarines and going in for overhauls and all that. >> thank you. i yelled back mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good to see you again admiral. i would like to hone in the question on china some more and also readiness.

china has been investing in several next-generation military technologies including hypersonic missiles directed energy weapons, autonomous weapons systems and space-based weapons. are you concerned about the progress china is making and is development of these technologies and how can the united states maintain the edge? >> without going into classified i will answer yes to all of that. i'm very concerned about the developments in these systems. particularly hypersonic. what we can do is develop our own hypersonic weapons and a few of our defenses against theirs. when the problems we have is this inf treaty. the issue before us. so hypersonic, that can match the chinese weapons would be precluded. we are precluded from developing land-based weapons that can match the chinese land-based weapons by treaty.

>> is an excellent point. i'm glad i brought that up we need to address that. what is your assessment of china's use of hybrid warfare methods and how does china influence otherwise affect the asian partners and allies? >> i believe that china is a learning machine. a learning organism. they have watched the russians example in ukraine and they are applying aspects of that in the south china sea. particularly with their maritime militia. with little ships and entities that roam throughout the south china sea. they are using these in lieu of military ships. and i think they're having some effect with them and we need to continue to monitor that activity. and to call them when they do something that would be good

seamanship. >> and relation to -- i would like to with the readiness. we heard from the service chief and vice service chief of all of the military branches. the inability to modernize forces, the adversaries have closed the capability gap, they also shared the quality and quantity of training opportunities have declined significantly over the past years which has decreased our readiness. they have talked about how our forces are undermanned. i'm wondering how these factors have affected you. >> day i believe i can meet the strategy in terms of these forces. that involves principally we are worried about north korea. my forces are ready to fight tonight if called on to do that. what the readiness shortfalls

and the challenges that the services have and how it will affect me on - forces. the fight tonight is literally tonight. but a lot of the forces come from the united states. so that is an issue. and then the search forces, how current is our c left, how can we get all of this stuff out there? i worry about that quite a bit. the lack of a budget is going to hurt us if we do not get one. >> hopefully we will adjust that this week. you talk a little about the south china sea and what they are doing. and the land reclamation expansion in the area. coupled with the growing military capabilities. as you know causing tension across the globe. if the tensions continue to rise to the point with military confrontation necessary, are you confident in both the quality and quantity of forces you receive from the services?

annually have enough weapons and assets with access to the threat in order to reduce the risk to the forces and maximize their capabilities? >> i can get into more details in the classified meeting. i'm concerned about china's bases in the south china sea. that complicates the anti-access problem that we face if we are called upon to conduct operations against china. >> i look forward to visiting with you in the classified setting. i yelled back. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining us today. i would like to ask about the intermediate forces treaty. the treaty that president reagan signed in the mid-1980s with the soviet union. i wanted to start with that following on my colleagues questions.

what has been our response to russia's violation of the treaty? >> sarah, i did not know - >> i am not aware of a response either. typically when one party to a treaty violates a treaty, what do try to do? you try to hold them accountable. so the other option simply is withdrawing from the treaty ourselves. is that right? >> right. >> have we thought about having such a treaty with china as well? >> i have not. and i'm not aware of the discussions that would bring china into either the existing treaty or a separate treaty with china. when the treaty was signed back in 85, it was a bilateral treaty and a bipolar world. now we are in a multipolar world with guts we were not

thinking about back then. >> i agree. i think that they will be shocked to hear that our initial response to a violation to a russian violation of the treaty would be simply to aggregate the treaty ourselves. but i want to the best north korea. the trump administration has said that quote - all options are on the table regarding a preemptive military strike. what range of options do we have?>> we have the full range of options. whether it is continued negotiations, continued - >> specifically military actions. what effective military options would we have to counter the north korean threat with the preemptive strike? >> the full range of options on the military side whether it is pressure operations or kinetic operations.>> i'm asking specifically about a preemptive strike. not continued pressure, not

diplomatic pressure, not the presence of our submarines or carriers. but what sorts of preemptive strike options do we have against north korea? >> i will just say so that we have a lot of preventive options but i could not begin to talk about them in this area. >> what will the typical response be to such a preemptive strike? >> depends on the level. >> would we be able to take out the artillery? >> i believe we would have the ability to affect north korea's military calculus in preemptive strikes.depending on the type of strike. but i am really treading on - 's i'm not asking anything classified. there has been a lot of unspecified material about this. my concern admiral is not when you look at the options that we have in terms of a preemptive

strike, there's not a lot we can do about north korea's artillery. this has been well discussed in the open press. that a lot of south koreans and americans in south korea might die if that option were exercised. would you agree with that assessment? >> i will say that what we are faced with is that on one hand and a lot more koreans and japanese and americans dying if north korea achieves its nuclear aims and does what they have said it will do.

getting that off the recent meeting. >> not just the recent meeting of the idea that if we have a positive productive relationship with china -- >> the administration throughout the campaign up until that meeting is tthemeeting is to han unproductive relationship to call the mccarthy manipulator etc.. >> mr. wilson. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i had a have an extraordinary opportunity visiting with you in hawaii and i saw first hand of your capabilities and the briefings that you've provided us and the rapport with your personality was exciting it is your history and background is

equally so inspiring to the american people and i want to thank you for your service to. as we face these issues continues to be a significant threat to the security of the american people. can you explain? the attacks from north korea is aimed north not eased but last brother and poses no threat to china and it is designed to protect our korean allies in

american service men and servics and others who live and work in korea. >> they are to support the deployment and servicing back you up so you have obviously incredible bipartisan support in congress. as north korea continues to develop a ballistic missile technology, can you explain who is supporting these resources specifically as a collaboration? >> i will find out and get back to you on that. >> the president stated all options are on the table concerning north korea as it is

cited just now. as the chairman of the committee, i am concerned that the noted shortages and backlog maintenance on the shift to decode ships and aircraft. what have you seen in the pacific command? >> i am concerned about the shortfalls, maintenance backlogs and weapons keeping us ahead of our adversaries principally with china and russia but that would have an effect in north korea. >> are there other shortfalls that we can help address? >> there are small anti-warfare weapons. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you for coming here today. the administration sent the uss michigan to south korea and continues to escalate its rhetoric against the current leader. there is no question of the significant threat posed under the region especially as it continues to pursue its missile and nuclear ambitions. however, i am concerned about the publication and direction this administration is taking to address the threat. it seems they've now developed, have not developed a national strategy when it comes to north korea and yet we are deploying military access on increasing tension and considering military options against north korea. when dealing with an unpredictable regime, their rhetoric can be dangerous, and i think the committee would be interested to hear whether there

was so much confusion and if it was deployed to or not. what is the feasibility taking on north korea without china becoming involved what type of coalition efforts would be requireeffort would berequired n against north korea lacks denuclearization at this point seems unachievable unless the u.s. wages and outright war against north korea or north korea undergoes a regime change. what are the other options besides denuclearization are you into the administration looking at to limit the threat? that is quite a number of questions. i will try to get through them.

my job is to provide options and as a military commander my job is to provide military options and that is what i do and i have done. that's my fault on the confucian and i will take the hit for it so i made the decision to truncate the exercise, canceled those support visits to australia and then proceed nor north. we have done exactly that. we tested at the port visit and then moved north and today it sits in the philippine sea in striking range if called upon to

do that and in a few days i expect he will continue to move north. you started your questions by talking about the uss michigan and the guided missile power submarine is in fact in korea now as a show of solidarity with our korean allies and will be there for a few days and it will be operating in the area. this is al updated with our alls and a flexible deterrent to show should they consider using the force against south korea. on the peninsula is south korea

and then of course with japan and our other friends and allies in the region i feel would support the united states as we support our treaty allies. >> i guess the only question that i continue to have is it's been difficult to discern that strategy and i'm hoping at some point we can hear whether it be in a classified hearing or not. but today i don't have the confidence to feel good about the statement displayed that we do have a coherent strategy. before i get started i just want to tell you there are 15 of us i

think we all came away understanding the seriousness of the situation but we had 100% confidence in his leadership and ththe troops at his command and where he's going with that. after having an hour and a half with him that day last year using i visited and for two hours you spent with the eight of us that were there, that was a force. rarely in my lifetime have i been in the room with somebody that had such complete command over everything that you were talking to us about, over an incredibly broad and diverse theater so i want to compliment you on that. we talked about how it helps increase the theater and you reminisced about the days that you ar were a young naval commar dealing with the smaller vessels

then the soviets had and could put a missile on. you were good about going over with me and the others about having that small combatant out there typically now that we can put harpoon missiles and add it to them what you're doing. two months ago i was in singapore and i noticed you had an lcs and they put them to work and there is no shortage. can you discuss the impact of having been in the theater? >> i will garner the record in both the principal forms and i am a fan of it. i would be a bigger fan of the

lcs. i want to acknowledge our great friend in singapore who has allowed us to deploy the ships to the country. they are on the right track with this theory and they have a role to play in that. the story that i am told one of my jobs was to keep track of the ocean boats. they were small patrol boats but the reason we had to keep track of them, the reason that we were worried about them and the captain and the admiral were

there at that time is because each one carried a styx missile or more, so it could pretend to care year punching far, far above their weight. and i think that lcs should do that. it would have multiple tubes on them and would be able to respond in the wa way that you d so just to make sure i understand what you're saying you want them to have the sort of missile capabilities that enable us trying to get to.

>> i am agnostic on to that type of missile. i want them to be equipped with missiles that could sink ships. >> having multiple members of those for having more than one, but several you can place them where ever you want and that adds to the other adversaries that has to do with the placement. there's a whole range of observations that the navy has in the region. >> i appreciate your comments on that but once again commend your leadership i have a high level of confidence that we have the right people and the right things in place if something bad happens and i appreciate your leadership and his leadership.

>> thank you mr. chairman. thank you so much for your testimony and service to the country. you said that the call is now in the philippine sea. how long of a flight time would that be? >> about two hours, well within their capability. >> would there be a need to refuel to get back la >> when you talked about the basic admissions is that a problem throughout the navy or the pacific command? >> it is a shortage across the joint force and so we were sending them out to the central command because they were needed in the fight in the middle east. i have an allocation.

>> hopefully they don't share the background as they use them and so then they will need more. >> how do i go about finding out the status and the inventory overall and that kind of thing? >> what were the other weapons you mentioned before that where the priorities? the >> they go on the fighter aircraft. >> i would like to develop i'm only new here and trying to develop an inventory of what we have and understand how we use water. >> they will get back to you. >> thank you very much. >> mr. kelly. >> thank you mr. admiral harris for being here. one, just again, it is a joint

problems a number of munitions and stockpile that we have to comply is that correct in your opinion? then i want to go back just a little bit to the leader of north korea into the ranking members questions, he understands the cost benefit analysis of any actions towards the united states and i thank you for being on the front lines, you and all of the service members every day. do you know of any source and do you think that's based on news sources and the advisors does he get any advice that he cannot totally annihilate the united states is there any source but he gets that from?

>> from his circle of advisers they follow his line and eliminate the source of distrust and clustering. >> some people think that they are in length with their actions and it is almost like he is a little more than that and might even think based on the number of advisers whether you be his uncle or brother or anyone else's that correct? the >> how does that impact them directly in the unclassified area and others surface ships? >> the navy fizzles about 50%,

so in an unclassified way for example to deal with the russian submarine threat, and they are also involved in the surveillance missions and other kinds of missions themselves directly for the pacific fleet. so because of the numbers that are underway, and the same with the russians i wouldn't be able to keep track in every way that i can by not having the number that i need to do that, i would have to make the risk calculations and decisions on with surveillance missions we are not going to do because i don't have the submarine to do that, i need to do something

else. so those kinds of calculations are being done in real time every day not only by me and the staff but the pacific fleet staff and on down the chain so this is one example. right now they are on deployment and i extended by a month to ensure that we have a carrier available should the president need one because the carrier is based in the western pacific is a maintenance right now and so i wouldn't have a carrier air right now werthereright now were ability to extend. so that is two examples right there. >> when i first got into the military many years ago we

started adding risk and that can reduce some of the risk that we ought to be doing some of the same risk assessment. that means the lives and material and equipment would that be correct? then the final question, we hear often about the funding of the joint chiefs level. but at your level, how significant is it to have funding you can plan to make sure that we have the right plans in place? >> it is very significant. if we don't get a budget or we go into another, the services are going to start to enact in the measures to balance their

books into that includes things like the cutback on the air wing training which means they won't be ready to deploy. the air force is going to come back over 100,000 across the air force. the army will com will conduct n exercise in the pathways and things like that in order to balance the books and that will have an effect on th the combatt commanders directly to. thank you mr. chairman and i was yelled back. healed. >> thank you mr. chairman. and admiral for being with us today. i wanted to ask you if this is in-line with the questions people have been asking because i think it is what the public is looking for. you said your goal i that your o bring them to the consensus but not bring him to his knees.

in line with the bad, what are you doing to reduce tension specifically in the present with some people are concerne concerd be an overreaction on our part? >> the best way to reduce tension is to provide credible combat power 20 for/7. if you are a weak country were having weak military i think that encourages adventure and puts us in a place with countries like north korea that we wouldn't want to be if we had a choice. so we had a choice and genital brookbooks and i provided those options, both within our own areas of authority we provide credible combat power to our allies and japan and korea. so this is one example of that.

bringing the uss michigan is another example of that. these are another area of combat power which i believe has the effect of inaugurating the worst impulses. >> is there anything else you could share with us regarding your own work essentially with the white house through some of these escalations? >> i would be hesitant to share discussions we have had. >> those that are critically important to the testimony you listed budget uncertainty next to china, russia, north korea and isis. when the general was here just a few weeks ago, he talked about the fact that what he views as a

professional malpractice if we don't pass the budget and get on with this important work. i suspect that you probably share that sentiment in some w way. >> i will say the need is there. >> but sometimes that is appropriate, right? >> i believe we must have a budget and retail otherwise it is going to put us in a bad place and the signals i was talking about earlier with north korea and all of that.

>> one of the things you just said is you think that the commanders are going to start taking some draconian measures. >> it's the services. because they have the military for the use of the joint force and the last day i named the army, navy and marine corps. >> is it something that you see in some trends that we continue to do that in fact given some other technologies were changes that we don't need to do any longer? >> i think that in terms of the rnd research development that we are in fact looking at new ways of doing business and it is getting at some of that is

another way to try to jumpstart some ideas and i think that these are all helpful. so i would say that the department of defense is looking at innovation as a means to overcome some of the challenges. >> can i ask you this briefly because time is almost up. we have an audit out of the pentagon is that an issue for you? >> no audit is not a problem. >> if there is a problem in the pentagon that doesn't affect me as a combatant commander. >> thank you. >> thank you for your leadership and what you're doing. i would say that it would be a malpractice if we don't get the budget passed.

i want to get your professional opinion for the committee. on how hard it is and challenging to defend with the location and the number of artillery, could you go into in a little bit of detail on the challenges that we will face if --'s >> it is a very dramatic challenge to. it's the most densely populated city on the planet. there's a vast array of rocket forces and artillery, so it does pose a significant challenge. >> it is an extraordinary challenge to counter. do you think we have enough aircraft close enough to detour or do we need to add additional

permanent presence in japan and so forth and have rotating forces but is it enough to make clear that he will lose? >> i think that they are sending in the right signal. the japanese were involved. it demonstrated to our allies and friends and also that he had

a capability to bring the forces to bear from all around the pacific to focus on him if need be. so i'm pleased with the forces we have but as i mentioned the previous question, is affected by readiness and the budget. >> it seems part of it as a government response. are we doing this in the nonmilitary sense of power for example in the '90s we use being gamed sanctions that were effective. are there other things we should be doing to help put pressure on north korea? >> i believe it is a whole government effort and it would require and i believe the different parts of the government are involved in. >> 's should we go back to the banking sanctions it seems they

should work? one last thing, the son of a dictator surrounded by people, the question is the rational decision-making but how would you interpret his strategic objectives, what is he trying to pursue, what are his goals and behavior? >> there is an element of respect. he seek us the korean peninsula to his favor and to have a dominance in that part of the world. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the time and yield back. >> i just returned back

yesterday after holding a whole strinstream of town hall meetins across hawaii on each island. the question and concern raised about the threat yes the united states, specifically hawaii was a constant question and a scene that came about each of the islands. given that hawaii is home to your headquarters, how do you characterize the threat specifically to hawaii and how confident are you in the current capabilities against the threat of? >> thanks, congresswoman. i am concerned about it and i believe that our ballistic missile architecture is sufficient to protect hawaii today. but it can't be overwhelmed and if kim jong un launched against the united states and we had to make a decision on which ones to

take out or not, that is a difficult decision. i think that we would be better served and my opinion is we would be that better served with interceptors in hawaii. i know that is being discussed and i don't want to get ahead of the discussions but i think that we ought to study it for sure and then make that decisio the a head of the department with the best way forward is. but clearly he's in a position to put in hawaii today. what you're suggesting how confident are you in that technology that's being discussed? >> i am getting ahead of ourselves a little bit because i'm suggesting that we study the

base of the interceptors. that's the next level of detail which i'm not part of that discussion. i think that the defense of the radar is coming. i think that the interceptors piece is something that is yet to be determined. but i believe we should certainly look at it and would be somehow not doing our job if we didn't look at it. >> can you expand a little bit on what you meant about the capability being sufficient but if overwhelmed with create a situatiosituation or difficult t choices could be made? the >> in this hearing room i will just say that we have a number of interceptors to shoot down the targets and if the opposition five plus one then that is at least one.

>> thank you. recently, i think about a month ago, the acting assistant secretary of state made a statement basically saying that the pickets to asia is effectively over. what is your take on that statement and how have you seen the practical implications of that? >> i believe that what we are doing is continuing to place an importance on the individual specific region. i believe that the secretary's first trip was to the region and the vice president is within when he returned from the region to hawaii. i believe that these send the

right signal to others t that te united states remains steadfast in our placing in the pacific region as the most important region for america's future. it would demonstrate that we do value what is happening in asia pacific even though the terms may be outright remains focused on the nation. >> i appreciate your leadership through your long tenure but always bringing through the challenges as well as the opportunities that we face in the region. thank you.

>> thank you mr. chairman for your service to the country and your helpful answers today. i wanted to follow-up first folt about the questions on the treaty to see if you could elaborate on the extent to which it is now prohibiting the united states only binding us in many ways if the russians are violating it and if the chinese are moving ahead is a production of weapons that he can't produce under that treaty. >> the treaty doesn't affect the weapons development or any others with the exception of ours and russia. it is a bilateral treaty with.

i know that they violated in certain aspects. on the nuclear side of the treaty i believe that it is holding and i would be hesitant to call for us to pull out of the treaty. it not only governs nuclear weapons but also conventional weapons in the ballistic and cruise missile may regimes. i am worried about chinese weapons and we are a signatory

and we follow it to the letter. >> in particular, one of those kinds of weapons that they are developing that we have included in a hypersonic weapon. could you talk a little bit about missile defense against the weapons in termweapons in te capabilities are as any that we might have today. >> i don't want to get into that in this hearing. >> in terms of missile defense and our allies is there more we could be doing with respect to the sites? >> we should make available the systems to the countries that are close friends. i don't want to get into a discussion with japan for example and they can make the

decision to encourage them to go down that path. i think that within our structure in northeast asia for example, one of the things that could be done is the relationship between north japan and south korea. they both have system is and ballistic missile defense and they need to get along better and i'm happy to report that they are. they recognize the need to do that and the relationship between them and about trilateral relationship which is helpful. >> just a little bit more on china. it has long been the policy including in the previous administration, the obama administration today that we need to get the chinese to put

pressure on as you discussed at some length toda today but coulu talk a little bit about what you see as their exit if you look at the development that they are making a prevent us from accessing the same area, how much do we think we could count on them in terms of some of their interests? the >> the interests include. they don't want to see the unified peninsula that is unified with korea. that is problematic for them.

historically they are a big concern for what is happening on the peninsula and that has driven their actions. i think that president trump has convinced him that there are other benefits to having a denuclearized korea and its derivative that it be that way and we go forward to see where it goes. china seems to be helpful here and i want to acknowledge that and be optimistic.

>> i'm going to get off of the subjects that deal with classified they don't have the ability to adapt to adapt to those type of situations and that countries are also in your area. hohow do they address the situation and how confident are you that they are able to address it themselves? >> i am encouraged by the activities of the countries.

they understand the problems. that is important. they go about the problem themselves. we are helping them where they can say that is the approach that's good for the pacific.

what we have to do to get them up to that level? the >> i think we have to be involved in the position competition. the philippines thoug philippine turned the start of the case that got us and place we are in the legal framework. we need to encourage them to

stand up to china they are a treaty of the united states. >> but they also had internal problems. >> from your remarks, i am going to take it but depending on substantial help in that area is probably minimal. >> the navy ship was sunk by what is believed to be a torpe torpedo. the classification system to protect the navy's high-value

surface ships and aircraft carriers. they operate in the torpedo range of carrier battle groups as evident in the battle group has highlighted by the current and aggressive threats we face in north korea it is tested installed and deployed. i also understand the budget constraints may be threatening the development and deployment of the system. with nearly $530 million

invested in the technology is there a new priority to make sure it is deployed on every high-value unit in the fleet >> the budget constraints are going to have to make difficult decisions. the system will be cut if we don't get the budget fo or the resources asked for. to prioritize all the systems that they have they won't have to take cuts.

most especially thank you for your service to the nation. >> we have seen an increase in the military operations by the new administration such as the cruise missile strikes and the bomb dropped in afghanistan by lic that both of those actions are appropriate, if we move over to north korea i think similar actions without these may have disastrous effects and u.s. troops living within range of the north korean army artillery. how would they ensure the implications are being weighed out when the planning actions?

>> that is a great question. the best thing i can do is ensure that we have incredible power available all the time to face whatever thread comes out of north korea. >> i think the strong credible combat deterrence is actually an encouragement to do things that are provocative for dangerous for both. so if we don't have that capability or if he thinks we don't have the capability, then that would make him i think adventuress and that would in fact threaten to 25 million people who live in seoul and that would then require a response by us and our ally and then we would be at it again.

so the best we can do is to combat for us in the face of provocations. >> i strongly believe the multilateral exercises with our partners and allies are critical at achieving a unified basis and challenging adversaries whether they are in the arena or elsewhere. we constantly hear the exercises are at the risk of budget constraints and uncertainty. what lessons do you fear we risk losing if we are not able to work with our allies and will they be approached by other powerful nations in the region?

these are hig high-end militaris that they need to exercise with because we might be in the position to have to rely on th them. there are countries that seek to be better and exercise with countries like us.

they will try to become the security partner of choice for the countries that we are the security partners today. exercises are clearly on the table and the services will cut staff to make my books balance. the less capable ailin structurd we would be less capable.

>> thank you for the work that you are doing and i will yield back. >> thank you for giving lives to protect the rest of us. you know sometimes we ask questions it is not just to the enlightened but to inform the policy decisions.

i will find out for you. >> in the follow-up, does it make sense to defend hawaii from alaska instead of using this particular site? the >> we should continue doing bo both. >> i am advocating that we studied the issue to interceptors in hawaii which i think is prudent. >> can we use them to add to the defense today? we have a different kind of

radar into there are two different defense contractors who. i don't have a view which radar is better or all of that is that we need to have the system to look at the interceptors that would naturally go with that. >> would it be better in terms of the mechanisms to wait several years to conduct. all of that is important and i think that we must follow those rules. with that said, there is a sense of urgency here.

we can bring them together in ways that do not violate the law and also move them forward. >> are you suggesting that it might have an impact in the environmental impact? >> data should be one of the systems that we look at to see what is best. >> in terms of the defense is there anything you would've told the committee that hasn't been a priority that hasn't been elaborated on today? the

>> will save any other questions for the moment. >> i would like to thank the congressman for his concern over hawaii my colleagues are concerned about the safety of the island. the congressman also brought up prmf which is essential not only for the area.

i understand tha that that as te landmasis thelandmass that we hd whether we can have a permanent interceptors in hawaii and still not sacrifice the missile range is now as it tends to do. >> i believe they can coexist and i also believe it is a national treasure. >> especially with the overseas components of it. it should be the least because it is kept at the position that it is in.

i'm also interested in the concept of the undersea warfare that you wrote about in your testimony. 130 of them belonged to china, north korea and russia. i guess my other question is who do the others belong to, but in addition to that, what is the capability of the submarines ths that we find? >> said the others are friends and allies of indians, so they all add up. some of them are highly capable

submarines and others -- china has a range at the high-end and less capable than the older ones but they are trying to make the capable submarines close the gap with us. the guided submarines and so on so that kind of covers that range. ..

>> >>. >> in of testimony he talks about a successful launch of ballistic missiles. i am curious if it launched from the north korea submarine or how many of them do they have? >> it is a conventional

submarine. that is of rudimentary. >> but it can launch nonetheless? >> it is very rudimentary but it can. >> the chair yields back. >> thanks for being here and i would postulate with the militia and the army's with a significant refugee crisis under the leadership. so your intelligence

surveillance your command is so vast all of those met of the platform? >> they are not but i believe any combat commander are not being remote - - and not being met. >>. >> they think you'll have an insatiable need for security >> ideal back. >> if it is good to you see you again. with the plans to go support i would be considered but did not come overnight there was a sense of urgency into

hold hostage the city's mattis is a nonstarter. but now they argue with if they are rational or not into have that combat power that they needed a real deterrent. in then to be considered in to be in a critical role think the that they are stepping up but acting in good faith in the past with the security council reviews solution to have that both ways.

so with your perspective with your strategic mind and your understanding of the dynamics in the area with china realizing it is in their best interest to do whatever it takes to stop the threat from happening can you share your perspective? >> with the question of china being helpful is the early days so president trump had an excellent meeting and china is doing things. that we have to wait and see in the past china said they would do things and then not do that. but i am encouraged and i

believe webinars wet the there is the change with regard to china ended think it is important. with regard to be issued he is a rational actor or not the to rational or irrational is not helpful because he is who he is he is what he is irrational or not use and control of this country and is on a quest for nuclear weapons and believe part of deterrence is signaling with the capabilities that is where the military comes to play

but also to have said that they will think about that and delayed that out pretty clearly of china is activity but lot of the public is not aware they have created islands for a did not exist before with seven military bases 72 fire hagar's closing that gap and is the complicated by the fact to pressure china to address that aggressiveness? >> i believe congresswoman that we can walk and chew gum at the same time into

have disagreements of one area and agreed on another. >> we should encourage china to be appreciative of what they're doing and even should be willing to criticize them in the south china sea. >> you talked eloquently talk about the marine ecosystem and talk about any outcry. and that was a major distraction. >> idol see anything from the environment of community. as a university of miami says this is the worst ecological disaster in human history. the u.s.-china commission is

an arm of congress has written about this about the damage that china has done to the fragile ecosystem. >> the silence is deafening. >> as you know the history resident clinton in 1994 that north korea to agree of plutonium production and that is we had to deal to buy all the medium and intermediate missiles. and then to disregard both of those deals with the access of evil. axis of evil so isn't that approach as with followed that we would not begin the

situation we are today? >> is the review the history eddo want to be accused to be revisionist historian and not enough we could have believed with certainty anyone would have followed the agreement. we know that kim jong-un or kin jong-il in 1992 had raised the level of sex -- the level of threats. but what i think about is of today. >>. >> dual -- steve believe that we had a plan to buy those missiles and was it of

mistake to label them a part of the axis of people to give up on the diplomatic efforts. >> i will not talk about the commander in chief john. >> would the recent launch of a north korea from the prime minister from but the prime minister's grandfather he was under the united states a war criminal in the north period grandfather fought him in world war ii. did they get the north korean mission at --- the souls may have had something to do with the prime

minister's grandfather was a war criminal? in the reason i ask these questions is i feel the foreign policy with the complexity of their history. >> i will say that my father and relatives in japan by a mother's family that doesn't change the fact they are the closest of allies today. but with the grandfather is history i don't think that affects how they act today as becky has been making these threats with a crazy

threats against a australia and has been making them the last number of decades but are you open an to exploring from the clinton administration and is there any possibility? and i say this week as you understand better not just your service by your family service of the nuclear missiles there with those underground sites to have the 200,000 special forces soviet looking at what the options are. so that is the approach that president clinton took. >> the president said all

options should be on the table. with the state department or treasury or commerce and the likely to have all the options on the table but simply because north korea is getting stronger and that is no reason to turn our back on our allies. >> we appreciate you and your service as a co-sponsor would that make life easier? american pacific? yes it would.

a couple of times do have to balance your bund x -- your books of some of the of the things we're talking about with the sequestration impact i am concerned uh navy cannot audit as everyone is concerned are there any issues? you biological stuff with internal controls are things going on in your command? >> i am not an expert on the audits issue. the service is get the budget.

and that services are a list -- with what pacific fleet does but if you came to your attention you would weigh in on it? >> when your standard that would have been affected to move the process along. >> we have been enough money to buy what we need with the taxpayer support if we could prove to the american people with rudy's audits.

said the elections are next month for what impact that would have on our alliance could. >> cattle think it will have any impact on the alliance are relationship the threat is so big that they appreciate the alliance is a two-way street so those major candidates and the front runners have come out strongly in favor of that and it is good now matter who wins. so here you have an ally of countries to have a strong

military with that process that is terrific to elect a new leader or president here. if we can go forward from there. >> so that strength is handled by the crisis going on right now. so they know that we have our support again thank you for your hospitality we appreciate that. >> what is the current communication saying that

south korea will go through that to help make that military provisions and who are we talking to with the south region -- tree and leadership? >> on the political side to have an acting president with a strong minister of defense so on the political side even more so the u.s. forces commander is in country so daily to have

contact with generally and the folks in the military and the general book brooks are closely connected of american power are in place and operating with the south korean counterparts to make it does scare me that we don't have a self period ambassador doesn't have the full confidence of the military leadership to act

in the next couple of weeks should they occur? >> and as i mentioned previously the south korean democracy is very strong and vibrant and sanders and their place by this primary just as it is an america. >> when we touch on a few things we have not gotten to yet. maybe one or two sentences with some other countries? so example, the philippines despite the past year we

have a strong relationship with those forces and in all areas before we still have. we have a new exercise working on those sites with of philippines and to be deeply involved countered care operations in the south the support of the forces of the philippines. >> the anonymous agree opportunity for us and

maritime security is positive and we have the various approach of collaborate in you have the ability to sense on the domain you can share that with other countries of the area for what they find. >>. >> what about india? so we share values and large democracies and the commonalities in the military is strong and growing the fate we could be helpful to the -- so within

the military a major defense partner supply very pleased to have the chance and i hope to return to india with in the year in and to buildup with the indian military. >> finally we have not talked about how frequent and i commend him through the pacific fleet that asa

navy operation do take direction and guidance from the secretary of defense on the conduct of those operations we will be doing some soon that is where we are today thank you for being here today and this is southey's conditions compared to years ago to describe their effort with british jet but with a

purpose such have those enormous security challenges with the interagency with the integration sell to streamline the intel are north korea to have that best information possible. the second would authorize to have the asia-pacific defense commission to deepen the cooperation between the united states and the allies to improve the ability he may agree the strength of our relationship comes from trust and credibility these measures were meant to send

the clearest signal to our adversaries some of those partnerships with a purpose to almost all of the relationships are bilateral i get those treaty ally is by nature are bilateral. we need to go beyond having spoken to have three? examples. those to treaty allies there is no way that japan or

korea will add an alliance but but also focused on northeast asia. between japan and the united states bearing is a naturally forming partnership with counterterrorism with elster and new zealand these are some of the ideas to eradicate to go forward and what you have described the based on the surface of what you have said. >> what about those

challenges are opportunities for our resources and that ability to do partnership with the purpose? >> . .

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> they keep telling me they are very close. i hope that an agreement is reached. we have to pass the defense bill out of the house and that shouldn't be too much of a problem. >> would the do you think of admiral harris' requests for all these additional resources, ships and marines. that's a lot of money. do you think that's realistic? >> i think what admiral harris looks at is the geography so it's his job to say if you want me to do this mission here is what i need and he is exactly

right to do so. we have sure changed resources, money, ships, people for some time and it's what's happening in the world. >> on that point will the supplemental be about 15 billion is that the number you are aware of and you have a lot less than anticipated going forward? >> as i said i think understanding his negotiations are still going on so there is no final number or final answer until everything is locked down. my guess is the supplemental will wind up being less than the president asked for which will put more pressure on the 18 bill

to make up some of the lost ground. >> he advocated putting interceptors on the island and might consider putting in the 18 iba. >> i will look at it. the commander says we have to study this i will listen and so it sounds to me like maybe we ought to study it whether it has to be in the language i don't know but i do remember where i was. i made the point it is remarkable to me how there has been resistance to missile defense going back to president reagan's speech in 1983 and look at what has happened not just to the north floridians that the iranians, the chinese, the russians and elsewhere. so we are going to have to in my opinion put our foot on the accelerator not just for this

threat but for the threats around the world that we are facing. that includes radar, and includes more interceptors and also includes research on other forms of missile defense because of what we have now has issues. >> are the numbers going to be in the supplementals less than the 30 billion increase and you expect from the leadership of men on threshold that you want to see? >> you always be careful when you draw red lines with things. so i do think as i said if the supplemental is less than requested the math has implications for the 18 bill. i also will say that about 5 billion of what was requested in the supplemental was included in the house passed appropriations bill so you know there is some adjustment that

you can look at. >> would you call that a window? >> i don't care about a win. what i care about is giving this guy the resources he needs to do the job we have asked them to do and 50% of his needs are being met with submarines right now. he didn't give us a percentage on what portion of what is being met. meanwhile you have the threat of more missile tests more nuclear test and very provocative threats against u.s. cities australia and elsewhere. that's what we have to focus on. this is not about with equal gains inside washington. this is about the way the world is moving and whether we are going to be prepared for it. that's part of the reason it stuck out to me on the first korean war. we did not want to be prepared he said.

we had better be prepared this time and we don't know what's going to happen. >> do you think some of the unrest we are seeing with north korea, with russia and in syria is adding to the movement here in terms of more political will? >> you got to be blind not to see the way the world is moving and we can go through the specific threats. i was just with the speaker last week in europe where there is great anxiety about a variety of things that the russians are doing. meanwhile the syrians and isis and al qaeda, it just goes on and on so i think there is an increased realization among members that the world is getting more dangerous day by day and u.s. weakness is not going to turn that around.

as admiral harris said very well strength is the best antidote to aggression so we have got to show more strength. he is going to be waiting on me, sorry. [inaudible conversations]