last year when he was serving as the dod comptroller secretary norquist completed the first dod audit ever. soon thereafter secretary norquist was nominated and then confirmed as eckert -- deputy secretary of defense with overwhelming senate support from both sides of the aisle. he is a wealth of knowledge on these issues and i thank him for being here today. to a a lot of people aside fromy good friend senator perdue who i'm hopeful we'll be here a little bit later, dod audit might not come across as the most interesting topic in the world. however ranking member kaine and i take our oversight responsibilities seriously and are happy to have this important and timely hearing. another responsibility we take seriously is one of providing the funding needed to rebuild our military with a specific focus on restoring readiness. conducting an audit of this magnitude is a massive undertaking as i'm sure we will hear. in fact when secretary norquist arrived it never happened. the pentagon never completed an audit. let me repeat that. in its history the department of defense has never complet

accounts. >> the dod is going to be the one to spend the funds? >> so let me just go back judge word want to your question because you are asking also if i'm understanding correctly about whether this approval of a lower amount for dhs constituted some kind of. >> congresses word on what it would spend for fencing along the southwest border. >> and i think the answer to that is twofold. one point i just made is that wholly apart from that. >> it's not the government. it's still the executive branch. >> if the question is whether congress in the consolidated appropriations act by approving a smalleramount , a lower amount of appropriations and was requested, the gao, government accountability office which is the legislative branch and independent watchdog agency expressly concluded and pointed out that it has reached similar conclusions. >> your referring to your20 8j letter . how much deference to we both the gao. >> judge cavanaugh in the department of the navy opinion refer to that as an expert view and the court should give it appropriate consi

you are coming from the dod side. i served a year in iraq and it was important and i think it's something that the army always does, as i have seen, that we don't want to deliver aid or assistance if it's going to some corrupt, or being delivered in a corrupt way. if we are going to build a medical treatment facility for the iraqis, we want to make sure we are not getting charged ten times as much. we are concerned about corruption in general when we are delivering funds through the dod. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> i think that's a normal thing to want to be concerned about and we would do that in iraq. especially if we are providing payment for something. so i want to go through a few things with you because multiple witnesses have testified that the action to provide javelins to ukraine by the trump administration demonstrates strong u.s. support to ukraine. ambassador yovanovitch in her deposition said president trump's decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine, that our policy got stronger over the last t

aware of a hold being placed on obligation of the state department's military financing or fmf and dod's usai fund. in meetings i heard the president directed the office of management and budget to hold the funds because of his concern for corruption in ukraine. let me say at the outset i have never discussed this or any other matter with the president and never heard directly from him about this matter. at a senior level meeting i attended july 26th chaired by national council security leadership as in all other interagency meetings on this topic of which i was wear, the national security community expressed unanimous support for resuming funding in the u.s. national security interests. at the july 26th meeting there was also a discussion how ukrainian anti-corruption efforts were making progress. dod reiterated what we had said in our earlier certification to congress stating sufficient reform including anti-corruption to justify the usai spending. i and others at the interagency meetings felt that the matter was particularly urgent because it takes time to obligate that amount of mone

it was established in hawaii in 1995 but it's a dod institution that provides a forum where current and future military and civilian leaders from the end of pacific gather to address regional and global security issues and enhance security cooperation through programs of executive education, professional exchange and building relationships ofdi trut and confidence. currently over 30 countries sent participants to engage and learn and build those relationships. the ted stevens arctic security study sensor which is what we seek to namee this arctic center will be monitored after the daniel k asia-pacificft center o the fact that the two of them worked hand-in-hand worked hand-in-hand of national security defense from both the perspective of the far north as well as the asia-pacific is only fitting that we model and arctic center. the head center after the asia pacific center. the senator understands the value of the asian-pacific center and he has joined senator sullivan and i and the cosponsor of this legislation but what we are seeking to do here the overarching goals of this arctic sec

directive 3,009 talked about the judgment in the application of the technologies, the work that the dod has done. and the private sector we have been trying to drive forward on this and not only put out a principles there is a lot in common in these areas, safety, human judgment, accountability, explain ability, fairness in our own critical areas for different actors in the state, each of different things to contribute and that is important. this is a shared responsibility to get this right. as the report notes we need a global framework and approach to these issues endorsing the oecd framework and something that we want to support and we are working together to figure out because at the end of the day we are a proud american company committed to the defense of the united states, our allies and the safety and security of the world and we are here to continue the work and think about places we can work together to build on each other's strengths. >> thank you. >> thank you. general, take us through what you are up to. >> first of all let me say thanks it is great to be here and i thank y

came from dod. there's no congressional hearing, no cost benefit analysis on the impact it was going to have on the force or on military recruiting. >> was there a process in place for lprs serving in the military to have their form, the certification, which is essential to the naturalization process, signed by the proper authorities as required by the 2017 dod policy changes. >> they put out the memo but they didn't do anything to educate people generally about what should be done. there was haphazard memos put out that didn't reach to the lowest levels. if you talk to recruiters today, they'll tell you, soldiers can be naturalized at basic training. they don't realize things have changed. people have told that it's easy to get certified, but you have to wait until you get to your first unit, but when you get there, you can't find anybody to certify it. >> what's the average time it takes for a service member to receive a response to a request once they complete the form. >> it's taking months. the

and, you know, you come from the dod side here. i served a year in iraq. and it was important, and i think it's something that the army always does, as i have seen, that we don't want to deliver aid or assistance if it's going to some corrupt, or being delivered in some corrupt way. in other words if we're going to build a medical treatment facility for the iraqis, we want to make sure we're not getting charged ten times as much. we are concerned about corruption in general when we're delivering funds through the dod. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so, i think that's a normal thing to want to be concerned about. and we would do that in iraq, especially if we're providing payment for something. so i just want to go through a few things with you, because multiple witnesses have testified that the action to provide javelins to ukraine by the trump administration demonstrates strong u.s. support to ukraine. ambassador yovanovitch in her deposition said president trump's decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine, that our policy actually got stronger over

always lined up with what the dod is talking about. a lot of folks will be trained to figure out what does this mean. those existing u.s. bases and what is the impact, that will be a key issue. what is the situation with the kurdish forces? we will see how that plays out. and plenty of regional security issues in iran and iraq, they are always at the top of the list. the president has said he wants u.s. forces out. whether or not that means u.s. forces are out of the middle east is a whole another thing, but i would expect the conversation about how does turkey take a larger role in policing the region to be at the top of trump's agenda. host: how does that complicate our relationship with turkey once it was said they have purchased russian air defense systems? of an advantage does that give russia encountering our technology? the folks up on the hill have been furious about this and have been trying to put certain restrictions and certain limits on how much they can involve turkey. they were a key partner in the f-35 production issues

based on your conversations with colleagues at the dod. at the july 31st interagency meeting, did you share your understanding of a legal mechanisms that were available at that time? >> yes, sir. >> what were they? >> i expressed that it was my understanding that there were two ways that we would be able to implement presidential guidance to stop obligating the ukraine security assistance initiative. in the first option would be for the president to do a rescission. the second is a reprogramming action that the department of defense would do. >> both of those would require congressional notice? >> yes. >> there would be an extra step that the president would have to take to notify congress. as far as you know was there any other notice that was sent to congress? >> sir, i did express that i believe that it will require notice to congress, and then that there was no such notice to my knowledge or preparation of such a notice to my knowledge. >> as far as you know there was no rescission or reprogramming up that money? >> no, sir, not to my

and how we build acceptance for next-generation technology. >> in the dod lens. with that area of convergence and then to drive a stake in the ground and if we don't disagree let's get the conversation going. i can tell you a certainty that china and russia with the public hearings and discussion of the use of artificial intelligence. so people may question what the department is doing in my beer doing it. just to make sure we took into account all the voices of artificial intelligence. you spent time and attention and after those years in uniform with the ethical use of the department of defense with a history along the way of emerging technologies so there are differences of artificial intelligence similar to every other technology in the department here is substantive differences. that's pretty good framework as a way to look at this with artificial intelligence or technology our approach and our training is in place and how we bring it in from the prototype. so now this report is from the secretary of defense what do you think of the reports for the best poss

eventually we needed somebody operationally to implement ai in the entire dod that he was the perfect choice. worked at them in my role as chairman. and the prosecutor who came to silicon valley and worked at ebay and google snagged him about 15 years ago. and during that time all of global policy. very significant players. what i thought we should do since you all have heard from me plenty is perhaps we should just have you make some comments so i thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be with you the public-private partnership i grew up in this community. i was born and spent the few years of my life on military bases and my father had his career in lockheed i made sure that the private defense sector and universities can work together. before we jump in i want to take on two issues up front. i've been frustrated to hear concerns around commitment of national security and to set the record straight on those two issues. first on china africa in 2010 with an attack on our infrastructure. we have learned a lot from that experience and those that have operations in china we have chosen

i want to ask you, miss cooper, you said the money was cleared to go by the dod on may 23rd, is that right? >> that's correct. and it didn't get released until september 11th? >> yes. i should just clarify. the second half of the ukraine security assistance initiative was notified to congress, i believe it was may 23rd and then there was a waiting period for congressional approval and then after that point so in mid-june, roughly it was available for -- >> so perhaps 90 days or so, 95 days, something like that. i don't have a calendar in front of me. >> that sounds right. >> you both testified that the hold of the security assistance was not in the hold of the united states and the hold might embolden russia. we've heard from numerous other witnesses that have come before us and this was not the only issue with the hold. we understand the people within the united states government had significant concerns about the legality of the hold as it relates to the control act. this is because the money had been authorized by congress and signed into law by president trump. miss coop e at the

eventually we needed somebody operationally to implement ai in the entire dod that he was the perfect choice. worked at them in my role as chairman. and the prosecutor who came to silicon valley and worked at ebay and google snagged him about 15 years ago. and during that time all of global policy. very significant players. what i thought we should do since you all have heard from me plenty is perhaps we should just have you make some comments so i thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be with you the public-private partnership i grew up in this community. i was born and spent the few years of my life on military bases and my father had his career in lockheed i made sure that the private defense sector and universities can work together. before we jump in i want to take on two issues up front. i've been frustrated to hear concerns around commitment of national security and to set the record straight on those two issues. first on china africa in 2010 with an attack on our infrastructure. we have learned a lot from that experience and those that have operations in china we have chosen

and you come from the dod side. i served a year in iraq and it was important and i think it's something that the army always does as i have seen this we don't want to deliver aid or assistance if it is going toe some corrupt or being delivered in a correct way if we are going to build a medical treatment facility for the iraqis we want to make sure we are not getting charged ten times as much. gein general when we are delivering funds through the dod is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> that is a normal thing to want to be concerned>> about and we would do that in iraq and especially if we are providing payments for something. i just want to go through a few things with you because multiple witnesses testified strong support. ambassador yovanovitch said the president of trump's decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine the policy of stronger over the last three years. she also said in terms of the anll assistance we felt it was very significant that this administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to

the dod has great work. we do a number of things really well. but when he comes to talent, we are still working in an industrial edge system. it is regulated by the executive branch. regulated by congress and has a number of countries but on that but we need to get beyond that. we need to say beyond the fox. because the theme of the day it is the talent. so like we are in the noncompetitive environment. we're competing against industry and say tanks and these folks are in high demand. their low density, at this. >> given opportunity here with this community at the academic, a mix of civilians etc. is there anything call for them to say about it would help you in your problem-solving. >> i say the more you can help us.out what are the obstacles we are putting in our own way. even if challenges out there. external to us, exogenous. what we need to do better. what are you seeing that i'm not seeing. i try every month to meet with groups of ceos or heads of associations and talk about what can we do better how can we see ourselves better. because ty

dod does great work. we do a number of things really well but when it comes to talent we're still working in industrial age system. it's regulated by the executive branch. it's regulated by congress. it is number of constraints but we have to get beyond that to think outside the box because again at the end of the day it's the talent and it's not like we're in a noncompetitive environment. we are competing industry, competing against think tanks. these folks are in high demand and they are a low density at least pull of talent. >> you have an opportunity here with this community, a a mix of academic and a mix of civilian, et cetera. is there anything you would call for them to think about that would help you in your problem-solving? >> the more you can help us point out what are the obstacles were putting in our own way. we have enough challenges external to us, so what do we need to do better? what you see i don't see? i try every month to meet with groups of ceos or heads of associations and talk about

dod does not have a monopoly on great ideas were certainly in talent. so much of it is coming from the private sector, so we really need your help, and be conscious of what is happening out there in the world. as i like to tell our nato allies and european friends and i was just in brussels two weeks ago talking on this topic, i tell them don't write off what we are saying as the united states scare-mongering, don't think we are overstating the problem. there are serious issues and we have been asleep at the switch for quite some time and we are finally waking up in the past couple years and the national defense strategy has dod pointed in the right direction, saying we are now in an era of great power competition, china is our greatest strategic competitor, russia number two, and we need to be prepared for high intensity conflicts upon -- across five domains of warfare, no longer three. that is where we are headed and we need your help to get there. >> thank you so much, very much. please. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satell

. -- dod reiterated what we said earlier. i and others at the interagency meeting felt the matter was urgent. it takes time to obligate that. [inaudible] i pursued three tracks. on july 31, ig made clear to the inter-agency leadership my understanding that a point wherees it does not have sufficient time to obligate funding by the end of the year, there were only two ways this could be continued. orresident directed decision a directed reprogramming action. this would need to be notified to congress. i never heard that either was being pursued. i was in communication with the dod implementing community to understand when they would reach the point to obligate the funds. i received a series of updates. i and other leaders were informed that over 100 million could not be obligated by september 30. advocating for a meeting with the president to explain why the assistance should go forward. i heard of attempts to discuss the issue with the president, i never received details about conversations. [no audio] my colleagues across th

. >> his came from dod, upper loophole. >> came from dod which did not do any cross analysis no discussion about it. externally. with stakeholders and no analysis on the factors or on military recruiting. >> lpr surfing the military, in 426, requests certication military service which is essential to the naturalization process. signed by the proper authoriti authorities. dod policy changes. >> the put out the demo but they didn't do anything to educate people generally about what should be done and there was haphazard, memos that didn't reach to the lowest levels. in fact if you talk to recruiters today, though still tell you that out, shoulders can be nationalized in basic training. they don't even realize things have changed and people are told that it is easy to get your certified, but you have to wait and take it to your first unit and then we do get there, you can't find anybody who will certify it because there is no public education effort on how to get it certified. >> your experience what is the average time to get a response to the certification. once they have completed the 426.

>> i think the dod is nonpartisan. people focus on look, politics makeup a tiny fraction of percent what i spend time on it is the thing that gets a lot of media attention, people focus on it. reality, dod go through different administrations. they're working on the same projects, there's not a lot of change on partisan basis i think we'll do well under a republican president, well under a democrat president, do well under a libertarian president. if any other party were to get relevance -- >> one of your big backers is peter's fund he seems like he has the president's ear. you say that doesn't have meaningful impact competing for government work? >> i don't think so. i don't think people in the dod take that into account the reason peter is investor in us is not because we agree on the president, it is because founders fund which is his fund was the first in oculus. i have a relationship going back with peter, he believed in virtual reality when there was never a successful virtual reality in history he is able to see

cooper was dod able to put funds into contract before the end of the fiscal year? >> no sir. >> how much was left on obligated quick. >> i believe 35 million that we could obligate 80 percent total. >> and you mentioned because of legislation you could do that. >> we are in the process right now of thee remainder because of the provision in the continuing resolution. >> but literally for an act of congress you could have sent all the money. >> if we did not receive the provision in the continuing resolution we would have obligated 88 percent but not the full amount. >> which ofol course would be a violation of law to not spend money that congress appropriate appropriated. >> i am not a lawyer but that is my understanding. >> secretary hail where were you born? >> michigan. >> your family is from ireland? >> no sir. >> i'm sorry. strike that. next question with 61 - - ambassador yovanovitch youket. said three countries jordan lebanon and pakistan. volume ambassador to those three countries did anybody ever ask for support praising personally the president of the uni

similarly, yes, we need to worry about talent coming into dod funded labs and that kind of thing. but does that mean we need to treat every chinese student as a spy? no. we need to have a sophisticated process for doing to diligence, for vetting people, , money, and so forth. on the one hand, and much more -- much more clear eyed perspective from academia and silicon valley. let's not be naÏve. there's a real concerted effort to get inside our ecosystem, but on the other hand, also realizing that without the benefit of foreign talent we don't win this race. our strength as an immigrant nation has always been attracting the best talent in the world and keeping it. so many founders stores in silicon valley, so many stories of the space race, you know, how we won that and so forth. i think we have to have a very nuanced, clear eyed approach to this, and i don't think we are there yet. >> so with that i i mindful tht it will have 91 half more hours to go with this panel, and i could keep them up here for that whole amount of time but i butd like to open it up to questions from the au

that's a dod authority. unlike the state authority, the dod authority is only a one-year authority. and then third there's opportunity for defense sales. and that is something that we're working with the ukrainians on now so that they can actually purchase u.s. equipment. but the javelins specifically was provided under fmf initially. and now the ukrainians are interested in the purchase of javelins. >> and there wasn't a hold put on purchasing of equipment, is that correct? >> not to my understanding, no. >> can i ask you a non-impeachment inquiry question, mrs. cooper? >> a non what? >> a non-impeachment inquiry question? >> sir, my time is yours. >> what can we do to help the ukrainians defend against russian electronic warfare? what more can we be doing to help defend? >> what i can say in an open hearing is there actually is some electronic warfare detection equipment that is included in the usai package. so there's a piece of capability we're already working to provide them. i think this specific topic, though, is more suitable for a closed door session. >> that's a good copy.

coming from the dod site here. and itd a year in iraq, was important and i think it is something the army always does, as i have seen, that we don't want to deliver aid or assistance if it is going to some, being delivered in some corrupt way. in other words, if we build a medical treatment facility for the iraqis, we want to make sure we aren't getting charged 10 times as much. concerned about corruption in general when we are delivering funds through the dod, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so i think that's a normal thing to want to be concerned about. we would do that in iraq, especially if we were providing payments for something. so i want to go through a few things, because multiple witnesses have testified the toions to provide javelins ukraine by the trump administration demonstrate strong commitment to ukraine. ambassador give ottovich -- to yovanovich said our policy to ukraine got stronger. she also said in terms of lethal assistance, she felt it was very significant this administration made the decisi

worry about to dod fundeding in to labs and that kind of thing. does that mean we need to treat every chinese student as a spy? no. sophisticated process for due diligence, vetting people, money. more clear eye perspective from academia and silicon valley, let's not be naÏve. there is a real concerted effort to get into the insider ecosystem, but also realizing without the benefit of foreign win this race.ot attractingh has been the best talent in the world and keeping it. there are so many stories of the space race. we have to have a very nuanced, clear i approach to this. >> i only have nine and a half hours with this panel. i have a slew here -- one at the very back. one in the middle. the first one at the mike, wins. gentleman in the back? >> one of the common refrains we have received across the leaders dois that not always fully understand or appreciate exactly what new technology can and cannot do. ,f you were going to go back what would you do differently to give tech a bigger seat at the decision-making table? there is the one example th

to me, i think any sort of supply chain related logistics question, some of the stuff that the dod is looking at can make a really big difference. we host an event at the white house about a month ago where we kind of launched our effort on ai and government. i think one of the realizations was the bar was really, really low. something that they have seen as well. you can make a pretty big impact early on. a lot of low hanging fruit. as we try to find this, we often do a great job of educating, training up and finding ways that we can work with people who want to implement ai, but it is not something they have done before. on the civilian side, launching a center of excellence at gsa. this is a model we have used for other efforts where we know that multiple agencies need to move from the cloud. to the cloud for e-mail services 80, 90% of the work that needs to be done to make that transition is the same. whether you are at hyde or sba or anywhere it may be. there is no need to reinvent the wheel every time. they can at least provide an 80% solution for the five most common processes

right now if you put, you know, a slide in front of, you know, a potential dod buyer that shows there was some chinese seed money in a company that they want to invest in or not invest in, buy from, it's usually-- that's the immediate freakout, forget it, no way. whereas, i think you need to draw a distinction between a passive investment where it's just, you know, another investor getting roi and there's no access to nonpublic ip. there's no board seat, there's no controlling interest, nothing, it's just blood in the-- bloodstream of silicon valley. we should not give a hoot about that. that's us using their money to our advantage, right? the very difference, if it's a controlling interest. if they get a board seat, if they get access to ip. these are the kinds of distinctions we need to be making, similarly, yes, we need to worry about talent and coming in to dod-funded labs and that kind of thing. but does that mean we need to treat every chinese student as a spy? no, we need to have a very sophisticated process for doing due diligence, for vetting people, money, and so forth. on t

vision of trust and transparency our national security depends on even those for various reasons view dod was suspicion are reluctant to accept we are in a strategic competition with china i would hope you would agree it is a critical component of our nation's prosperity and self-sufficiency. in other words where you stand with ai technology i submit we can never attain the vision outlined with industry and academia with equal partnership. there's too much at stake to do otherwise. public-private partnerships are the very essence of america's success as a nation across the entire united states government we have to make this triangle. >> i will ask a couple of questions to both of you talk about similar. [laughter] i think it's no sick on --dash secret and is quickly evolving becoming an enterprise company that there are different protocols and different ways of engagement to go along with that that all employees have ended - - have identical views on issues they don't but that debate and discussion is positive as well as a negative so with that constructive debate is america first on one

he could go to darpa or dod and say find us a solution. he knew the architecture of darpa cannot produce it. he saw nc state. finally a solution in 90 days. they had a solution in syria that completely eliminated the recreational drones. >> i would like a copy for virginia. >> we can't take that example and exercise it to where we do it at every commercial airport in america because we can't deploy technology even though we got it. >> this is something we are wrestling with right now. we both got fairly obsessed about the challenges of china. it's a great nation with a great history. has donepresident xi with reconsolidation of power with the party, you look at how the people of hong kong are being treated, we may be dealing with a china that will pose an economic threat unlike anything we have ever faced in our lifetimes. 2025 document, technology areas where they hope to dominate. we have grown up in a world we assumed if it wasn't invented in america where the west, we set the rules and the protocols. china is now setting the rules and

together a great deal of folks but i have always enjoyed my time in service whether the military or dod work around a great group of people that is bigger than the bottom line it seems clichÉ but it is the space race whoever gets there first will dominate largely got there with what you needed. and we need to get their first on ai with continued investment so now were trying to leverage to bring in people and recruit them to use different techniques with a different compensation package so we are looking for ways to get out of our own bureaucratic methods. >> it so good you come from a service background into this position. one of the things we see is the change of war fighting so what do you see now that you are in this position with its challenges in the ai battle cracks what will dod face in the future that is different quick. >> i think i mentioned this it won't change the nature but the character which is a major leap forward if that could happen and it will transcend everything we can do. itnesses ws from the fbi, the justice department and the nfa. this is two hours.

missouri what measures has dod implemented to avoid staffing shortages? >> if you want to know what the staffing shortages came from i mentioned earlier rapid growth or expansion of the institution. we have had positions cut over the years. one year particularly had opened 10 new institutions which are three less than we had the year before. we had 5000 positions are made positions are made from a numbers then what happened last few years as a result of the 3000 vacancies we have now we have uncertain budget years where was predicted we would have significant cuts in budgets staffing. the leaders at the time of your physician were wary about hiring up to much though we didn't want to risk a whole lot of people in the budgie or came out. add to that the attrition. we hired 15,000 inmates -- employees during the 10 years i was director until 2003. they are eligible to retire. that's how we ended up where we are today preloadedd done since i've been here and prior to my arrival we have added lots of incentives regarding locations and financial incentives. i'

started to happen the last couple of years castle run and compile the combat we should say inside the dod has an impact to change the procedures that we have to figure out how to institutionalize with the department of defense and to bring in talent from the outside and then working for start up in the last job but also the chief technical officer comes in and within 24 hours a different view of what we need to do. we need sabbaticals people coming in from academia and secretary of defense that is all beginning to happen at the next level to understand what we are talking about. it is the are two peer relationships. >> we are priming the pump on the important areas whether models of simulation and recruiting different areas. another important component is the kernel is critical that it is difficult for jeff to have security clearances for all elements of that piece so there is that successful individual experiment to build that familiarity to make it easier to have wider adoption. >> it is time to finish up i was to put to bed the notion silicon valley would work with the military we have

based on recommendations from me and other key dod advisors, the department of defense in coordination with the department of state certified in may 2019 that ukraine had "taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability, and sustaining improvements of combat capability." meriting obligation of the entire 250 million in usai funds. this brings me to the topic of today's proceedings. i would like to recap my recognition of the timeline in which these events played out. i testified about all of this at length in my deposition. in july, i became aware of a hold being an obligation of the state department's foreign military financing and dod's usai funds. in a series of interagency meetings, i heard that the president had directed the office of of management and budget to hold the funds becausf his concerns about corruption in ukraine. let me say at the outset that i have never discussed this or any other matter with the president and never heard directly from him about this matter. at a senior level meetin

to dod he is willing anything, including investigating joe biden. the ukrainians gradually claim -- gradually came to understand they were being asked to do something in exchange for a white house meeting or for white house military aid. he said there was no effort to bribe, extort, quid pro quo. the testimony is the talk of washington. genie: let's look up what will happen today. fofour witnesses. that i is in a line of nine. once these impeachchment hearins got started, they would be one after another. we are going to hear from alexander of inman. he testified behind closed doors that he was so alarmed he overheard the actual phone call. he was alarmed by what was shared during that phone call, that he shared his concerns with the top security council. the second witness is jennifer williams. she is a senior advisor to mike pence on europe and russia. wascalled and said she listening to the phone call on july 25. she said what she heard was alarming, unusual and inappropriate. that led to a lot of concerns, mostly among democrats that she -- that

military needs and remains committed to supporting the dod's modernization efforts. we also believe it is critical for our country that the government and its elected leaders administer procurements objectively and in a manner that is free from political influence. numerous aspects of the evaluation process contained clear deficiencies, errors and unmistakable bias and it is important these matters be examined and rectified. they are going to fight this out. it is going to be an interesting battle. we will see what happens. >>> first, it was plant based burgers. then it was plant based shrimp. now quizno's subs is getting into the fray, planning to launch a new sandwich that will have you scratching your head. i guarantee it. wait till you hear about what's next with the fake meat. this is the age of expression. but shouldn't somebody be listening? so. let's talk. we're built for hearing what's important to you, one to one. edward jones. it's time for investing to feel individual. (groans) hmph... (food grunting menacingly) when the food you love doesn't love you bac

always lined up with what the dod is talking about. a lot of folks will be trained to figure out what does this mean. those existing u.s. bases and what is the impact, that will be a key issue. what is the situation with the kurdish forces? we will see how that plays out. and plenty of regional security issues in iran and iraq, they are always at the top of the list. the president has said he wants u.s. forces out. whether or not that means u.s. forces are out of the middle east is a whole another thing, but i would expect the conversation about how does turkey take a larger role in policing the region to be at the top of trump's agenda. host: how does that complicate our relationship with turkey once it was said they have purchased russian air defense systems? of an advantage does that give russia encountering our technology? the folks up on the hill have been furious about this and have been trying to put certain restrictions and certain limits on how much they can involve turkey. they were a key partner in the f-35 production issues

we at dod are grateful for our congress passing a two-year budget agreement that provides the budgetary certainty the department needs to implement the national defense strategy. with that, i'll let lieutenant general fick make his statement, and then i'll be happy to answer questions. >> thank you, ms. lord. and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your interest in the f-35 program. the agreement we announced yesterday is a significant one for the program in a number of ways, not the least of which are its size and overall value, 478 aircraft and $34 billion. this total includes aircraft for all three u.s. services, our international partners, our foreign military sales customers, totaling 351 f-35as, 86 f-35bs and 41 f-35cs. i am proud to be here today to represent the f-35 enterprise and to share with you some of my thoughts on the state of the program. our initial development efforts are coming to a close as initial operational test and evaluation proceeds; but as you are all aware, and as ms. lord just mentioned, we have delayed our milestone c and full-rate production decision unt

these sacrifices are continuallcontinual ly in my mind as i lead dod efforts to provide training and equipment, including lethal assistance to the ukrainian armed forces. i've also supported a robust ukrainian ministry of defense reform to ensure the long-term sustainability of u.s. investments and the transformation of the ukrainian military from a soviet model to a nato interoperable force. the act requires the department of defense to certify defense reform progress to release half of the ukraine security assistance initiative or usai funds, a provision we find very helpful. based on recommendations from me and other key dod advisers, the department of defense in coordination with the department of state certified in may 2018 that ukraine had, quote, taken substantial actions to make institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability and sustaining improvements of combat capability, unquote, meriting obligation of the entire 250 million in usai funds. this brings me to the topic of today's proceedings. i would like to recap my recollection o

dod has made it more difficult for noncitizens to join the military in the first place. immigrants make up about 13.5% of the u.s. population they are now less than 4% of the military. military recruiters report to me they are nativeborn americans and some they cannot find qualified candidates so the billets go unfilled. u.s. cis has recently changed policies or plans to change policies in ways that harm family numbers of military personnel and veterans. policy changes are made without conspiracy or account ability and without asking key stake holders first. i would be remiss if i did not mention the broken promise made to foreign nationals who work with the u.s. government in iraq or afghanistan. many of the workers have tried to get special immigrant visas promised to them by congress but remain in danger while they await background checks that drag on for years. the united states government breaks the promises made to these individual who put their lives on the line and previously passed rigorous background checks american foreign policy and the lives of american mili

are because you get a chance to see this where cutting-edge research is done which comes out of the dod world and we earn credibility with our colleagues that if we come up with colleagues and stay tuned some areas will posell challenges beyond anything we've imagined in the last 50 or 60 years and i think we will have thoughts thank goodness you don't have your committee does not have jurisdiction on that because there's broad bipartisan consensus you cannot get cat videos from. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] moving on, thinking about the work with your committee and i know senator warner is the vice chair and october 8 your committee issued a report entitled russians and social media and let's read a little bit about what you said in your statement. you say that russia is waging an information warfare campaign against the u.s. that did not start and did not end with a 2016 election. senator warner, in your statement you note that now with the 2020 election on the horizon there is no doubt that bad actors will continue to try to weapon eyes the scale and research of social media

what we saw after that, a knock at the door in 17 other federal agencies dod being one and energy being another. then we saw them knock on the door and the private sector saying we want to put people in this model and to date they have provided 30 - 35 solutions for the federal government. in addition to the algorithm they are still trained to write, when he had a problem in syria word recreational drones were dropping explosives and he saw that as the number one threat to his troops, he did not go to darpa or the dod and said find a solution, he knew the arcti arcs cannot produce it. he went to the lab and said find me a solution in 90 days that a solution in syria completely eliminated the risk of recreational drugs. >> advocate copy for virginia. >> we cannot take that example and exercise where we make safe every commercial airport in america. because we cannot deploy technology even though we have it. >> one other thing that we are wrestling with right now we both have barely been obsessed about the challenges from china, china is a great nation, a great history but what president

. >>> san mateo voters going to the polls dod are seeing a -- today are seeing a new voting system on a touch screen tablet. the electric machines do not store the information, instead, their ballots will come out of a printer in their voting booth. this system provides voters with a faster more intuive and successful voting experience. it's the first update since 2006. >>> r london t the race for dis attorney is getting the most tension after george gaston resigned. now san francisco voters will also decide whether to put a sales tax on ride share trips within san francisco. proposition d will put a 3 and 1/4 tax. it would generate more than $30 million a year. it would need 2/3 majority to pass. that money would pay for transit additions and pedestrian safety. now the most expensive raises prop c protobackco groups spent millions of dollars. it seeks to overturn the city wide ban on the sale of vaping products. ecigarette maker juul supported that measure but pulled its campaign funding just a month ago. a no-vote would allow the ban to take effect in january. close call. in the vid