the house, though they didn't have topline numbers. his basic like saying okay, we have a went to divide up between all these different things but we don't bake the pie is. that's what she's criticizing the purchasing how are you going to do this without even knowing exactly much it is that you have to offer up? >> host: will continue him falling to reporting in the hill.com and also following you on twitter at niv ellis. thanks for joining us. >> guest: thanks so much. >> we have more about the day-to-day in the senate from the heel pic senate democrats are . all a late-night talkathon today to protest republicans efforts to repeal and replace obamacare. democrats are expected to speak from the senate floor until at least midnight protesting the republicans plan which is being hashed out on that senate republicans refusal to hold a public hearing, according to a senate aide. the late-night speeches which are being organized by senator patty murray, as democrats are under growing pressure to grind

the senate to a halt as the fight over obamacare state enters the key to week stretch. you can read more at the hill.com today. the defense secretary james mattis and general joseph dunford chair joint chiefs of staff testify now about the president's 2018 budget for for the pentagon. the senate armed services committee held at this hearing last week. >> good morning.in the thin arm service committee meets this one tracy testimony on the department of defense fiscal year 2018 budget request. we welcome secretary mattis and chairman dent for, secretary norquist, i thank you for your many years of distinguished service and your leadership of our men and women in uniform. before we begin, i want to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of sergeant eric houck, sergeant william bays, and corporal dillon baldridge. m these three soldiers from the army's 101st airborne division were killed this weekend in afghanistan. the thoughts and prayers of this

committee are with their loved ones. the sacrifice of these heroes is a painful reminder that america is still a nation at war. that is true in afghanistan nat where, after 15 years of war, ws face a stalemate and urgently need a change in strategy and ag increase in resources if we are to turn the situation around. st we also remain engaged in a global campaign to defeat isis and related terrorist groups, from libya and yemen, to iraq and syria, where u.s. troops are helping to destroy isis and reclaim mosul and raqqa. meanwhile, threats around the world continue to grow moreand o complex and severe. north korea is closing in on the development of a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballisticis clo missile that can target our homeland.terconti and iran continues to destabilize the middle east and seek to drive the united states out of the region. at the same time, we have

entered a new era of great power competition. russia and china, despite their many differences, are both modernizing their militaries,, developing advanced capabilities to undermine our ability to project power globally, threatening their neighbors, and challenging the rules-based world order. russia, in particular, continues to occupy crimea, destabilize ukraine, threaten our nato allies, bolster the murderous assad regime in syria, and pursue a campaign of active measures to undermine the very integrity of western democracies. with thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deployed in harm's way around the globe, those of us who are charged with the awesome responsibility of providing for the common defense must askose f ourselves if we are doing everything possible to support our brave men and women in uniform to meet the challenges of an increasingly dangerous world and succeed in their mission.

i am sad to say that we are not. in response to rising threats,er we have asked our military to dn more and more but given them less and less. our witnesses' opening statements are a harsh indictment of this failure, but they are right. i implore my colleagues tots listen carefully to their testimony and heed their admonition to us.efully since 2011, spending caps their mandated by the budget control act have led to a 23% cut to the defense budget. these reductions, compounded by growing fiscal uncertainty and continuing resolutions, have con left our military with shrinking forces, depleted readiness, and aging equipment. this has put the lives of our men and women in uniform at greater risk, as this committeef

has heard in testimony for years from our civilian defense leaders and senior military officers. the administration's fiscal year 2018 budget request, if enacted, could help to arrest the decline in our military readiness, but ultimately, and unfortunately, it falls short of the president's commitment to rebuild our military. the proposed defense budget of $603 billion is both arbitrary b and inadequate, arbitrary because the topline is simply what was written into the budget control act six years ago prior to the sequester cuts, and inadequate because it represents just a 3 percent increase over president obama's defense plan. it is hardly surprising, then, that this committee has received lists of unfunded requirements from the military services totaling over $31 billion, all of which secretary mattis testified last night in the house armed services committee

that he supports. our military service leaders have testified to this committee that this budget would stanch the bleeding, but we owe our men and women in uniform more than that. it has been said that this budget request focuses on readiness, and it is true that s the requested funding increases would make the current force more ready for the next year. but ultimately, readiness is more than training hours and time on the ranges. real readiness requires sufficient capacity to enableres our troops simultaneously to conduct operations, prepare for deployment, rest and refit, and focus on the challenges of tomorrow. this budget delivers no growth in capacity, which means that the joint force will continue to consume readiness as quickly as it is produced. those increases in capacity are reflected in each service'skl

unfunded requirements. true readiness is also modernization, because if wemode mortgage future capability to pay for present commitments, we have achieved little, especialli at a time when our adversaries are moving at an alarming rate l to erode america's military technological advantage and cala into question our ability to project power. advan here, too, unfortunately, this budget request poses the old false choice between readinesspo and modernization. the fact is that $603 billion simply is not enough to pay for both priorities, which is why the services' unfunded requirements are heavy on the procurement of new and additional capabilities that are desperately needed.nd all of this presents this committee, and this congress, with a significant choice. the administration's budget request is just that, a request.

ultimately, it is our independent responsibility to authorize and appropriate funding for our military at levels and in ways that we believe sufficient to provide for the common defense. i believe that this budget request is a start, but we canel and must do better. this will not be possible, however, as long as the budget control act remains the law ofof the land. this defense budget request and the additional funding that our military needs is literally illegal under the bca. this law has done severe damage to our military. d has harmed the department's ability to plan and execute budgets effectively and efficiently.lan an it has ground the congress's budget and appropriations processes to a halt. and worst of all, there are four more years of bca caps to go. we cannot go on like this.

our men and women in uniform deserve better. it is time for the congress to reinvest in our military, restore readiness and capabilities, rebalance ourorm joint force, and renew america's military advantage.'s to do so we must revise or repeal the budget control act. and we must give our troops what they need to succeed, today and in the future. will the politics of this be difficult? yes. but the question all of us here must answer is how much longer will we send our sons and daughters into harm's way will e unprepared before we get over our politics and do our jobs? senator reed? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman crowley fishing to consider funding levels for department of defense to maintain our nation's military. i also want to welcome our distinguished witnesses this morning. thank them for the service to

the nation. i want to join with the chairman in paying tribute to the soldiers of the 100 first who gave their lives, and their families. there are examples of thousands and thousands of americans who serve and the families here at home that serve with them. today we consider the first fiscal year 2018 trump administration budget that seeks $574 billion in base funding and $65 billion for overseas contingency operations. as we all know the budget control act of 2011 and the sequester are still the law the land, this budget request exceeds the bca defense spending cap i $52 billion. rather. rather than negotiate with congress or propose and repeal of the bca or sequester, president trump proposed offset the increase in defense spending with the $52 billion cut in nondefense spending. unless the bca is change, the offset was seriously harm nondefense spending and failed to prevent across-the-board cuts

reclaiming the $52 billion, leaving dod in a worse positione we have already held many hearings this year. nursing simply i and the leaders have repeatedly urged us to in sequestration. like chairman mccain i believep it is time for repeal of the pc. setting arbiter spending threshold on defense andhairma, nondefense spending has not made our country safer and it is not fix our broader fiscal problems. nor do these caps which was set nearly secures ago actively reflects what are military needs in order to confront today's threats or the domestic investment we need to keep america competitive and strong. let me be clear i am not opposed to increase military spending. democrats have will continue to support robust defense spending but it is our duty to carefully review the proposal as presenter from present to ensure the funds allocated properly so that our fighting men women have what you need to complete their mission and return home safely. every member regardless of party

takes this duty solicitor i think a budget must reflect our nation's core values and take care of americans who remain at home. our military personnel have a vision of the america they are fighting for and it is our duty to protect them. i therefore have concerns about the request because it robs from peter to pay paul.y the president proposal increases defense spending but it also limits, eliminates $17.3 billion from the state department efforts to prevent wars, which is the kind of spending that secretary mattis has said is a crucial to our military efforts. it slashes funny for health investments the nih and cdc and trading for healthcare professionals to fight against global public health epidemics such as ebola this budget request also eliminates programs that help vulnerable americans here at home. certainly our military needs additional resources to climb out of the hole it is in and at the same time deter conflict with near peer competitors but i do not believe we should do so

at the expense of diplomacy and vulnerable americans. i will also know that over the last 15 years we have found it important enough to send our brave men and women to war but we've not had the courage to raise revenues to pay for these wars as this nation has historically done. as we examine what funding requirement is necessary for the safety and secured of our country, we need to look at our federal budget with much more confidence.d the bca between defense and nondefense spending has had the unfortunate effect of paving each category of funding against the other.ef instead we will be better served if we consider the needs of our nation holistically.ider t i believe will be best if best f examine the president's budget. request in the context of an overall national security strategy. such a strategy has not clearly emerged as we enter the sixth month of this administration. we seem to kareem from one foreign-policy crisis to another. many of which are the administrations on making the this takes attention at a time

where several significant nationals who challenges in which we need we focus. secretary mattis and general dunford you've been competent professionals and steady hands in a tumultuous time. but we face many difficult decisions both strategic and budgetary that demand the kind of leadership and engagement that old a grounded and focused president can provide. i look forward to working withth you and my colleagues as we dressed these important issues. i'm proud of this committee has always worked in a bipartisan fashion during this process and a look for to working with the chairman and all the committee member succumbed a reasonable agreement again the issue. thank you very much, mr. chairm. >> secretary mattis, welcome back. >> thank you, chairman, mccain, ranking member read endeavors of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of president budget request for fiscal year 2018. trantor request the committee except my written statement for the record. i'm joined by chairman dunford and the departments new comptroller, under secretary of

defense david norquist. thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee for swift consideration and the senate confirmation of defense department nominees. this budget request hold me accountable to the men and women of the department of defense. every day more than 2 million service members nearly 1 million civilians do their duty, honor and previous generations of veterans and civil servants who have sacrificed for our country. it's my privilege to serve alongside them. we and the department of defense are keenly aware of the sacrifices made by the working people to fund our military. many times in the past we have look reality in the eye, met challenges with help of congressional leadership, and built the most capable war fighting force in the world. there is no room for complacency with 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 four years at the department of defense 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 consecutive defense panetta, the damage has been severe, hollowing out our force. in addition during nine of thehe past ten 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 budget 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 locked new programs, prevented service growth, stalled industry initiative and place of troops at greater risk. despite the tremendous efforts of this committee, congress as a whole is met the present challenge with lassitude, not leadership. i retired from military service three months after sequestratioo took effect. four years later i returned to the department and i've been shocked by what i've seen about our readiness to fight. while nothing can compare to the heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no in any in the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military man sequestration. we have only sustain our ability to meet america's commitments abroad for our security because our troops have stoically shouldered a much greater burden.h but our troops still commitmentc cannot reduce the growing risk. it took us years to get into the

situation. it will require years of stable budgets and increase funding tou 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, as a fiscal year 2010 budget in a timely manner to avoid yet another harmful -- 2018 -- continue resolution. third, limit the threat ofso future sequestration cuts to provide a stable budgetary planning horizon. stable budgets and increase funding are necessary because of for 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 coaching of invasions in our military to war for more than a

decade without pause or conscription.. america's long war has placed a heavy burden on many women in uniform and their families. a second concurrent force acting on the department is the worsening global security situation the chairman spokeio about.n th we must look reality in the eye. russia and china are seeking veto power over the economic, diplomatic and security decisions on their periphery. north korea's reckless rhetoric and provocative actions continue, despite united nations century and sanctions. 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 is at the series actively contesting america's capabilities. for decades the united states enjoyed uncontested or dominant superiority in every operating domain or realm.

we could general deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted and operate how we wanted.ed. today, every operating domain out of space, air, sea, undersea, land and cyberspace is contested. a fourth concurrent force is rapid technological change among the other forces know the changes one that necessitates new investment, innovative approaches and new programam starts at a been denied this by law when we'v we been forced to operate under continuing have resolutions. each of these four forces, 15 years of war, the worsening security environment, contested operations in multiple domains and the rapid pace of technological change requires stable budgets and increase funding to provide for the protection of our citizens and for the survival of our. freedoms. i reiterate that security

insolvency 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 solid. so we in the department ofd defense owing to the american public to ensure we spent each dollar wisely. president trump has nominated for senate approval specific individuals who will bring proven skills to discipline our departments physical processes t to ensure we do so. this first step to restoring readiness is underway thanks to congress his willingness to support the administrations request for an additional $21 billion in resources for fiscal year 2017 to address my war fighting readiness shortfalls at your support put more aircraft in the air, ships toaf see and troops in the field. however, we all recognize it

will take a number of years of higher funding delivered on time to restore readiness. to strengthen the military president trump requested six hundred $39 billion topline forp the fy 2018 defense budget this year's budget requests five priorities. the first priority is continue to improve war fighting readiness began in 2017, filling in the holes from trade-offs made during 16 years of war, nine years of continuingg resolutions and budget control act caps. the second priority is increasing capacity and locality 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 insurers of of the nation's current nuclearqu deterrent will be sustained and support continuation of its much-needed modernization process.

the third priority is reforming how the department does business.ho i am devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollars that is spent on defense, thereby earning the trust of congress and the american people. we have begun at the mentation, a range of reform initiatives directed by the 2017 national defense authorization act and we are on track to enter into a full agencywide financial statement audit as required by statute. i urge congress to support the departments request for authority to conduct a 2021 base realignment and closure. i recognize the carefulde deliberation that members must exercise in considering this. but brac what a successful and significant efficiency programs we have. we forecasted a properly focused base closure effort willha generate $2 billion or more annually and over a five-year period i would be enough to buy

300 apache attack helicopters, 120 f-18 super hornets, or for virginia class submarines. the fourth priority in fy 2018a. budget request is keeping faith with servicemembers and families. talented people are the departments most valuable asset, but we must continually balance these requirements of investment in our people against other investments critical to readiness, equipping and modernizing the force to ensure the military is the most capable war fighting 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 201 2018 presids budget requests $64.6 billion

focusing on operations in afghanistan, iraq and syria, increasing efforts to sustain nato's defense is to deter aggression, and global counterterrorism operations. isis and other terrorist organizations represent a clear and present danger. i am encouraged by the willingness of our allies and partners who share the burden oh this campaign alongside us. moving forward, the fy '20 19 budget, and for by the national defense strategy, will have to make hard choices as we shapethe the 2019-2023 defense program. the department will work with president trump, congress and this committee to ensure future budget requests are both sustainable and provide the commander-in-chief with viable military options that supporticc america's security. in summation, first i need the bca caps lifted and the budget, not a continuing resolution

passed on time, and elimination of future sequestration cuts so we can provide a stable and adequate way ahead on budgets. for those who are concerned, we're not asking for sufficient dollars. please consider the following.gr for 2017, as a supplemental we ask for $30 billion and congress provided $21 billion for our administration to address readiness shortfalls. second, this fiscal years. president trump has requested 574 billion, plus 29 billion and the department of energy budget, plus $65 billion for overseas contingency operations. this is this is a 5% growth ovet the department had 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, and that will give us the analytic rigor to come backl to you for the fy '19-fy '23 budget requests when we will build up our military to confront the situation that the chairman and i have laid out in our written statements.ut i am keenly aware that each of you understands the responsibility we share to ensure our military is ready toe 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 budgetw on time. thank you for your strong support over many years 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 an ladies and , and chairman dunford is prepared to discuss the military dunfo

dimensions of the budget request.s >> general dunford. >> chairman mccain and ranking member reed, distinguished members, think of the opportunity to join secretary mattis and undersecretary norquist with you today. i'm honored to represent your many women in uniform and it's because of that i can begin by saying with confidence that your armed forces remain most capable in the world. however the competitive advantage the united states military has long enjoyed is eroding in a number of factors have contributed to that erosion. chairman, jamaican sublease in your opening comments.since since 9/11 extraordinary comic store note high level oftional operational tempo was exaggerated the wear and tear of weapons and equipment. meanwhile budget instability and a budget control act have forced the department operate with far fewer resources than required. we prioritize maritime -- near-term readiness at the expense of replacing aged equipment and capability development.

we also maintain the force that consumes readiness as fast as we build it. we lack sufficient capacity to meet our current operational requirements while rebuildingack and maintaining full spectrumems readiness. the secretary and the service chiefs have addressed the dynamic in the testimonies and i fully concur with their assessments. but beyond current readiness when confronted with anotherall significant challenge that iss to be now near-term. we have been primarily focus on the threat of violent extremism, our adversaries and potential adversaries ha have developed advanced capabilities and operationalad approaches specifically designed to limit our ability to project power.ro they recognize our ability too project power is a critical reci capability necessary to defend the homeland, advance our interests, and meet our alliance commitments. secretary mattis alluded to russia, china and iran have fielded a wide range of cyber, space, aviation, maritime and lan capabilities specifically designed to limit our ability to

deploy, employee sustain our forces. russia and china have modernized their nuclear arsenal whileea north korea has been a relentless path to fill a nuclear armed icbms that can reach the united states. in just a few years if we don't change the trajectory we will lose our qualitative and our quantitative competitive advantage. the consequences will be profound. it will affect our nuclear deterrence, our conventional deterrence, and our ability to respond if deterrence fails. we can maintain our competitive advantage with sustained come sufficient unpredictable funding. to that end the fy '18 budget is an essential step. however this request will not fully restore readiness or arrest the erosion of our competitive advantage. doing that is going to require sustained investment beyond fynd '18. specific recommendations for fy '19 evian will be informed by the forthcoming national defense strategy. we know now that continued

growth in the base budget of at least 3% above inflation is a four necessary to preserve just a competitive advantage we have today and we can't assume that our adversaries will stand still. as with as for your support would recognize the responsible to maintain the trust of the american taxpayer. we take this seriously and we continue to eliminate redundancies and achieve efficiencies were possible. take again for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. more portly thank you for assuring that america's sons and daughters never find themselves in an unfair fight. without i prepare to take questions. >> secretary norquist. >> mr. chairman, i have no separate opening remarks. >> thank you.. secretary mattis, the committee received unfunded requirement list from each of military services in the amount of more$l than 31 billion. have you reviewed those unfunded requirements list?ts >> i have, chairman. >> do you agree disability

requirements that should be funded? >> chairman, think we have our priorities for the base budget but have reviewed the unfunded requirements. of late it is $33 billion and a think if we are to receive more money those requests are appropriate. >> i guess my question is, is it your request that we give you $31 billion more?30 billion >> chairman, i'm here to defend the budget as it stands because i can defend every priority there. if the congress were to allocat. additional funds to nationaloc defense, i believe the unfunded priority list is good priorities. >> so you're satisfied with what is basically a 3% increase in budgetary requirements? >> chairman, when it comes to w

defense, we at this point i think that the president's budget is allocated appropriate to the priorities, the priorities listed by the service chiefs, as we go more deeply into the readiness challenge, are certainly well tuned what we need. i would be happy to see morei wo money if the congress were to allocate additional funds, and along the lines of the unfunded priority list. >> well, i appreciate your willingness to cooperate, but a lot of times we depend on your recommendations in order, in shaping our authorization and appropriation. >> yes, sir. i can't think of any priorities i would put in place of the undefined priorities list if were given additional money. that would be a decision by youe i have to represent the

president's budget since he's having to do with a wider portfolio and just defense. >> let me put it this way. will this 3% increase give you the confidence that we need that we're doing everything we can to make sure that our men and women serving in uniform are adequately equipped and trainede and ready to fight? >> chairman, it took a good many years to get us in the hole we're in. it not be enough in itself to take us where we need to go. it's going to be a campaign as i laid out. it started with our request for an additional 30 billion duringr this fiscal year, the growth that we have in the 2018 budget, and when i get done with then defense strategy and review that, we will be coming back to you for more and probably along the lines of close to 5% growth, three to 5% growth for 2019-23. but it will not take as the hallway. it's in the right direction.se

>> it's now mid june. congress has past the fiscal year 2018 budget, something that should embarrass every member of the senate and house. neither the house nor the senate has started drafting or considering appropriation bills because there's no resolution of the top line. this body knows what needs to be done, and bipartisan budget deal to set the budget but as if you speak in such work. if we don't begin negotiating today, it's very likely the military once again begin the fiscal year on a continuing resolution. what would be the impacts of starting this year on a continuing resolution at the budget control act levels, or $52 billion less than yourllion request? >> chairman, it can only worsen the readiness situation we face now, which is been laid up historically i believed by service chiefs if we go in with a continuing resolution. >> first conversation you and i

had was about a strategy for afghanistan. we are now six months into this administration. we still haven't got a strategy for afghanistan. it makes it hard for us toategy support you when we don't have a strategy. we know what the strategy was for the last eight years, don't lose. that hasn't worked here just mention in my opening statement. we just lost three brave americans. when can we expect that congress of the united states can get a strategy for afghanistan that is a departure from the last eight years which is don't lose? >> i believe by mid-july we will be able to breach in detail. we are putting it together now and they are actions being taken to make certain that we don't pay a price for the delay.

but we recognize the need for urgency, and your criticism is fair. >> well, i'm a great admirer of yours, mr. secretary, and so are those me many women have had the honor of serving under you. but we just can't keep going like this. you can't expect us to fulfill the three requirements that you gave, find the increase pass a g budget, prevent, stable budget, present a stable budget if you don't give us a strategy. i hope you understand that i'm not criticizing you, but there are problems within this administration. i was confident that within the first 30-60 days we would have a strategy from which to startso working. so all i can tell you is that unless we get a strategy from you, you're going to get a strategy from us. and i appreciate our wisdom andi

knowledge, information and all of the great things with the exception of some to my left ear, but the fact is it's not our job. it's not our job. it's yours. and i have to tell you the frustration that i feel is obviously palpable because it's hard for us to act when you u don't give us a strategy which then leads to policy which then leads to authorization, which is our job. so i hope you understand that we are going to start getting more vocal in our criticism of not o having a strategy for afghanistan. do you agree that we are not winning in afghanistan? >> sir, i understand the urgency. i understand it's my responsibility. we are not winning in. afghanistan right now, and we will corrected this as soon as

possible. i believe the three things were asking for stand on their ownev merit, however, as a look more broadly at the protection of the country. but that in no way does at relieving of the need to deliver that strategy to you, sir. >> i thank you, general, and i understand very well as to members of this committee thatde some of this is beyond your control. but at some point we have to say, look, congress and the american people, congress owes the american people a strategy which will then lead to success in afghanistan. i am sure that the three names that i just mention in mye opening statement, their parents and their wives and their husbands, their families, members of the family, are very aware that we have no strategy.

so let's not ask these families to sacrifice any further without a strategy which we can then take and implement and help you. i'm fighting as hard as i can to increase defense spending.it it's hard when we have no strategy to pursue. so i hope you understand the dilemma that you are presenting to us. >> i do. >> thank yo u very much, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, as we discussed in your testimony, even if you get the additional $52 billion with sequestration in place, you would essentially have to turn around and forfeit that an across-the-board cuts, et cetera understanding? >> yes, sir. >> those across-the-board cuts would be more disruptive than anything i can see because there

would be no prioritization. would just be taking from those programs, leaving money and programs that might not even need it, is that correct? >> that's correct. if the injuries and again itct would sideline both this committee and myself in making wise decisions. >> did you make that point to the president in terms of the ultimate consultation about this budget in his role as commander-in-chief? >> i assure you president trump is keenly aware of this situation. >> what is his position on sequestration? >> i would prefer to speak to mine, because i can speak most t authoritative there are bottom line is the administration believes that the congress has to repeal the budget control act and the sequestration that that follows. >> but wouldn't it be not only appropriate but essential that that be incorporated in the president's budget?

because the ramifications of sequestration are clearly played out in every aspect of the budget, and remaining silent as a blanketed in the budget leaves a lot of people wondering what is his real position, or does he even understand what's going on ranking member reed senator reed, where part of the executive branch and article one of the constitution gives you that authority to deal with that very situation. i think we all know what needs to be done. i've heard it republicans and democrats on this committee forr a long time. >> the interesting thing is i haven't heard a clarion callll from the president him and also a practical and solution as to how we not only undo the dca but what are, how do you then betwe allocate resources between defense spending on domestic spending, other spending. in a more powerful fashion goes

that if we did not give it you. if we did not, at least you could prioritize. let me change gears. have you received a direction, you injure or security agencies, from the president to begin intense preparation for what a renewal of cyber attacks against the united states, particularly in the context of the elections #cap you received any guidance? sec. mattis: we are in constant contact with the national security staff on this and we are engaged not just an disgusting -- discussing the guidance but in offensive measures, sir. ththe president has laid out i,

the mission to protect the country in this respect or is this something just collateral for your discussions? >> center, i'm under no confusion whatsoever. my responsibilities and the organizations i have national ticket agency and cyber command about what we are supposed be doing right now. we're taking active steps on that that i can brief you on in a closed hearing. >> so i think he testifiedun previously that russia represents the most significant threat to the united states not only in their new aerial denial systems that you think alluded to is also in their cyber operations. is that still your position? >> it is, senator and i include the nuclear capability as well as their behavior. >> finally my last few seconds, do you believe the position of the president that russia particularly and all these interventions is most significant threat to the unitee

states, mr. secretary? >> sir, i prefer to let them speak for himself on that. i can assure you that from law enforcement to the intelligence agencies and all that information is available to the present. we are recognizing the strategic threat that russia is provided by its misbehavior. >> but he recognized it. the question is that he recognize it? >> sir, i have had full support come for examples of european reassurance initiative where we are sending more troops to europe. that is not, they are not being sent there for any reason othera than to temper russia's designs. i've had full support of the things that we've had to do in order to address russia''s choi choices.ce >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, general. >> thank you for your service.

let me just say this about sequestration. when i think about the failure of this congress and this government to deal with this, i look in the mirror and i take my share out with the responsibility. one thing hasn't been said is the reason we got to sequestration to start with is there are two-thirds of america's spending that's on autopilot. it's very popular programs, entitlement programs, medicare, medicaid, social security. and, of course, interest on the debt.ation sequestration was meant to focus us on that two-thirds of the budget that we don't deal with every year. we have been unwillingh politically to do that on both sides of the aisle. and until we do that we are not going to really be able to get back to the problem that got us to sequestration to start with. let me talk about something, secretary mattis, that might

save us a good deal of money, and that is your procurement authority -- multi-year procurement authority. which is assumed in your proposals destroyers, fast attack submarines and aircraft. it's my understanding that the cost assessment and program evaluation office, that the navy and omb all agree that savings would be significant if we go with multi-year procurement authority. but we lack at this point a preliminary determination to begin to implement this. a final determination can come later, but we need the preliminary determination. are you aware of the situation,? secretary mattis? do you agree that the assumption in your bike is correct that

this will save money, and can you help us on this? >> i have no doubt it would save money to multi-year procurement especially the things that take a lot of steel, a lot of equipment to build. the economy's of scale allow for enormous savings. we would have to have a repeal of the bca act in order to give the confidence to industry so they can buy that stuff and it will not sit in a shipyard when funding dries up the next year. again, we come right back around to the very thing the chairman t and ranking member have been discussing about what bca does to us. it renews the chance or even wise investment of the money you give us. >> but at this point the immediate situation is that i need you to commit to thisis committee that you will intervene to make sure we get the preliminary determination

necessary to move us forward. at that point we don't need to repeal bca to get that done. while you help us on that? >> we will help you, yes, sir. >> thank you very much. now let me ask in the remaining time, i appreciate what has been said about winning in afghanistan. i notice over the last few days of group of my colleagues have advocated just, it's been too long, we need to look at the timetable, decade and a half is too much, we just need to pull out and let afghanistan take care of itself. and let me just say, i think that would be a massive mistake which would affect security of americans. i hope you agree with that.. so if you could comment on that, but also defined for us what winning in afghanistan means.

and if we are successful they are and have a follow-on force that's not involved in combat, much as we've had for 70 years in europe and a long, long time in south korea, that would be certainly something that i could live with. but if you would comment on that. >> i believe you are correct that to walk away from this, we've already seen what can come out of these kind of spaces, these ungoverned spaces. the problems that originate there do not stay there. they come out, threaten all of us. they threaten the world order. they threaten our economy. they threaten our very country. .. as far as what does winning the afghan government with international help will be able to handle the violence. drive it down to a level that local security forces can handle maiwith our forces to

so that rats as they, should they mature we can take them down threat that the local government and security forces can handle. it is going to be and air of frequent skirmishing and will require a change in our approach to get it to that position. >> do the people of us give us and want us there? sec. mattis: yes. the reason they use mom is because they cannot win at the ballot box. they know that. they do want us there. that is based on an outcome of a of local,ge assembly provincial, national leaders and is based on polls not run by the

united states but by other organizations and i have no doubt they want us there. not all of them, but the ones who do not are the ones who are not looking forward to afghanistan's future as we think it ought to look. we and the afghan people. >> thank you sir. >> thank you mr. chairman i want to >> i'm concerned about the success of russian information warfare experts in the 2015 elections in the united states as well as efforts to destabilize democracies across the globe. i'm working with other agencies to counter russian information warfare in the united states and the hacking of our electoral systems and how are you working with our partners and allies to fight these efforts? >> secretary mattis.

>> first ma'am there is constant information flow as far as finding the information is critical because they tried to do it in a deniable manner. so we work inside our interagency efforts for law enforcement, everything from fbi and police organizations that gives information on this but it's mostly been fbi or intelligence agencies work together to, we have good sharing of information. and we also work with our allies, sharing information back and forth. and you've seen some of that, some of it can be released, you will see itin the newspaper about what's going on in other nations elections for example in europe . >> this morning bloomberg reported russia managed to 39 states electoral systems and attempted to alter data so it was not successful. last week elite nsa documents the suggested dcu attacked a company to provide software to manage voter rolls in eight states including new york. the attackers then use that information they stole to launch targeted attacks at

122 local elections and officials 12 days before the election. this information highlights the urgent need to protect our elections infrastructure from cyber attacks going forward to protect our democratic process. the last election several national guard units such the intrusions. do you think there's a role for the national guard with unique authorities in securing election systems? >> there may be ma'am. i think our organization right now is still adapting to this new domain, one of the reasons we don't want continuing resolution is we have to do new things. i also assume in something like this that what you just outlined is not the whole problem, it's worse. >> you think we should consider a 9/11 style commission to just do a deep guy on where are our cyber vulnerabilities. what are the things we need to do to prevent cyber attacks in the future? in the same way the 9/11

commission made recommendations and have subverted terror attacks in new york over the last decade because those recommendations did have an impact on how to protect against future terrorism . >> senator, i have to look at what is the program with trying to solve i think reorganization of cyber command and nsa along the lines that have been proposed by congress, i think that also is partof the defining problem and defining the defensive measures we need to take . i would not be against something like that. i have to look what the specific problem is that we would be assigned to do. >> would you make a recommendation to prevent another cyber attack of our regulations. basically empowering nonpartisan experts to comeup with the 10 things we need to do . >> i'll just tell you we have efforts underway to do these things right now but at the same time i'm not against what you're proposing. >> i want to talk a little bit about the world order in

my last minute and a half. president trump's decision to drop from the paris climate agreement was one of the signals to the world the administration is repositioning the united states not as a global leader but as a country focused exclusively on its interests. upon his return national security advisor hr mcmasters wrote in the wall street journal quote, the president embarked on the first trip with an outlook that the world is not a global community but an arena where nations, nongovernmental businesses engage and compete for advantage. our defense strategy has been predicated on working to maintain the regions in the world and yetthis op-ed suggests you would only work with allies and partners . is the part that would agree turning its defense around new paradigms. >> we do work with allies. we have alliances, bilateral agreements . i think that we will continue to be working alongside others, the greatest generation came home from world war ii and like it or

not, they said we are part of the world and that is a philosophy that guides our foreign policy as well as our military policy and mike mcmillan, former chairman of the joint chiefs and national security adviser jim jones just wrote an opinion piece on the same topic. and you said something similar several years ago that the less we invest in diplomacy, the more we invest in bullets, you still agree with that analysis? >> yes, it's got to be a whole of government approach to the world. >> thank you mister chairman. >> thank you mister chairman good morning gentlemen. i'd like to thank you both for your service and for being here today. first i would like to know my appreciation for this budget strong support for nuclear modernization and the comments that both of you made on this issue in your prepared comments and i know mister secretary, you alluded to that in your opening statement as well.

i was pleased to see the departments request reflects the necessary prioritization for that nuclear modernization will thank you for that. generally, in your opening statement you said that you assess that within five years we will lose our ability to project power. and you put that in context? what is being unable to project power due to our ability to protect our homeland and deter conflict, meet our obligations to our allies, article 5 under nato forexample . >> i can center. from my perspective since the 1990s, thailand, russia, us capabilities from studied - munitions to our ability to project power. identify as our center of gravity, when and where necessary to advance our interests and meet our alliance commitments. you think that plays a role in assuring our allies that

we can meet our alliance commitments. in specific areas where they've invested, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, electronic warfare capabilities, cyber capabilities, all focused to prevent us ejecting power when and where necessary to accomplish our objectives so they want to keep us from getting into the area and this is both with regard to russia and our nato alliances and china with regard to meeting our commitments in the pacific. and what people from deploying forces in the area and operating freely within the area so i thought about competitive advantage, in my judgment the problem we are trial trying to solve is to be to do what we have historically been able to do, project power when and where necessary. i mention the role it plays in meeting our commitments, and i also believe sources threatened to play an important role in deterring potential adversaries from initiating provocation or conflict. >> you mentioned that five-year period, you believe anything down now?

>> it is eroding now. we historically had the ability to do that not uncontested but in a decisive way. i think our competitive advantage has eroded. we would be challenged in projecting power today. we've done very careful analysis and a classified level looking function by function in our current capabilities. our adversaries current capabilities, the abilitythat we are on , be capability our adversaries are on and what we see is an erosion over the past 10 years and we will get to the point where we would suffer significant casualties and significant time delays in projecting power in five years. >> you think now that regardless of our intent, we don't have the capability to unless we change the path we are on?>> center, i don't think there's any question that unless we change the path we are on we are going to be at a competitive disadvantage. >> that's consequential,

isn't it? >> to me, it affects our ability to deter conflict. it affects the confidence our allies have in our ability to meet our commitments and at the end of the day it makes it more dangerous world because both nuclear deterrence and conventional deterrence would be affected. >> we if we are unable to meet the needs of the force that we have now, that they are incapable of, that they are not ready, do you believe that any leader will forces about? >> i think it's difficult for leaders to send the force into battle when the military leadership were articulate the risk associated. i want to make it clear i believe we have a competitive advantage over any potential adversary today and what i'm doing now is projecting into the future is on a trendline we've seen over the past decade, where we will be if we don't turn it around. >> and secretary mattis in the last four weeks the united states has conducted three strikes against

pro-regime forces that threaten coalitions in syria. do i have your assurance that we will take any and all measures necessary to protect our forces in that area? >> absolutely center, those are self-defense strikes as the commander on the ground has the authority to take whatever action necessary and i support that.>> during your confirmation hearing you talk about how russia chosen to be a strategic competitor and withrespect to engagement with russia , you stated i'm all for engagement but we have to recognize reality and what russia is up to and there's a decreasing number of areas where we can engage operatively and increasing number of areas where were going to have to confront russia. you believe this is still an accurate characterization of russia's behavior? >> i think there are modest expectations for finding areas of cooperation with russia until they changetheir behavior .

>> thank you mister chairman. >> thank you, mister chair, first i want to associate my hope with 16 former senior military leaders who admitted a letter today in support of specifically they made the following points. more proactive conflict can rent the convention strategies are less extensive in terms of research and lives extended and reactive use of our armed forces . and it is signed by a number of folds will all recognize from general breedlove to admiral mullen to general betray us to general crystal. i think we should keep that in mind with as we review the president's budget which i believe is particularly shortsighted with regard to foreign systems. i'm going to move now to secretary mattis to something

you said your confirmation hearing in january. i asked for your assessment of the key threats to our vital interests and what priority level and you said the principal threats with russia. you still view russia as a significant threat? >> i do. >> can you walk us through a little bit how this year's budget request and in the research areas, the initiatives that can help counter those threats for russia -mark. >> center, i think the european reassurance initiative alone $4.8 million is designed with one target in mind, that is to dissuade russia making the time when they want to test nato or the americans. i would also point out that in terms of technology we are looking at specific technologies to address some of the maturing threats that they have. there airspace, underwater, that sort of thing and i

think too that the investments in repositioned equipment that allows us to move forward quickly into an area would cause change in their strategic calculus as part of the risk from their behavior from their perspective would go off. there's also a fair amount of ground you munitions and airfield enhancements going on, specifically targeted to your concerns. >> i want to thank you for that.i think those are all very important investments. one of my concerns is that the russians employed a set of hostile highly asymmetrical tools during our election last year and for the cost of a fraction of a single ship they were able to use very low-cost tools like trolls and social media box to manipulate our media and even penetrate our political and election structures. do we have an overall

strategy to meet that threat, either insider, or as a whole of government approach? >> sir, we have vulnerability assessments and analysis going on that cause us to buttress our defenses in different areas, to shift our filtering of information and to shift our focus or intelligence services to define the problems to a level that we can about what to do about them. so is there an overall strategy ? we are working on a broader strategy that would be part of but right now we have enough definition that we don't have to delay taking steps at this time intel wise and defensive wise against the russian threat. >> should there be consequences when russia does this kind of thing? >> absolutely. that's a decision that has to

be taken by the commander-in-chief and certainly with the congress support involvement. but i think that this sort of misbehavior has got to face consequences not just by the united states but more broadly. >> i couldn't agree more. i want to shift gears a little bit in my last 40 seconds or so. you know my interest in the record energy weapon systems. they have enormous potential to be a game changer, the kind of thing that we've seen change asymmetry in the past for our war fighters. last year's defense bill instructs the secretary of defense to designate a senior official at the pentagon to have principal responsibility for the development and transition of directed energy weapons systems. as of today it's my

understanding this position remains unfilled. secretary, can i have your commitment to meet this requirement and to assign someone the critical responsibility at the pentagon? >> yes sir. thank you for bringing it up, i didn't know i had that responsibility and i'm learning more every day. it will be done, i would tell you right now i've been briefed on the selected energy r&d and advances so i know people are working right now but we haven't filled that, that's my numbered assignment and i will get on it. >> i appreciate that very much, thank you mister chair . >> thank you gentlemen, i want to associate myself with the remarks about our budget picture ecretary mattis had been chairman mccain had. i agree, i think the president's budget is inadequate to the threat we face but the more fundamental problem is the budget control act. and the simple solution probably is to repeal the budget control act. from senator fisher all the way down to my right, senator

donnelly all the way down to senator peters not a single one of us was here in the summer of 2011 and voted for that bill. the budget control act is not the constitution and 112th congress was not a constitutional convention. we should simply repeal it. some people say is going to increase the deficit but it's not going to going to affect, we know that. we know what will happen. you will have a continuing resolution in september and some kind of budget in october and november, we will have anonymous in december 2017 and 18 and we will talk do it all again.to repeal the budget control act and take responsibility seriously and own up for our annual budget cycle. i would urge all the democrats and all the republicans on this committee to work together to do so in the senate itself. >> now, on my soapbox, mister secretary.

>> open skies free allows for aerial surveillance of military forces, us and russia are both parties and whenever according to the state department russia has not been playing ball lately. they're denying the united states overflight of their territory. this resolution with russia on these matters, my understanding is those efforts have come up empty. we believe the us believes that russia is in violation of the treaty. we are meeting onthat issue . i've been briefed on it and we will be meeting with safety department and national security staff in the near future. there's certainly appears to be violations of but i got going to the meeting and figure out that i got all the information. >> would you care to elaborate in an unclassified matter in this setting on the nature of those violations? >> there are areas that have been prevented from over flying. i think some of the other aspects of it i prefer to

talk privately with you but that's one of the clearer to me violations. >> could we get your commitment to submit spots on the record, classified or unclassified is appropriate once you have those consultations? >> i prefer to do it even before i had a consultation, i can tell you what we know right now and what we believe right now and then we can update you later . >> that's fine if we could get that on the record in writing. general dunford, while we're on the topic of russian treaty violations, our staff and testified in march saying russia has repeatedly violated international agreements and threaten stability including the intermediate forces treaty and treaty on conventional armed forces in europe. you agree that russia is in violation of both those treaties? >> i do senator. >> so let's put this plainly then, if vladimir putin wanted he could hold us troops at risk with nuclear

armed cruise missiles and our only choices would be we send 30-year-old f-16's with 30-year-old nuclear weapons against state-of-the-art russian defenses or we have a choice to escalate a tactical crisis to a strategic one by responding with long-range bombers or intercontinental missiles or submarine launched ballistic missiles, is that the situation we face right now? >> that's a good reason why we've argued to modernize our nuclear enterprise and make sure we have a detected veterans and response. >> one of the priorities is the airline cruise missile going on for years now. general syllabus", a decade from now outcomes will not be able to penetrate russian air defenses and therefore there is an urgency to their replacement. given russia's tree violation and in balance between american and russian nuclear forces in the age of the outcomes you agree it's an urgent priority to replace the outcomes of the long-range standoff? >> are going with the nuclear crossroads right now. the third leg of the triad, the bomber needs to be able

to penetrate and be able to achieve effects and thus the criteria we should have going into a nuclear crisis. >> admiral harris a few weeks ago as well pointed out that although china is obviously not a party to the treaty, if there were over 90 percent of theirmissiles . the situation we face is the inf treaty gives china an advantage over air forces in the pacific. russia is not honoring in europe. we have no way to respond to either of those threats and if we did it would be illegal because we are only the only nation in the world that restrains itself in developing intermediate-range cruise missiles. >> editor, i think what's important about the chinese capability is in that category of na x that we discussed earlier where large numbers of missiles or rockets that they did present a challenge as we tried to project power. >> it's a critical problem

that we face, i know you gentlemen are working to address it. i hope we can do everything possible to help you. >> there's a wide range in the operating budget and we started in 17 with a wide range of capability areas where you requested resources designed specifically for those challenges articulated. >>. >> thank you mister chairman and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. i want to ask about what's happening between qatar and its neighbors. the mass saudi arabia that it's all systematic and economic ties hotter and immediately bahrain, the uae, egypt and yemen in the same. this crisis again in part because it was reported the leader of qatar did a speech criticizing other leaders in the region. now it's come out that was

fake news and the leader of qatar gave no fake speech. the media reported the fbi believes it was actually the russians who made up the story. i want to ask the question that depends on classified information. let me ask this question instead. if the news reports are accurate, what motive when the russians have for doing something like that. mister secretary, you might you be able to answer that? >> i think the destruction of the international order is something russia in a shortsighted way works to their benefit. i think does not but i can't speak for them. i think what you're seeing here though is continued, the continued prevalence of threats not just of our own country, not just of what the democracy but they are trying to break any kind of multilateral alliance i think that is a stabilizing influence in the world.

>> good, and i hope good in terms of your description, it's very helpful and i hope we will be to get the bottom of this. in our intelligence agencies have told us russians conducted a successful fire attack against our 2016 elections, a few months later the russians tried to take it in france and now it appears to be trying to take us to a new level. so i also though like you asked for your help to clarify the us policy on this current dispute. as to the saudi's cut off diplomatic and economic crisis, the question really is support for the move saying and i'm going to quote here, it's so good to see the saudi arabia and visit with the king and assistant countries already paying off. but soon afterwards, secretary of state killers and call on those countries to ease the blockade saying it was quote, entering us military operations in the

region and the campaign against isis. in testimony to this committee to the air force. contradicted secretary killers in and said the dispute was in fact not impacting air operations at how you debase in qatar. secretary mattis, can you clarify what is the policy of the united statesgovernment during current dispute among countries in the middle east ? >> ,senator the secretary of the air force was referring to the operations that that one airbase, more than that going on in the region so he was quite correct in what he was saying about that. secretary tillerson was nonetheless correct if you look more broadly at the situation where we have to work with many of those what we call gulf cooperation council state together. we have friends in the region center who have problems. they admit area one of the

issues that came up when president trump visited saudi arabia was there ever to turn off the spread of radical ideologies under cut sustainability and create kind of the ocean with the terrorists swim. that sort of thing, sowe have friends out there. we got to work with them. our policy is to try to reduce this problem at the same time , we have gotten a certain that we are all working together and there's no funding whether it be from a state or from individuals in the state who can get away with it because there's a lack of oversight or law or that sort of thing. so the actions at play here, it's not tidy as we deal with it. >> and i understand that qatar needs to do more to fight terrorism in the field and i want to make sure i clarify the point and understood it correctly. general dunford, is the qatar blockade affecting us

operations? >> it is not and we are watching very closely but we've had good cooperation from all parties to make sure we can continue to move freely in and out of qatar where we have an important airbase as well as headquarters for the united states central command. >> very much and i want to say this cyber threat appears to be getting bigger and bigger, more and more dangerous taking on multiple permutations. i think that means it's really important and i'm going to ask you later or an update on the status of trying to implement the, our cyber command elevation. but this is something we've got to fight back against x we are on track with elevation. it's going fine, i don't see any issues there. there's other things about splitting them you are working through but we will work through it. >> is powerfully important, thank you mister chairman. >> thank you, gentlemen, thank you for your service to our country.

>> general, secretary mattis, you see any way the budget could be operational with the budget control still in existence. >>. >> i believe congress will have to remove the budget control act in order for that to happen for this budget to go through. but it would be fair to say a continuing resolution has never saved money with regard to any of the defense programs? >> i guarantee you continuing resolutions cost us more money or less capability. >>. >> last week doctor wilson and general goldstein talk about the b 21 program and reiterated the importance that it stay on time and on budget. the program ramps up next year from $1.3 billion-$2 billion requested for 2018.

i also understand acr or return to bca funding levels could jeopardize funding for this and ultimately affect the timely building of this component of our future national security. general dunford, you mentioned the fact that we have a long-range strike bomber with regard to our plans for developing any type of weapon against the upgraded threats of our competitors. did your comment on the need for the continuation of the timely basis of the development of the b 21? >> comments on the timing. i can tell you is we do three nuclear posture reviews since 2010 i'm aware of. all of them validated the need for a triad and emphasize the need for a bummer that had a short access and so completely supportive of that, i know that general goldstein in the secretary of the air force and testify as colleges with the timing of the b 21 and i think i assure the committee that it will be decisive in that program. >> secretary mattis, for more

than a year we talked about cyber about the need to define policy with regards to cyber attacks within the united states. we put within the nda b-17 nda a directive that the administration deliver a policy or a proposed policy back to congress by december of this year and i believe that says this is coming to the nda it's going to fall under your review to see that it gets done. this would not necessarily identify an act of war but rather those acts of aggression which are of sufficient duration, similar to what a connecticut attack would be and what impact our country. >> you know if that study or that planning is ongoing at this time or if there's pacific direction for individuals within the administration to comply with that directive? x.

>> i want to get back to you with a detailed answer on that one. i understand the question, i'm not prepared to answer it right now. i know we've got an awful lot of work going on. we were engaged in the operation but the specific and the question i don't have right now. but i will get back to you. >> thank you sir. general dunford, the need for cyber security, i think sometimes we talk about air, land and sea and space, sometimes we forget to add in the fact that cyber is connected in all sequences. they're all connected. could you share a little bit with the committee about the need to upgrade to cyber capabilities and our ability not only for defense but to be able to attribute the attacks, to defend against them but then to go back back in and respond and one step further than that is to be

able to survive the attack in such a fashion thatwe can respond afterwards . >> sir, first i would tell you that as we've analyzed today's conflicts in future conflicts, i would agree with you completely and we say really we used the talk about multi-domain, we now talk about all domain and you referred air, land space and cyberspace so we expect cyberspace to be integral to any campaign that we would conduct in the future. the requirements start with making sure that our own network is protected. we provide support for the rest of the government but our own network is defended to include our command-and-control systems and we talked earlier about nuclear, our nuclear amanda and control systems but are missions also requires us to be able to take the fight to the enemy which is an integral part of any campaign we would wage and that requires us as you suggested one, to be able to attribute

it to action and provide the president with viable options and although i would tell you one thing we emphasize is that just because the enemy chooses to fight in cyberspace doesn't mean our response have to be limited to cyberspace. in other words, we may, experience a cyber attack but we will take advantage of the full range of capabilities we have an apartment to respond. >> thank you mister chairman. >> thank you chairman and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and service. in march, you each testified before the defense subcommittee of the senate appropriations on a topic that i care deeply about his authorization for use of military force and the ongoing effort against isis and the record would reflect secretary mattis you stated i would take no issue with congress stepping forward, i think it would be a statement of the american people's resolve if you did so. i thought the same thing for the past several years .

and not understood why the congress hasn't come forward with this, at least a debate as i believe isis is a clear and present danger we face. the testimony of general dunford saying in the same hearing, i agree with the secretary. not only would be a sign of the american people's resolve, but are men and women would benefit from an authorization of the use of military force that would let them know the american people were fully supportive of what they are doing every day as they put their lives in harm's way. is that still an accurate reflection of both your views ? >> it is senator for me. >> absolutely senator. >> senator flake and i are members of the senate foreign relations committee and have introduced an authorization trying to swear some difficult dealing with these nonstate actors, isis, all kinds of trying to appropriately exercise congressional oversight without micromanaging functions for the commander-in-chief and his staff and i would appreciate very much you, both of you

individually but the administration trying to work with us to head up a senate foreign relations as indicated a desire to move on this and we would like to work in tandem with you to hopefully get this to a place that will express the congressional resolve that you've discussed in this testimony. >> i'm happy to work in concert with you sir. >> absolutely senator, thank you. >> i don't have any other questions, you mister chair. >> thank you chair. i want to clear one thing up first of all i have the utmost respect for you guys and god help us, we got to have you to be successful. there is zero chance , zero , i'm on the budget committee, zero chance the budget process is going to work. the best we can hope for is that we are going to, there are 43 working days left before the end of this fiscal year. we're headed for another cr.

unless we have it on the bus so the best thing we can hope for is an omnibus. the budget process is broken, is why we are at a historic low of spending on military and we will fix this long-term, we can argue about 20 or 30 or $50 million, i think the number is much better. i need help on two things. one, help us with an audit. were going to get money for you but we've got to have it. and as we need obama analysis of mission-based need. going to hypothesize about what you need, you've answered questions but i want to get a little history today. in my lifetime we invested in the military three times. this is significant. once in the 70s, once in the 90s and once in the last years such that they were spending 3.1 percent of our gdp. on our military. the low point was 2.6 and

2000. a lot of people refer back to 2000. that was prior to isis, all the things that have changed our world. but we recap only one time in my lifetime in the 80s, we called ourselves recapping in the 2000 but we do that up in 16 years of waras you said . we have built new aircraft carriers or airplanes and here we are where most of our major platforms are touring at the same time that we have to rebuild and recap. it's estimated that by 2000, russia will have 70 percent of their triad will be new technology. it's estimated it will take us 30 years to get to 70 percent there so we have an estimate here that says that based on a historical average of 4.1percent, at the red line, the difference between where we were last year, 3.1 percent , that's on our economy is $200 billion. the other way to triangulate that need is bob gates put a mission-based need requirements out and in 2000

16 estimated, his estimate is $130 billion more than what we have. and the last one i want to get is this, general, you said our mission is to make sure our sons and daughters never have to fight a fair fight. historically though, the economy, the country with the biggest economy, today china has reached us in power, their economies the same size as ours. there's every reason to believe they're going to continue to outpace us with a population that four times our size, no reason to believe that will continue to happen. my problem is this, china this year will spend 826 dollars an equivalent money compared to our 77, that if we get everything you want so already there spending more in terms than we are definitely more so when i triangulate this, we're somewhere between 130 this year, 30 200 billion.

that doesn't count the whole recap we're talking about and that is, by the way, gaetz did that before isis, crimea, all the things we did today but what we're looking at is a situation where over the next 30 years, just to rebuild, this is in operations, the cbo estimated $26 million so my question is i know you're a historian. how do we not just this year develop a long-term plan to make sure in an environment where every time we are spending on the military and all domestic programs is borrowed, that our discretionary spending, every dime of that is borrowed because in the last eight years we borrowed 35 percent of what we spend in the 10 years respected were going to borrow another 30 percent. in that environment, how do we develop a long-term strategic plan that helps us achieve what the general has said our mission is and i agree with that mission. >> we need to have a strategic dialogue with the congress and determine what you can do. and at that point we will have to adapt the strategy to

whatever level of resources you can give us to avoid a strategic mismatch and protect the country withdue respect, you mentioned one time before that you're working on a mission-based estimate . it's going to take some time to come together , is that correct? >> there's a strategy review underway. >> is that the agenda? >> senators, it's really two pieces. we have been involved over the last 18 months in doing a comprehensive analysis of what we're using as benchmarks for the joint force so we've looked at china, russia, north korea, iran and violent extremism that has not predicted as that being the only threats we will face but with the assumption being if we benchmark our capabilities and capacities against one or a combination thereof of those challenges, we will have the right force. we've gone through and done a functional analysis that we're going to share with the

committee at the top secret level that takes a look at our relative competitive advantage or disadvantage by functional areas against each one of those challenges and in the aggregate, effective of those competitive areas in our ability to meet our objectives in a conflict. regardless of where the secretary goes with the defense strategy, what we intend to do is provide the secretary with us or a bottom-up need-based hybridization. i believe we're in a position right now to provide the recommendations for bottom-up need-based requirements. and again, what we've done is taken all the analytic work has been done against each one of those problems and dissected it so we can make clear recommendations to make our competitive advantage. we've identified where we need to be five years from now and what specific programs will help us get there. the latter part of that is a work in progress, we will review that constantly but i feel like the first time in many years as a result of an emphasis on that assessment

over the last 18 months, were going to be in the position to have a constructive dialogue with the secretary and the secretary would be better empowered to have a dialogue the congress and be able to outline requirements and more importantly, specific impact of meeting or not meeting those requirements in our ability to achieve our objectives against those states we are using as a benchmark and when can we expect that? >> right now we've started to talk to the committee about that, senator and we are in for now bison detail work that's been done in the work is actually reflected in this year's budget recommendations . >> the center allowed me to come forward with the degree of confidence i had about what it is we are asking for and to support the unfunded priorities list that were submitted. this is where i got the background, the rigor to understand the need for it. >> let me point out again mister secretary and i'm not

without sympathy unless we have a strategy, it is hard for us to implement a policy. it's now six months and members of this committee, particularly senator reid and i but everybody, we want a strategy and i don't think that's a hell of a lot to ask. i know there are problems within the administration but honestly, what you just said is fine. what is the strategy? and i don't think that the last eight years are exactly what we have in mind. right now, we have a don't lose strategy which is not winning. general dunford, i appreciate very much what you're doing. i remember two years ago going to the pentagon and you

telling me about all these studies that are going on. that's fine. but where is it? and i understand that one of the problems is within the administration itself. but please don't tell us that we have a strategy when we don't. >> chairman, we have entered a strategy free time and we are scrambling to put it together but anyone who thinks a strategy and integrated interagency whole government strategy can be done rapidly is probably someone who has dealt with it. it is according to doctor kissinger the most complex series of threats that he has ever seen in his lifetime and he's a master of dealing with these kinds of issues. we are working it as far as the strategy for afghanistan, it's coming very shortly. we have broader strategy that we are building on having to

do with nato and allies in the pacific. i've seen this engagement with those people as we make certain that we are drawing strength from allies to, not putting this all on the backs of the american taxpayer and american military. but it does take a lot of effort to walk in to the level of strategic thinking that we found and try to create something that is stable. >> senators shopping. >> that you mister chairman, thank you secretary mattis and undersecretary norquist for being here. i would like to continue to pursue the question of strategy and my question is about strategy in syria. the map that everyone has their place and that we just put up on the board is on that that was produced by the washington institute for policy. >> and this weekend, the russian ministry of defense

analysis that grow regime forces have reached the iraqi border. this comes as russia backed forces in circle us troops and their partners in our, and seems raised. >> about our strategy to hear ices along the euphrates river valley so my question is where we expecting the russians to come down and make the move they did around path and to encircle our troops and what is our next move because of that. >>. >> senator, as you know we are in syria to defeat the isys campaign. eight on the president's decision of about a month ago now when he met with president bordelon we've chosen to are the syrian democratic forces. we had taken out already be amended area where the attacks on brussels and istanbul and paris

originated. that was taken down, the next move is against raqqa. we've shifted the operational arc to first invest, surround the locations where the enemy is located so that their foreign fighters cannot escape and get home to europe , to america, to southeast asia. that fight they crossed the line of departure about a week ago, a little less than a week ago going into raqqa and the fighting is now deep inside the city. as far as the axon situation, that was another operating area that we had. i did not anticipate that the russians would move there, we knew it was a possibility. i did not anticipate it at that time but it was not a surprise to our intelligence people. who saw the potential for them to move out in that

direction. the middle euphrates river valley clearly aside thanks to the russians and uranian support is flexing his muscles. he's starting to feel a little more optimistic about his strategic situation and certainly they are moving to break through to their garrison that surrounded theirs are. >> and i appreciate that. the question i guess the second question i had was does that compromise our strategy for clearing isys and euphrates river valley? >> let me sign up with the chairman about the military situation on the ground. >> and i also ask you will dunford if you would talk about the conflicting aside, how we are or are not working with the russians in syria? >> again center, first without splitting hairs, the

media reports of us being in circle are not accurate. we still have freedom of movement outside the area and we're not limited from moving toward the euphrates river valley at this time. i thought to the secretary, our commander at central command, if not daily multiple times each day. so it's not large numbers of pro-regime forces out there. they've moved to the border but they haven't respected our movement. to that point, rd confliction mechanism with the regime via the russians is still effective and allowing us to prosecute the campaign so. >> i guess i was asking not about ed confliction but about the other ways in which we are or are working with the russians so i understand that the confliction efforts are going on. >> the only thing center with the russians is communicating with them to the conflict and ensure the safety of our aircrews and personnel on the ground in military level.

meanwhile secretary tillerson is reading and effort dealing with the foreign minister of russia to take a look at what might be done to address syria as a whole to include the political solution but on a day-to-day basis we have three main mechanisms to connect with the russians, i direct communication between our operations center and russians on the ground in syria. we have ballast on the joint staff that communicates with his counterpart on the russian general staff and i speak routinely the chief of defense, general garage, and have spoken to him twice in the last week to ensure that we address the safety of our personnel and our ability to prosecute the campaign against isys so to the extent we are doing more than the confliction, that's a political dialogue led by secretary tillerson but right now we're informed by the nda language that restricts any kind of cooperation with russians limited to the confliction and serious aware complying with the law at

this time and if there is a need to do something more than that, my understanding is the secretary of defense for national security interests purposes can waive the requirement and allow us to do more with the russians if that meets our interests and inside this area. >> and i asked a follow-up question mister chairman? >> thank you. are you, there have been reports about the political efforts that secretary tillotson is undertaking, through tom janet to go to st. petersburg and the news reports have suggested that that could involve us changing sanctions, the removal of the russian facilities that we see back in december in the us and have you and secretary mattis, have you been consulted about what's being

proposed there? are you troubled by the idea that we're going to do these exchanges without having any proof that russia is changing their behavior? >> i have not talked to secretary tillerson about that and we have extensive talks every week. mostly every day, that have not been one of the issues that i brought up. i say more in the military factors help here, that sort of thing. >> thank you mister chairman. >> thank you, i'm sure it didn't go unnoticed that people areleaving, we're having three hearings going on at the same time so i'll be brief . >> i was here for your opening statement secretary and you said when you came back out of retirement and you were shocked at what you saw and you've been very upfront, you made the statement that for decades, america has been uncontested and it's no longer the case now so times are different

now. i do think it's great for very effective for the uniforms to be talking about this. i can't do that. those of us up here don't have the credibility that you have when you are speaking from your vast experience. we are facing in my opinion the greatest threat this country has ever faced. and so when we talk about that, and we look at the attention that our military has been getting, i go back to the 1965 when 52 percent of the total federal spending was on the fence and that slowly degraded down to today when it 15 percent so when it gets right down to it, is a lot of this the fact that we have not prioritized the military budget? i mean, we are faced with something that the threat is great and when you have

people like general newly coming out and saying that an army posture hearing last month he said we are out ranged and outdone. we are being honest to the american people but you think we've gotten to the point over a period of timewhere we are not getting the proper priority ? >> senator, i know there were a lot of contributing factors but i don't know how we can restore the strength that we all know that we need. if we don't start with the repeal of the pca and at least open the door to an effective action by the congress oversight and funding. >> right now it's like we've tied ourselves up in a knot. >>. >> i agree with that general? >> i do and we have to benchmark our military capabilities against our national interest and the threats that we face and i think what we trying to do is

make picture where we have a disconnect. we are a train where the military capabilities are the fastest we have are insufficient to meet our national interest in the context of the threat that has grown and as secretary mattis said, secretary kissinger and i used this many times, we describe this as most volatile conflict since world war ii. and it's fittingwhere i said, i couldn't agree more with that assessment . >> if you single out industry and i was looking at the chart that you may have, i don't know but you take out thereserve and national guard , you take the army, the air force, navy and marine active. you have made statements so the administration has made statements for example that the arty active needs to be about 540 thousand and yet this budget is coming up with

476. that's a figure from last fiscal year 17. then the same thing is true at the air force, we talked about the necessity to have hundred 71 and 325 and the same navy and the same with marines. so i want to ask if we talked about how adequate the budget is, do you think it is adequate? in terms of industry, we are not meeting the goals that apparently you were in on the decision. both of you were somewhat in on the decision as to where we should be in the forest services on just and strength alone. is there something we are overlooking here? >> senator, i believe what we face right now is the reality that we are already asking you to push the bca by $52 billion. we are trying to be informed by the reality of what the law says but at the same time

we are not being shy and telling you where we really are at in terms of what we need. but i think we need to work together and come up with a solution here. because i don't know how i would bring something to you that laid out a budget for what you pointed out here when the bca count, i would have to completely ignore this and i'm ignoring it already to the tune of 52 billion. well, the president is with the budget he submitted. it seems to me we've got to have the kind of discussion that senator perdue, chairman mccain, senator reid have brought up and get a grip on reality here because it's like we're all walking around as if we are victims . >> i appreciate the answer and we have to do all we can. and i still think back to priorities and a lot of people out there, i agree with you.

>> let me point out again secretary, three percent increase over the obama proposed budget is not enough. so whether we do away with bca or not, that's our problem. our problem with you is it's a three percent increase. >> everyone agrees that is not enough. why don't we busted to where we need -- bust it to where we need instead of complaining about the eca where what you are asking for is not sufficient? at least that is the view of the military commanders i have talked to. senator donnelly? donnelly: thank you mr. chairman. as leaders you both made a strong commitment to improving the mental health and resiliency

of our service members and families. i appreciate your leadership on this issue. as discussed in se as we discussed before in section 701 of the fy '15 ndaa congress pass on the call the requirement which requires every service member active guard or reserve receive a robust mental health assessment every year. the department has said in the past this requirement would be fully implemented across all services by october 2017. secretary mattis, will this be fully implemented by october ofr 2017? >> i don't know right now, senator. i will get back to you with the best estimate i can give you.as as you are no doubt aware that a significant requirement. it's very labor intensive requirement for the number of mental health professionals that

we need to do that. but let me get back to you and tell you where we are at on beating that deadline date. >> that would be great. it's critically important. also secretary mattis, we discussed one time the challenges with proper transition. general carella has worked in this extensively on handle from active duty to the va in regards to the formulary and in regards to making sure that it's ads smooth transition. are the department and the va> working closely on this anti-thinandkeeping progress ise at this time? what's happened sometimes not to get to all script or whatever, is a lot of active duty when they become veterans, medicines that their dependent on that are critically important and not available when it flips over to the va side or a different one is handed off, which causes significant problems. i want to make sure that

transition that the dod and the va are working tightly together to get this done properly. >> i believe both the committees will be briefed very soon, both be briefed very soon. we have made significant progress on electronic health records. that's one of the contributing factors to how we will do thisoc right, and we have i believe right now people been involved in this for many years, in one case over two decades. we've never had a closer relationship between dod and va target right at this transition. the records and the formularies. >> i want to ask a little bit about afghanistan, follow-up on. what the chairman was asking. you both an extraordinary work over the years. some years ago i was with the marine out in the helmandd province and try to forget the strategy prefigured and asked with a job but almost seemed like a place but out in the middle of taliban highway and every other direction.

and so as we look at this, what does success in the next -- i know we are waiting for the planned but what does success look like a year from now, in your view? what in your mind makes the situation better? >> sir, i believe the violence will be reduced significantly, especially in the population centers for most -- where most of the people live, that the afghan government has got a degree of integrity in what is contributing to its people, the government services. s the correction has been driven down, but most of all that the taliban no longer has the freedom of movement that we're seeing right now. it's been rolled back. >> general -- >> i would add to that.have the afghan cashers has been a great concern as a number of cash was at the afghan forces have experienced. i think one of the ways we get at that is by more effectively assisting the both in planning

operations and delivering combined arms, more specifically the aviation capabilities. consuming to grow their capability and providing them support while they go the aviation capability will be a key piece in mitigating casualties? >> do you think we're in better shape now than we were last year at this time, or do you think it is on backwards?? >> i don't assess where in better shape than we were last year, senator. >> general mattis? >> i think taliban had a good year last year and they're trying to have a good one this year. i think we may be able to, by in sges in our concept of operations help them with air support, fire support. note that the enemy on the back foot. right now i believe the inning is surging right now. >> well, we look forward to the report, and i would still love to talk to both of you are one of you or your team about raqqa

and some of the situation on some of the indiana folks theres thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today.y. we appreciate your advice to this committee and your service to our great united states. secretary mattis, open invitation to march with team first anytime, any time. vice chief and i saw most of the world problems this morning. we just need you to fill in theo gaps.bl so you're welcome at any point.t gentleman, a counter isa strategy in southeast asia something that i continue to push for which was why i was excited to hear this weekend your special operations forces were assisting the government of the philippines in taking back the isis hilltown. until 2014 used of a sizable counterterrorism mission in the philippines. we have known about this threat or a very long time. unfortunately we haven't returned to the area in order to

counter some of isis bad deeds. general dunford, as we target a terrace in me that wishes to strike her homeland, how does a counterterrorism commitment in the region also help ward off other adversaries like china and russia? >> senator, do you want me to hit those two separately? first of all with southeast asia in addition to the republic, in addition to our present in the philippines, the congressman was called maritime domain of british initiative and that helps countries in the region specifically indonesia and malaysia and the philippines to have a common understanding of the maritime domain particularly the flow of foreign fighters, criminals and those kinds of things.an the other thing we've done is incorporated southeast asian nations into what we call operation galant phoenix. that's our intelligence and information sharing architecture which allows us to take a transl regional approach to violent extremism.

separately, our forward present in the pacific concluded the feeling of our most modern capabilities, the f-35 f-35, th2 in a routine pacific presencero all prints come operations designed to deter conventional conflict in specifically conventional conflict with china and north korea and the region. >> do you see that as being effective also in the areas of malaysia and indonesia? >> in terms of deterring conventional conflict? idea and i get the most dangerous threats in malaysia and indonesia to be the threat of violent extremism. >> so isis oriented. >> if i could add one point here. we've talked about the lack of strategy earlier. in 2014 we canceled the named operation that we had down there, perhaps of a premature view that we were gaining success. without that we lost some of the funding lines that we would have

otherwise been able to offer. so with the chairman has brought up is completely correct by did again shows the lack of strategy that we inherited. i just got back from shangri-la with the chairman and other members of the congress were, in this came up and we are working closely with them, the philippines right now, for example, with both manned and unmanned aircraft as they try to retake the town.ng this is an ongoing issue. what you were bringing up i think is going to loom larger if we were having this hearing a couple months from now. we've got to take steps that get this back, back under control s and support indonesia, malaysia and philippines along the lines that you are questioning leads us to. >> thank you for bringing up the shangri-la dialogue, mr. secretary. the other countries to participate in that dialogue, what type of support are they looking at, come from the united states?

what can we offer them? >> yes, ma'am. much of it is along the lines with each of the just mentionedd was operation galante phoenix competing the intelligence, sharing information where everything from interpol to all the secret services of various nations work together so that transnational threats are tracked with a good over thehe nation's borders, when they flee from one to another. galante phoenix is critical. also other intelligence help and i would add that's where our s strategy of working by and through allies helps take the boat all of us. for example, singapore has offered isr surveillance aircraft the philippines. that's the way we need to get everybody working together out there against this threat and not carrying the foldout ourselves. >> thank you. just very briefly because i am nearly out of time, our special operators have a dwell time of about one to one ratio.

this is mentioned by general hotel and what of ouron conversations recently. what can we do? i'll tell you it's because they want that. they won't say no when they're given a mission. i think that's incredibly important that they stand up to the obligations. but what can we do to increase their dwell time beyond expanding their forces would consider a way we can push their talents out to the conventional forces? >> some of these missions, due to our conventional forces, capability day compared to 2001, we have now army, infantry, army brigades, marine, battalions they can pick up some of thesese missions, take the load off, take the work off of the special operators and that sort of thing. what you want relationships we so want to use the special operations forces. chairman, anything that? >> the secretary actually directed me several weeks ago tk do an analysis of all of our special operations requirements

today and look for opportunities to substitute with conventional forces. for exactly the reason you're talking about.t. with concern about the diploma ratio. not only a fact from human perspective and families, and also precludes them from training for the full range of missions that we may require them for and we don't want them as you know to be singly focused on the current fight. we want and be prepared just like the rest of the force, to be prepared across the spectrum. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. into both for your extraordinary service to our nation and all the men and women under your command, and thank you for being so forthright and helpful in your answers today to our questions. i want to ask about the f-35s which are in the unfunded, i believe that our 24 the. which is support including them, assuming that receive additional

funds from the congress? >> you mean the support that goes with the aircraft to make them fully capable? >> correct. and the additional aircraft aswl well. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. and as to helicopters, i've written a letter, bipartisan letter along with a number of my colleagues to the appropriators asking for an additional $327 million to fully fund the 60 helicopters that are necessary to reach the state of readiness for our national guard that they've asked to be. would you support that as well, assuming that the congressas provides the funding? >> i would have to look at the priorities in place more broadly, but i mean it sounds reasonable site have to look at it in particular.

>> thank you. a number of our military leaders, past and present, have characterized the greatest threat to this nation as being cyber warfare. and there was a report in the "washington post" just yesterday as a matter-of-fact that hack -- hackers allied with the russian government have devised a cybers weapon that essentially has the potential to disrupt our electronic grid completely cause chaos in our electric systems. an alarming report. have you seen it and he agreed that it is accurate? >> i have seen it. i believe that this threat is real, and none of us are they

doing this threat at all. there's a lot more going on in this regard than i can discuss in a private setting. >> i would appreciate thatatap opportunity. would you agree with me that, and with others, that cyber is one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest threat in terms of t warfare today? >> it is sort of what of the top because it cuts across all the domains, air, surface, impacts our nuclear command-and-controlc but certainly our very institution, whether he be democratic or banking or whatever are vulnerable to this sort of attack. >> would you agree that the russian hacking and cyber attack on our systems during the last election was an act of war? >> i would leave the -- i know it was a hostile act, whether or

not it crosses the threshold for war, i'm not a lawyer, but there's no doubt it was a hostile act directed against our country. >> would you agree that we need a better definition and aa policy, and it may involve lawyers are others, i'm not sure lawyers are the best to define it, but wouldn't you agree we need a better policy defining what is an act of war in thee cyber domain? >> i think clarity in this regard would help in terms of deterrence and response, absolutely. >> i want to, in my remainingg e time, focus on it area that is extraordinarily important to our nation, even though it's not the kind of glamorous, shiny toy area that attracts most attention. president trump's budget cuts the department of labor is worker training budget by 36%.

at a time when we are working to modernize our military with particular emphasis on the nuclear triad, the department of defense will be relying on the defense and acid-base to recruiu and hire and train thousands of workers across the country, in my home state of connecticut, thousands of workers necessary for the joint strike fighter and electric boat, thousands of workers nisha to build the submarines that are so essential to our national security, and yet we are cutting the funding necessary for training those workers. the welders, pipefitters, engineers, designers, people with real skills that are essential to our national defense.e. would you agree with me that our national security reallyre requires that funding be

restored? >> sir, i believe there is a need for the kind of people you were referring to. there's an apprenticeship program. i know the department of labor is starting. i do not know the details of it. it's directed exactly at the skills you have just been citing, but i cannot tell you more about it other than to say that would probably be the best place to get information about what is actually in the president's budget to address this. >> i know the labor departments budget is out of your direct jurisdiction but it affects our military capability. my time is expired at the subject is intensely important to the future of our nation, and i hope that you will support efforts to increase the funding necessary for apprenticeship and training and other such skill enhancement programs. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary mattis, you things are

set as a marine corps commander that he to cut the state department budget you need to guide me more ammo.de do you still stand behind that idea?ll >> that was probably a rather simplistic way to point out that we have to engage the whole of government and yes, sir, i still stand by that. >> saw far is an essential ingredient to winning the war on terror?di >> i think america has two powers of fundamental powers, the power of inspiration, the power of intimidation. you have to work together and state department represents -- >> do you agree? >> i do. >> has anybody as you a question yet? sen. >> senator perdue made a reference to the audit but i i think the time ran out before -- >> i will give you a question but yet to be be quick. >> okay. will >> where we will tricare cost be in terms of spending in terms of the next decade?ext decade >> which cost? >> tri-care. >> i don't have those numbers at my finger tips but i know the overall is $5 $51 billion for al of the defense health costs.

>> look at it because i think you'll find it to be really encroaching on defense budget. we need to tricare reform. >> healthcare costs s-corps in the year after year. >> think you. general dunford, when we liberate mosul and i'm sure we will, would you recommend a residual force to stay behind? >> senator, do believe the iraqis will need support afterer mosul but i would also point out that the end of mosul is not the end of combat operations in iraq as well. >> absolutely. >> much more to be done. >> for the day we get to end of combat operations, is it your testimony question of the joint chiefs that will be wise as nation to leave a residual force to prevent isil and other radical groups from coming back? >> my assessment is that support for the iraqis would be strategically important. >> to the united states? >> to the united states.y >> do you agree. >> i do. g >> do you agree the outcome in d

afghanistan matters in terms of whether it's a failed state or stable country? >> senator, do.ie >> ddelete every soldier serving in afghanistan today, american soldier is an insurance policy against another 9/11? >> an insurance policy -- >> against another 9/11 coming from afghanistan? >> absolutely. >> general dunford? >> i do. >> if anybody falls in the service of the country in afghanistan, they die to protect the homeland? >> i don't think there's any question. i would also point out i believe strongly that the pressure we put on terrorist groups inside of afghanistan over the last 15 years is a reason we haven't seen another 9/11. >> the best purchase you could happen terms of dealing with international terrorism is afghanistan. do you agree with that bother you? is a good place to be? >> international terrorism, the number of groups there and we got to confront them there. >> thank you very, very much.

saudi arabia. do both of you both support the arms deal that saudi arabia negotiated by president trump? >> i do. >> general dunford? >> that's really a policy decision to i will defer to secretary. >> militarily you have no -- do you think would be wise to up saudi arabia? >> the only military judgment consideration is how does that fit into qualitative military edge for the israelis and it's been looked at through that lens.s it's not a challenge. >> let's get back to this right quick. general mattis, if congress rejects this arms deal whatar message are you sending to iran? >> i believe iran would be appreciative of us not selling those weapons to saudi arabia. >> and a tight weapons weren't selling that would make saudi arabia more effective on the battlefield -- type -- the place of like yemen not last because of the precision nature of the weapon? >> with proper training it could

have that effect, yes, sir. >> okay. n north korea. is it the policy of the trump administration to deny north korea the capability of building icbm that can hit the american homeland with a nuclear weapon on top, is at the policy? >> yesterday has. >> and that policy has to have all options on the table to be meaningful including the military option? >> that's correct. >> the military option would be devastating for the world at large but the president and jeff to balance the interests of homeland security against regional stability.. and you think china gets it this time that we're serious about stopping north korea? >> i have no doubt that china inks we're serious about stopping north korea, and it's principally a diplomatic led effort right now. >> last question. what signal will we be sendingus two russian if congress failed to act for punishing them, if

congress failed to push back against russia's interference in our election? we gave russian a pass. what message would that sin to putin? what message with us into our allies, and would you recommend that congress to about russian aggression? to support more sanctions? >> sir, i believe that we've got to make very clear what behavior we want to see in international community an what behavior we wl not stand for. and we need to make that clear in the congress, in the and e executive branch and in our graa alliances. >> do you agree with that, general dunford? >> senator, i do. although having spoken to secretary tillerson i would hope anything with regard to rusho would be done in conjunction with the state department, need while i can show you were preparing for the military dimension of the problem. >> with a 3% increase over the

obama administrations defense appropriations, we will take care of all those things, is that right, general? >> chairman, i was responding to the russia challenge. i think the fy '18 budget has given a significant resources to deal with the russia challenge. >> so 3% is efficient in your view? >> chairman, all i can tell you is the prioritization within the topline that we've been given is the right prioritization. as indicated earlier, i believe the requirements that the services that provided over and above the budget are legitimate requirements. >> so if 3% is not -- >> chairman, i also stipulated that i believe we need a minimum of 3% just to maintain the competitive level we have right now. the secretary and i subscribe to this come he's indicated we need at least 5% for several more

years before we can be competitive. >> senator nelson. >> mr. chairman, senator kaine has to go to a funeral so i want, he asked for two minutes of my time, if i may give that to him.sen. k >> senator king. >> thank you. just a couple points, trent you and i think it's a board and a hate to be bringing more bad news, right in thinking about our budget and the budget future, the looming threat that i see in addition to all those we discussed today is interest rates. and he's way to think about this, one point of increase in interest rate on our national debt equals the air force. the entire air force budget would be encompassed in a 1% increase in interest rates. 3% would encompass the entire defense budget. 5% would encompass almost the entire current discretionary budget. i don't think there's any doubt interest rates are headed up. that's an additional factor we have to think about in terms of

our development of the budget. secondly, there is what i call the modernization bulge coming which cbo estimates to be $400 $400 billion over the next tenen years. that's for the b-21, the columbia submarine and ohio replacement, be 21 and then the whole nuclear.r that's another problem we have to deal with, and still maintain current budget levels. i think the situation is even more grim than what we talked about this morning because of those additional factors that are not generally discussed in terms of this. we've talked a lot about unconventional threats that we are facing, cyber and the attack on our electoral system. clearly a tactic we haven't talked about hybrid war, and i worry that crimea is a precursor of the way, for example, to attack the baltic states without

tanks rumbling across the border. finally, mr. norquist, i hope that you take very seriously the necessity for the audit which we been hearing about for years. i think as i recall 2017 was supposed to be the year the department of defense was ready. so my folks in maine say how can they possibly do this without an thdit? i hope to have report back from you, and perhaps we can have a hearing just on that.an those of the points i wanted to make and i want to thank you, gentlemen for your testimony today. tha thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, senator nelson. >> and thank you for your public service. i want to follow up on the quote that senator graham quoted you with regard to the state department. are we giving up options that were previously available to uso to exercise before we reach an armed conflict in by a budget

that is substantially cutting the state department and other agencies of power such as usaid? >> senator nelson, i have not looked in detail at the state department but i can't tell you what exactly being cut and whatd is being retained. i would have to correct that to secretary tillerson. i'm not confident to answer it. >> well, i would suggest that you look at it because if you are supporting a budget that wax the state department and usaid, you will know that you are not only a warrior, your diplomat as a commander.lizes al utilizes all those other agencies of government in protecting your soft power. this is a budget that

substantially decreases the state department and usaid.rstat so i understand the sensitivity. you don't want to answer that, i but that's going to be something you're going to have to face. let me ask you about, are you satisfied in your statements with regard to the u.s. supporte of article v in the nato treaty? are you satisfied that you have assured our allies that america supports article v? >> i have, sir, and delete the president has just recently done so right from the white house. >> was it in his speech and he took it out when he was over there? >> i think he believed bidinge?

their that was, those actions spoke louder than any words. but yes put it in his speech since then. as you know, just in the last couple of days. >> let me ask you about, do you think that the existing sanctions are enough to deter further russian aggression ino ukraine, in syria? the sanctions against russia. >> it's hard to tell what influences putin. i think he is not acting in the best interest of the russian people, and as such i think whatever the congress does come so long as at least some flexibility to our secretary of state and our president to negotiate as with how to get out of this spiral that's going downhill, you know, make the point about where you stand but leave some flexibility in

execution to those who have to diplomatically engage and try to reverse this.st >> with additional economic sanctions against russia help, in your opinion? >> i think if they were conditioned on failure of the diplomats to gain some kind of common approach to get out of the jan that russia puttingse anyone in. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> on behalf of chairman kane -- >> thank you for your service. there's been a lot of discussion debate about the budget and the continue resolution. one of the issues that seems tor be forgotten here is last year were actually, theio appropriations committee defense voted out of committee almost unanimously a defense budget and unfortunately they came to the floor last summer right about ththis time and it was filibustered pixel if we did

that again, secretary mattis, would that be helpful to have a defense budget that we worked on, voted in committee and thery filibustered ask is that helping our troops? i hope it doesn't happen again but it just kind to get view audit? >> i think would be horrible for country as well as our troops. >> secretary mattis, i really appreciate your focus on the asia pacific. i know it was a lost art keyno allies in the region that that was your first trip as secretary and your recent visit to singapore with the shangri-la dialogue. i also think was important for whole host of reasons. sorry i couldn't have joinedm you. i had a this is even moregh important than the shangri-la dialogue which was a high school graduation of one of my daughters, otherwise i would've been with you. i venture speech in the q&a afterwards. i thought he was outstanding. can use singly state u.s. policy

as relates to freedom of navigation operations in the south china sea and other areas, just about our allies and adversaries are aware of it? >> yes, sir. we operate really in international waters and we do not accept unilateral inhibitions on the international waterways or airways. >> are we going to continue doing that on a regular basis with our allies if possible?at >> we will unilaterally or with our allies, yes. >> i read the uss dewey conducted an operation within 12 nautical miles and we even conducted military type training, a man overboard and mission according to the press reports. the chinese according to press reports protested that. what was our response in w response to the protests? >> to reiterate that we operate

in international waters, sir. >> i very much appreciated your focus and general dunford, your focus on the boards of our allies.. you highlighted that quite well in your shangri-la dialogue speech. can you touch on that again for the committees benefit and the benefit of the american people just how important our allies i are not only in a specific but globally in terms of us securing our national securityhere is objectives? >> senator sullivan, there's an awful lot of talk about asymmetric advantages and competitive advantages and disadvantages. and i would put our allies and our alliances from native to the pacific bilateral multilateral as our asymmetric advantage, especially if you put a list ofe our allies alongside a list ofof china's allies or russia's alliances. you can see the proof coming through from history that nations with allies thrive, and

those without them do not thrive. >> so we are an ally rich nation and her adversaries and potential adversaries are allied -- is that when we look at. >> was a perfectly. >> so we should be working to deepen those alliances and expand them, correct? >> absolutely. >> do you think everybody in the administration gets that and is doing the? >> as you know, secretary tillerson and i worked very closely together exactly along these lines. he leads foreign-policy. i provide military factors and buttress his efforts. so i also know that in terms of homeland security, sector of homeland security kelly is working with our closer allies around the hemisphere but also for how to try and protect the country. so i see it being the theme that is being carried forward, sir. >> let me finish up maybe a

follow up on a couple of questions senator graham asked about north korea. i actually very much appreciated what the president and vice president did when invited c100 senators on to the white house to get the briefing with the president, the vice president and h. r. mcmaster and all of you.u. i thought that was very useful, very important. one element i thought was important was you were to return to get the congress in a bipartisan way to be supportive of this new strategy. and i think as you know, mr. secretary, our country is at its most powerful when the executive branch, legislative branch are working together on difficult issues when democrats and republicans are working closely together on difficult issues which is why i thought what the president did that day bringing everybody over to hear about our strategy firsthand from you and others, and general dunford, was so important.he pre is a nuclear icbm armed in both grew the most significant threao we face right now as a nation?

>> it is certainly the one that is in the hands of the potential rogue state that we have to consider. >> and visit increasing? >> -- and visit increasing? ther >> every test we assume they're learning from it. >> so we need more missile defense capabilities for our nation? >> i believe we can protect the nation, but as a look to thehe future, absolutely. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i might have a few follow-ups if there's time. >> thank you. on behalf of chairman mccain, senator peters, please. >> thank you to our witnesses today. appreciate this very interesting, informativee this testimony. secretary mattis, in your testimony you describe rapid technological change as an important force acting on the department. effectively you highlighted as one of the four major forces that we have to confront. you and i got the opportunity in my office to talk about how

robotics and autonomous systems to artificial intelligence come all the other technologies will fundamentally change warfare in the next ten years. perhaps much sooner than that. the private sector is leading on many of these developments. for example, ford motor company, general motors both likely have a production self driving automobiles in the next four to five years out in thefi marketplace which is suited than most people realized. secretary mattis, you state in your testimony the fact much of this technological change will come from the commercial sector may expose it to state competitors and nonstate actorsi i'm concern in recent years china has strategically weaponized investment in joint ventures in the united states as a method of improving its capabilities and obtaining advance u.s. technology. the committee on foreign investment in the united states is the us government entity

responsible for vetting foreign investment in the u.s. for national security risks. i'm concerned it's both outdated and overburdened and may not be really up to the challenges that we are facing today. admiral rogers testified last month before this committee thar abhisit understand our sifi structure and its limitations and some nationstates have changed their investment methodology to get around thees process that we have in place. my question is to both of you,ot is there a national security benefit to taking a tougher line against certain types of investment from nations that pose a clear threat to our national security like china? >> absolutely there is put i completely agree your view that it is outdated and needs to be updated to deal with today's situation. >> general? >> i couldn't agree more, senator. i think of the many challenges

that we look at very carefully, the theft of intellectual property take as a pertains to defense programs is of great concern. >> if we go through some reforms which were in the process of working to do that, are there any specific recommendations that you would have for us in changing the process? >> let me send you a note that outlines, i would say right upe? front that there is a lack of restrictions on investment in certain types of technology that we must have put in place, but i can give you a more inclusive list of where our thinking is that on this, if you just give me a couple of days. >> i appreciate that. thank you very much. that would be a helpful. in closing given that that this is one of our major threats that we have to face, which is rapid technological change and a list that you put in your opening

testimony, are there any particular technologies that you are most concerned about and ones that we need to be investing more in our own capabilities? this is to both secretary mattis and general dunford. >> let me come back to you again in private. i would prefer, these are areas that are very sensitive at a don't want to our adversaries know which ones were looking at but we will be wide open, explain exactly what we are p looking at. >> i understand that and appreciate that. i assume that is your same position. >> absolutely. >> i look forward to read with both of you. thank you. >> -- forward to working with both of you. >> i know the chairman has mentioned this several times, but i think repetition matters in terms of getting this message out to the american people. the president said that he was going to have is, historic increases in spending at one point the president said he's

going to expand the army from 480,000, the 540,000. it's my understanding as the chairman has mentioned that, in fact, the president's request for military was exactly 3% higher than president obama. furthermore, i assume you all agree that it calls for zero additional soldiers, correct? >> that's correct right now. >> so does he not know that this is not a historic request? does he not know that, i mean, worry about is the america amern people are being told over and over again we will have a really big, i mean, we will find our military. our military, this is a huge increase in requests. the reality is so different than the rhetoric coming out of the white house, mr. secretary, and it worried that the american people will not understand that we haven't even begun to do what we need to do in terms of

bringing our camp at brigades to with the need to be. i hate to sound like a me too, i think i would have to be a meaning me to you, mr. chairman, but i'm worried that there's some misrepresentation going on. >> senator, if you look at the 30 billion as for as fast as we came into address immediate readiness problems, and i would just call the situation we've inherited that the man's more, we're trying to put together a coherent program on the run while we are engaged overseas while we have numerous crises unfolding while we're still getting people approved through the senate, nominated to thens senate and get the consent of the senate to get them in pictures a fair number of things going on at one time. that's not to say we shouldn't't continue to work along the lines

but i got to come to you with a coherent plan where i can confidently say that the money you throw into this is going to be spent wisely. i did not say that were asking for enough money in this budget. that's what i have a five-year program coming to your. >> i appreciate and i know you're in a difficult position i just think it doesn't help our cause in terms of adequate funding our military. if the president is giving the country -- if the president is giving the country the impression he is. in addition to the strategy for afghanistan, i'm awaiting the strategy on isis which was supposed to be ready 30 days after the president took office. we still have that. finally what i want to turn to his strategy on cyber.de i'm really worried, we spent a lot of worried about the russians hacking politicians. i'm worried about the russians hacking our military and doing the things they're doing in terms of planting stories and

gathering information. fancy bear has been identified by our intelligence and all of intelligence experts as one of the premier agents of russia in terms of cyber warfare, the people that fancy bear has targeted outside of the former soviet union, 41% of them are either current or former members of the military. according to a recent analysis. russia hacked the twitter account of central command. we know that russia has co-opted a very well known veterans site that originally again in america. i do want to use the name of it because it will chase people to the site and it is totally been co-opted as a russian proxy. the america to begin the site, they were seen in video at a meeting of the folks they were working with in damascus and the big giant oversized pictures t behind the were of assad and putin.

this is a site that is asking veterans to help them find jobs, ostensibly helping them with find help for cancer treatment. veterans are giving personal information to this site. we know that attractive women are going on facebook. any old day sh should stand us y into a bar. if the mildred frequented and try to gain relationships one drink at a time. as this recent article pointed out, but now they can do to aag facebook page. so are you all all hands on deck as relates to the way military personnel and veterans? i know general breedlove, they went after him. are you all really paying attention to the corrosive ability of russia to influence our military, to direct contact to social media with our veterans through these proxy sites? >> i know that training is probably the number one way to

arm our people against this sort of thing, and training is perishable. it's got to be ongoing. i have no complacency about this. i'll see if the chairman has anything to offer, but i would just point out that we find it cyber command. we've got all sorts of things went on with nsa that keeps usit posted, puts protections, firewalls and place. we've blocked a number of times as you'd see malicious malware being used when we were not affected. that was not because we were lucky. that was because we were throwing obstacles in the path and building firewalls as fast as we could. all you can do is they had of these. you can build one and say i can go home now. so training and constant attention to the protective measures, i can guarantee is ongoing. i am briefed weekly on this. and the brief itself is pages long as i look at the various blocks and countermeasures we're putting in place.

what we are finding out about what various actors are up to, send it to.. anything else? >> i would probably say two things. i do believe it. i seen it. the service chiefs in particular had really changed the command climate with regard to cyberspace and emphasize that. in violation of the protocol associated with our information technology as violations at uc mj and hold people accountable, and so as a sector said it's about training. it's also about accountability and i think our culture of accountability with regard information technology is i changing great deal. i also think with the support of congress are cyber capabilities, while we continue to need and grow them, they are grown quite a bit. the one owe 33 cyber mission teams that you all approved, 70% of the now are fully operational and capable. if we had this conversation 24, 36 months ago we would eventually but just getting out of the gate. 70% are fully operationally

capable and in the coming months will have 1033 of those teams that are fully operationally capable and continue to identify requirements to make sure we cay stay out of front of the threat. i think the sector use the word complacency and i think your final question is do we get it and i were changing the culture and are we taking effective action to do with the threat? and i do think we have significantly change the culture and none of us believe we are what we need to be. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would say that what it thinks that worries me the most in this article was there was a reported story of a russian soldier in syria and how he had been a wrote in a had died fighting isis. this spread like wildfire to troops in various places. and we've seen an uptick in thee popularity, the approval rating. of putin an in russia in this country. i just worry that there really insidiously trying to insert combat related stories that reflect favor of russian soldiers went instances may not

even be true that is infecting our troops which may be less than a clear eyed about whatth rush is somewhat russians trying to do. i just want to put that on the record. >> this is also understood throughout nato, senator.er a german ministry of defense was explaining to me how one of their soldiers deployed to lithuania i think it was, was alleged to have raped a lithuanian girl. here comes the german bad soldiers in, completely made up story trying to undercut the cohesion of native. i'm just pointing out that this is a military problem. it's accepted as a military problem and we are working it. i think we've got a long ways to go up against this rather imaginative enemy that we've got. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator sullivan has some additional questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to follow up on the north korea discussion briefly.

mr. secretary, general dunford, i know you're korean war history. i forget talk about the korean war. as a matter fact, yesterday in your house armed services testimony, general dunford, you talked about potential conflict on the korean peninsula. solar residents would face casually is unlike anything we've seen in 60 or 70 years. general milley had similar testimony a couple weeks ago before this committee about what the conflict on the korean peninsula to be like. you just mentioned the rapidly developed threat that the northa koreans present in terms of endicott and no ballistic nuclear missile into center grams question, you stated it was a policy for trumpto administration to prevent themro from getting that capability. and i think your strong support from most members of the committee on that. but it certainly does seem like those two issues are going to start colliding relatively soon.

and i know there is a lot of ways to prevent them from getting that kind of capabilityt left of launch kind ofs, activities. but if one of those ways was the decision to take some preemptive military action, i believe that would clearly trigger congresses article one authority with regard to declaring war and you would need busybodies authority to take such action. do you agree with that or is having a discussion in the trume administration, a very big fish are not sure has got enoughhsec. attention. >> i have not brought the issue to the presidents attention. right now as you know from mar-a-lago with the president met with his counterpart to secretary tillerson and i will be followed up with our counterparts next week, or in two weeks here in washington, as with strategic security dialogs

appear we're doing everything we can to avoid resorting to war in terms of protecting ourselves and our allies. >> i think it's an issue that should be on somebody's radar screen. because not that we want that, but part of what the president is been trying to do, and a fully supportive, is get congress to be supportive of this policy. like a mention, that's why thought the briefing at the white house a few months ago was actually very useful. but to continue to have the support we need to be involved and i think that something that this committee needs to be cognizant of that also the white house does as well. let me ask one final question.al in the past six weeks, the russians have sent their bomber missions off the coast of alaska that it had come have been intercepted by rf20 twos, fiveth times in the last six weeks. what you think the russians are

up to with this kind of very persistent checking of our norad systems and that's a pretty active engagement. last time it was not just with bear bombers that with fighter s-corps. what you think they're trying to do in the arctic and what are you trying to achieve and why are they so active of their? >> sir, i'm not sure what they're trying to achieve. when you look at the combination of their cyber threats to democracies, when you look at what they are doing in syria, the barrel bombers. as you put this panoply of activity together, it's very, very concerning and were going to have to turn this around. this cycle is got to be turned around. i think it is going in the wrong direction in terms of stability and peace, and this is where miscalculations can occur.sen. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think the witnesses for the patients.

i thank them for the responses, and i want to emphasize again, mr. secretary, it's not your fault, not yours, secretary norquist, general dunford. but we're not going to sit still while you settle these problems is going on which is preventings this strategy from coming forward. we are moving forward with the authorization, with appropriation and without a strategy. it makes our job ten times harder. i think we've been pretty patient with you. we're going to start puttingng pressure on because we need a s strategy. and to sit here in june 13, 2017, and and say well, don't worry, we will be coming forward with a strategy, things are happening to rapidly in the world.

so you have my greatest respect, admiration, but we are not doing the job for the american people that they expect us to do. so it is white it is. i thank the witnesses and i thank you for being here. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> while the u.s. senate at 4 p.m. eastern today and senate lawmakers are expected to take up the nomination of brock long to be fema administrator with a the confirmation vote set for 5:30 p.m. eastern. news reports say democrats are planning essays and speeches until midnight to protest senate republicans not only committee hearings on the healthcare replacement bill. the house is back tomorrow to debate several homeland security and workforce related bills and there are two special elections on tuesday in georgia and south carolina. , f wednesday montana republican representative elect greg gianforte take will be sworn in. watch the house on c-span and the senate here on c-span two.

>> to a hearing on the ideology behind violent extremism and what the u.s. can do to counter it. foreman national counterterrorism center at director michael leiter testifies before the senate homeland security committee. >> good morning. this hearing is to order. i want to thank the witnessesss for your testimony for taking the time for your courage. the mission of this committee is pretty straightforward. to enhance the economic and national security of america and promote more efficient, effective and accountable government.. the committee really is in respects to committees in one from the house side. we have homeland security and where governmental affairs. this hearing is really focusing on the homeland security side of the committee structure. and within that structure we

have four priorities. border security, cybersecurity, protecting critical infrastructure, and countering extremism and violence in any form, including islamist terrorism. what we try and do in this committee is due this hearing process, lay out a reality. i come from a manufacturing background. solve a lot of problems.e only w .. lem is first admit you have one properly define it, properly describe it, gather the information and admit to the reality. there is no way anybody can deny we have a problem worldwide in terms of extremism and violence. we witness it just a few hours ago on a practice field for a