Jack Reed Leads Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing On National Defense Strategy Commission

3 months ago

On Tuesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing to receive testimony on the findings and recommendations of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00:00The NDS commission was

00:00:09established in the fiscal year

00:00:102022 national defense

00:00:11authorization act with the

00:00:14mandate of assessing the 2022

00:00:18NDS and the department's efforts

00:00:19to successfully implement it.

00:00:21During today's hearing, the

00:00:23committee will receive the

00:00:25commission's evaluation of the

00:00:26national security challenges we

00:00:27face with the 2022 NDS remains

00:00:31valid and the effectiveness of

00:00:33the defense department's

00:00:34implementation of the NDS.

00:00:35The commission was chaired by

00:00:37the honorable Jane Harmon who

00:00:39served nine terms in congress

00:00:41as the U.S. representative from

00:00:43California's 36th congressional

00:00:45district and was a ranking

00:00:47member of the intelligence

00:00:48committee for four years after

00:00:509-11.

00:00:51The commission's vice chair

00:00:53is currently a counselor at the

00:00:55center for strategy and

00:00:56policy at the U.S.

00:00:58department of defense.

00:00:59She served as the undersecretary

00:01:01of defense for policy from 2005

00:01:03to 2009, and as U.S.

00:01:06ambassador to Finland and

00:01:08Turkey.

00:01:09I really want to commend the

00:01:11commission for the extraordinary

00:01:13work you have done.

00:01:15Very, very proud of your effort

00:01:17and I know it was intense work

00:01:19over many, many months, so thank

00:01:21you very, very much.

00:01:24The chair and vice chair, but I

00:01:26also want to congratulate their

00:01:29fellow commissioners.

00:01:31General Jack Keane, Thomas

00:01:33Mencken, Meryl Rudman, Maria

00:01:36Sixkiller, Elisa Sosak, and

00:01:38Roger Zakon.

00:01:39Together, you did a remarkable

00:01:41job.

00:01:42The 2022 national defense

00:01:44strategy was written prior to

00:01:46Russia's full-scale invasion of

00:01:48Ukraine and the evolution of the

00:01:50strategic partnership between

00:01:52Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

00:01:54Nonetheless, the 2022 NDS

00:01:57provides an important framework

00:01:59for America's national security.

00:02:01The NDS ranks China as the most

00:02:03consequential strategic

00:02:05competitor, identifies Russia as

00:02:07an acute threat, and addresses

00:02:09the persistent challenges from

00:02:11authoritarian regimes and violent

00:02:13extremists.

00:02:14Indeed, I believe that we

00:02:16currently face the most dangerous

00:02:18complex security environment

00:02:20since World War II.

00:02:22To address these challenges, the

00:02:24NDS proposes four broad missions

00:02:26of the Department of Defense,

00:02:27which include defending the U.S.

00:02:29homeland, deterring strategic

00:02:31attacks against the United States

00:02:33and its allies and partners,

00:02:35deterring aggression while being

00:02:37prepared to prevail in a conflict

00:02:39and building a resilient joint

00:02:41force and defense ecosystem.

00:02:43The NDS also outlines several

00:02:45priorities for building joint

00:02:47capabilities, including the

00:02:49deterrence, campaigning, and

00:02:51actions that will build enduring

00:02:53advantages.

00:02:54And these are well-reasoned

00:02:55priorities.

00:02:56I understand that the NDS

00:02:58Commission agrees broadly with

00:02:59these objectives but has

00:03:01concluded that the Department of

00:03:02Defense is not adapting at the

00:03:04speed or scale necessary to

00:03:06achieve them or meet today's

00:03:08threats.

00:03:09The Commission recommends a

00:03:11fundamental change in the way we

00:03:13approach our national defense,

00:03:15including an overhaul of the

00:03:17Defense Department's

00:03:18partnerships with the U.S.

00:03:20interagency and our allies, a

00:03:22significant investment in the

00:03:23defense industrial base, and a

00:03:25restructuring of the Department's

00:03:27acquisition and procurement

00:03:28process.

00:03:29I look forward to hearing the

00:03:30Commission's specific

00:03:31recommendations on how to make

00:03:33targeted investments and reforms

00:03:35in these areas.

00:03:36Notably, the Commission concludes

00:03:38that the 2022 NDS does not

00:03:40provide an adequate force

00:03:42structure to handle

00:03:44simultaneous conflicts in

00:03:45multiple theaters.

00:03:47The Commission proposes a

00:03:48multiple theater force construct

00:03:50that would resize and

00:03:52restructure the joint force to

00:03:54match regional threats and

00:03:55integrate with regional allies.

00:03:57I would appreciate our witnesses

00:03:59further explaining this

00:04:00construct and what challenges

00:04:02departments may face in

00:04:04implementing it.

00:04:05At its core, the 2022 NDS

00:04:08requires all elements of national

00:04:10power, including military,

00:04:12diplomatic, and economic, to

00:04:14maintain a stable and open

00:04:16international system.

00:04:17However, the Commission concludes

00:04:19that America's civil society must

00:04:21also be reinvigorated as a source

00:04:23of national power.

00:04:24The American public must be

00:04:26educated on the threats we face

00:04:28and encouraged to engage in

00:04:30national service, whether through

00:04:32the military or civil service,

00:04:34and I support the Commission's

00:04:36urgent call to engage more in

00:04:38this area.

00:04:39Ultimately, the 2022 NDS

00:04:41recognizes that the U.S. must

00:04:43modernize and strengthen our

00:04:45military.

00:04:46This will require smart

00:04:48investments in platforms and

00:04:50equipment, rapid development and

00:04:52integration of cutting-edge

00:04:53technologies, and steadfast

00:04:54support for our service members

00:04:56and national security workforce.

00:04:58I would welcome the Commission's

00:05:00insights on how the department

00:05:02is adapting to these complicated

00:05:04issues and the challenges of

00:05:06great power competition.

00:05:07In light of the wide-ranging

00:05:09global security challenges

00:05:10presented by Chinese aggression

00:05:12in the Indo-Pacific region,

00:05:14and the persistent terrorist

00:05:15threat posed by extremist groups

00:05:17and rogue regimes, the committee

00:05:19would appreciate the Commission's

00:05:20assessment of the resources

00:05:22necessary to prevail in strategic

00:05:24competition, as well as its

00:05:26recommendations for strengthening

00:05:27U.S. global engagement and

00:05:29alliances.

00:05:30Let me again thank the members

00:05:31and staff of the Commission.

00:05:33We look forward to your

00:05:34testimony.

00:05:36Before recognizing Senator

00:05:38Wicker, we have a quorum, and I

00:05:42would like to proceed with your

00:05:44permission.

00:05:45Since the quorum is not present,

00:05:47I ask the committee to consider

00:05:49a list of 3,135 pending military

00:05:51nominations and two civilian

00:05:53nominations.

00:05:54First, I ask the committee to

00:05:56consider a list of 3,135 pending

00:05:58military nominations.

00:05:59All of these nominations have

00:06:01been for the committee the

00:06:02required length of time.

00:06:04Is there a motion to favor or

00:06:06report this list of 3,135 pending

00:06:08military nominations to the

00:06:09Senate?

00:06:10Is there a second?

00:06:11All in favor say aye.

00:06:12The motion carries.

00:06:13Finally, I ask the committee to

00:06:15consider the following civilian

00:06:16nominations.

00:06:17Ms. Tonya P. Wilkinson to be

00:06:19Undersecretary of Defense for

00:06:20Intelligence and Security, and

00:06:22Dr. Michael L. Solmeier to be

00:06:24Assistant Secretary of Defense

00:06:25for Cyber Policy.

00:06:26Is there a motion to favor or

00:06:28report these two nominations?

00:06:29Is there a second?

00:06:31All in favor say aye.

00:06:32The motion carries.

00:06:33Thank you very, very much.

00:06:35Senator Wicker, please.

00:06:36Thank you very much, Mr.

00:06:38Chairman.

00:06:39I want to congratulate you on a

00:06:41very fine opening statement,

00:06:43which I fully subscribe to.

00:06:45We have two very distinguished

00:06:48witnesses today, and this may

00:06:51possibly be the most important

00:06:53hearing we will have this year,

00:06:56but I have to say I very much

00:06:59appreciate the service of

00:07:01Representative Harmon and

00:07:03Ambassador Edelman.

00:07:07Let's go back six years.

00:07:10This committee began holding

00:07:14hearings on the first National

00:07:16Defense Strategy Commission

00:07:18report, which reviewed the 2018

00:07:22National Defense Strategy.

00:07:24The first NDS report was

00:07:26important, helped us make

00:07:27significant bipartisan progress

00:07:29toward improving our national

00:07:31defense.

00:07:33We lost Chairman Jim Inhofe just

00:07:37a few weeks ago.

00:07:38Many of us will remember that he

00:07:41in particular admired that

00:07:44report.

00:07:45He would often hold the report

00:07:48up and wave it around at

00:07:49hearings.

00:07:50His enthusiasm proved that the

00:07:52NDS served as a guiding light

00:07:54for him, and it prompted all of

00:07:56us to consider the report's

00:07:58recommendations.

00:07:59The global security environment

00:08:01has worsened much faster than

00:08:03we expected back in 2018.

00:08:06The first time that the first

00:08:09line of a new 2024 NDS

00:08:12commission report summarizes the

00:08:14situation in which we find

00:08:16ourselves.

00:08:17I will quote that line.

00:08:19The threats the United States

00:08:21faces are the most serious and

00:08:23most challenging the nation has

00:08:26encountered since 1945 and

00:08:29include the potential for near

00:08:32term major war.

00:08:34Unquote.

00:08:37A dramatic and forceful

00:08:40statement.

00:08:41It turns out that the commission

00:08:44believes that we are not at all

00:08:47where we need to be, and I think

00:08:50members of the committee

00:08:51understand this.

00:08:53We understand clearly there's no

00:08:55time to waste.

00:08:56The commission report notes that

00:08:58our military capacity and

00:08:59capabilities are insufficient to

00:09:01meet the current requirements at

00:09:03acceptable risk.

00:09:04The document details the way in

00:09:07which the 2022 national defense

00:09:10strategy and assessment

00:09:11completed just two years ago did

00:09:13not adequately account for the

00:09:15threat of simultaneous and

00:09:18increasingly coordinated

00:09:20military action by our four

00:09:22primary adversaries, a group

00:09:25which I have come to call the

00:09:27axis of aggressors.

00:09:29The report correctly notes that

00:09:31with the possible exception of

00:09:33the department of defense, the

00:09:34U.S.

00:09:35Government is not acting with

00:09:37alacrity or making so-called

00:09:39whole of government strategies

00:09:41more than simply a buzz word.

00:09:43It aptly describes our hollow,

00:09:46brittle defense industrial base

00:09:48and painfully Byzantine

00:09:50bureaucratic process.

00:09:51The report also finds that we

00:09:53cannot fix these problems

00:09:55without increasing defense

00:09:57spending.

00:09:59Thankfully, this committee has

00:10:01added a $25 billion top line

00:10:03increase for the fiscal year

00:10:062025 NDAA.

00:10:08Even that increase, a 3.8%

00:10:11nominal addition, would fall

00:10:13short of the commission's

00:10:15recommendation, fall well short.

00:10:17The report endorses a 3 to 5%

00:10:20real increase this year with

00:10:22inflation running above 2%.

00:10:24I appreciate the commission's

00:10:26recommendation that national

00:10:28security spending must return to

00:10:30late cold war levels, a goal

00:10:32which matches my plan to spend

00:10:365% eventually of GDP on defense.

00:10:40That level of investment would

00:10:42be temporary.

00:10:43It would be a down payment on

00:10:45the rebuilding of our national

00:10:47defense tools for a generation,

00:10:49tools that if sharpened can

00:10:51reduce the risk that our

00:10:53adversaries will use military

00:10:55force against U.S. interests,

00:10:58peace through strength.

00:11:00The 2018 and 2022 defense

00:11:03strategies both recommended a

00:11:05vague force sizing requirement.

00:11:08The mandate called for the U.S.

00:11:10military to have sufficient

00:11:12forces to defeat either China or

00:11:15Russia in a major conflict

00:11:18while simultaneously deterring

00:11:20other adversaries.

00:11:21That force sizing construct

00:11:24failed to provide a useful

00:11:26measuring stick by which to

00:11:28determine the ideal size and

00:11:30capability of the U.S.

00:11:32military.

00:11:33I would appreciate the

00:11:35commissioners expanding upon

00:11:37their new force sizing construct

00:11:40which proposes that we be able

00:11:42to lead coalitions that can

00:11:45defeat both China and Russia

00:11:49while continuing to maintain

00:11:51deterrence elsewhere.

00:11:52I would also like our witnesses

00:11:54to explain a claim they make in

00:11:56the report.

00:11:57The document contends that the

00:11:59American public does not

00:12:01appreciate the threat

00:12:02environment and therefore does

00:12:04not understand why a strong

00:12:06defense is necessary to ensure a

00:12:08bright future for our country.

00:12:12Very perceptive.

00:12:13This is a perspective that echoes

00:12:16concerns expressed by the recent

00:12:18congressional strategic posture

00:12:20commission.

00:12:21I'm of the opinion that this is

00:12:23largely the fault of the U.S.

00:12:25government.

00:12:26The executive and legislative

00:12:28branches alike for failing to

00:12:30make the case to the American

00:12:32people.

00:12:33Mr. Chairman, I could go on and

00:12:35on.

00:12:36I would simply say that I

00:12:38appreciate the great deal of the

00:12:40commission report.

00:12:41I'm grateful for the work of all

00:12:43eight bipartisan commissioners

00:12:44and their staff.

00:12:45Thank you for calling each and

00:12:47every name of the commissioners

00:12:49and I hope their labor can help

00:12:51guide us as we write a new

00:12:53national defense strategy and the

00:12:55legislation that will follow to

00:12:57allow us to regain our military

00:13:00edge and avoid wars in the years

00:13:02to come.

00:13:03Again, Mr. Chairman, I

00:13:05congratulate you on your opening

00:13:07statement and I subscribe to it

00:13:09and I yield back.

00:13:10Thank you, sir.

00:13:11Thank you very much, Senator

00:13:13Wicker.

00:13:14Now let me recognize chairwoman

00:13:16Harmon.

00:13:17Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:13:19And it's a pleasure to appear

00:13:21before you, ranking member

00:13:23Wicker and so many other members

00:13:25of this committee whom I serve

00:13:27with in the house and who are

00:13:29very good friends.

00:13:30I'm happy to be back.

00:13:32And as you know, Mr. Chairman, I

00:13:34almost wasn't back today because

00:13:37yesterday afternoon at Boston

00:13:40children's hospital, my youngest

00:13:42child, a daughter, had four

00:13:45years old and had very

00:13:48experimental surgery which has

00:13:50resulted, we hope, in her fetus

00:13:55becoming healthy and hopefully

00:13:57she will give birth in a few

00:13:59weeks and it's quite a miracle

00:14:01and obviously I was going to

00:14:03stay there if things had not

00:14:05gone well.

00:14:06But I mention this not only

00:14:08because it's top of mind but

00:14:10also because it makes clear how

00:14:13important this country is and

00:14:15how important what we offer in

00:14:17terms of health care and other

00:14:19services and benefits to the

00:14:21American people is.

00:14:22And it's worth fighting for this

00:14:24country.

00:14:25And that's what our report is

00:14:27about.

00:14:28We try to make the case about

00:14:30how it is worth fighting for our

00:14:32country.

00:14:33And some pundits have already

00:14:35said, well, it's a good report

00:14:37but it will gather dust on

00:14:39shelves.

00:14:40I sure hope not.

00:14:42But the last commission on a

00:14:44bipartisan basis was unanimous

00:14:46in our recommendations and we

00:14:48are dedicated to making sure

00:14:50they get implemented and I just

00:14:52suggest to you and I listened to

00:14:54your opening statements, I think

00:14:56you're dedicated on a

00:14:57bipartisan basis to making that

00:14:59happen, too.

00:15:00So let's not waste a minute.

00:15:02In that vein, Eric Edelman, our

00:15:07vice chair who co-chaired the

00:15:09last commission is sitting next

00:15:11to me.

00:15:12I'm going to give you a moment

00:15:14but let me make a few points.

00:15:16Our commissioners who are

00:15:17sitting on a bipartisan basis

00:15:19right over there have been

00:15:21introduced, Tom Enk and

00:15:23Rodgers.

00:15:24But you did not introduce the

00:15:26vaunted staff sitting behind me

00:15:28on a bipartisan basis, ably led

00:15:31by David Grannis, whom you may

00:15:34know was the chief of staff to

00:15:36the late Dianne Feinstein for

00:15:38many years here and who was

00:15:40distinguished in my capacity as

00:15:42a member of the house.

00:15:44You mentioned when the NDS was

00:15:46written.

00:15:47You mentioned when we were

00:15:49created.

00:15:50But I just underscore again that

00:15:52we think and you said it, too,

00:15:55that the threats to U.S.

00:15:58national security and our

00:15:59interests are greater than any

00:16:01time since World War II and more

00:16:04complex than any threats during

00:16:06the cold war.

00:16:08Significant and urgent action

00:16:09is needed.

00:16:10We recommend fundamental change

00:16:12in the way the Pentagon and other

00:16:15government agencies do business,

00:16:17the way they incorporate private

00:16:19sector technology and a full

00:16:21embrace of our partners and

00:16:23allies.

00:16:24Shorthand for this is we

00:16:27recommend using all elements of

00:16:29national power.

00:16:31Our report includes actionable

00:16:33recommendations which we will

00:16:35highlight in just a moment

00:16:37including one that is being

00:16:38implemented today.

00:16:39And that is telling the public

00:16:41how grave the threats are.

00:16:43Sadly we think and I'm sure you

00:16:45agree that the public has no

00:16:47idea how great the threats are

00:16:49and is not mobilized to meet

00:16:51them.

00:16:52Public support is critical to

00:16:54implement the changes we need to

00:16:56make.

00:16:57Leaders on both sides of the

00:16:59aisle and across government need

00:17:01to make the case to the public

00:17:03and get their support.

00:17:05Eric.

00:17:07Thank you.

00:17:08Chairman Reed, ranking member

00:17:11Wicker and members of the

00:17:12committee, it's a pleasure to be

00:17:14back before you again.

00:17:15I think this is the 11th time

00:17:17I've testified in front of this

00:17:19committee.

00:17:20And I do want to say one thing

00:17:23which we could not have come to

00:17:26a unanimous bipartisan

00:17:28conclusion of this report

00:17:30without the leadership of our

00:17:32chair Jane Harmon who worked

00:17:34tirelessly and fatigably to get

00:17:36us there.

00:17:37These are difficult issues that

00:17:39we wrestled with and which you

00:17:41wrestled with every day.

00:17:43But I really want to just

00:17:45commend Jane for the leadership

00:17:47she demonstrated in leading our

00:17:49commission.

00:17:50Several of our commissioners

00:17:52served on the 2018 commission

00:17:55and general Jack keen who is not

00:17:57able to be with us today

00:17:59actually served with me on the

00:18:012010 commission.

00:18:02The 2010 commission said that we

00:18:04were facing a train wreck

00:18:06because threats were gathering

00:18:08but defense resources were

00:18:10declining.

00:18:11In the 2014 national defense

00:18:14panel, we said that the budget

00:18:17control act had been a strategic

00:18:19misstep that had hampered U.S.

00:18:21defenses and that we needed to

00:18:23go back to threat-based defense

00:18:25budgeting as secretary Gates had

00:18:27last done before the BCA in his

00:18:30FY11 budget.

00:18:31And last time we raised the

00:18:33question of whether the United

00:18:35States might find itself in a

00:18:37conflict it could lose if

00:18:39current trends continued.

00:18:41Six years later when we came

00:18:43back to this task, the threats

00:18:45are more serious and we found

00:18:47that we as a nation have failed

00:18:49to keep pace.

00:18:51As you said, chairman Reed, and

00:18:53as secretary Gates has said in an

00:18:55important article he wrote in

00:18:57foreign affairs, this is the

00:19:00most challenging global security

00:19:02environment since the second

00:19:04world war.

00:19:05There is potential for near-term

00:19:07war and a potential that we

00:19:09might lose such a conflict.

00:19:11The partnership that's emerged

00:19:13among China, Russia, Iran and

00:19:16North Korea is a major strategic

00:19:18shift that we have not

00:19:20completely accounted for in our

00:19:22defense planning.

00:19:23It makes each of those countries

00:19:25potentially stronger militarily,

00:19:27economically and diplomatically

00:19:28and potentially can weaken the

00:19:30tools we have at our disposal to

00:19:32deal with them.

00:19:33And it makes it more likely that

00:19:35a future conflict, for instance

00:19:37in the Indo-Pacific, would

00:19:39expand across other theaters and

00:19:41that we would find ourselves in

00:19:43a global war that is on the

00:19:46scale of the second world war.

00:19:49The 2022 NDS identified China as

00:19:52the pacing challenge.

00:19:54We found that China is in many

00:19:56ways outpacing the U.S.

00:19:58While we still have the

00:20:00strongest military in the world

00:20:02with the farthest global reach,

00:20:04when we get to 1,000 miles of

00:20:06China's shore, we start to lose

00:20:08our military dominance and could

00:20:10find ourselves on the losing end

00:20:12of a conflict.

00:20:13China's cyber capabilities, space

00:20:15assets, growing strategic forces

00:20:17and fully modernized conventional

00:20:19forces are designed to keep us

00:20:21from engaging in the Taiwan

00:20:23strait or the south or east China

00:20:25seas.

00:20:26China has been testified to

00:20:28before Congress has infiltrated

00:20:30our critical infrastructure

00:20:32networks to prevent or deter U.S.

00:20:34action by contesting our

00:20:36logistics, disrupting American

00:20:38power and water and otherwise

00:20:40removing the sanctuary of the

00:20:42homeland that we have long

00:20:44enjoyed.

00:20:45For its part, Russia has

00:20:47reconstituted its own defense

00:20:49industrial base after its

00:20:50invasion of Ukraine much more

00:20:52rapidly than people anticipated.

00:20:54Vladimir Putin seeks to reassert

00:20:56Russia as a great power and is

00:20:58happy to destabilize the world

00:21:00in order to do so.

00:21:02Our report describes threats

00:21:04posed by Iran, North Korea and

00:21:06terrorism as well.

00:21:07Clearly Iran and North Korea

00:21:09both feel emboldened by the

00:21:11current environment and

00:21:12terrorism remains a potent threat

00:21:14fueled by the proliferation of

00:21:16technology.

00:21:17As the DNI has said, the current

00:21:19war in the Middle East is likely

00:21:21to have a generational impact on

00:21:23terrorism.

00:21:24We share the goal I think as a

00:21:26commission unanimously of the

00:21:29NDS that our purpose is to

00:21:31deter war.

00:21:32But doing so is going to require

00:21:34moving with a greater sense of

00:21:36urgency and determination beyond

00:21:38what we have seen over the last

00:21:40couple of decades.

00:21:42Mr. Chairman, we are at ten

00:21:44minutes and happy to submit the

00:21:46rest of our testimony if you

00:21:48prefer and take questions or we

00:21:50can briefly summarize our

00:21:52findings.

00:21:53Which would be better?

00:21:55I think the vice chair and I

00:21:58would like you to go ahead.

00:22:00Thank you.

00:22:01Thank you very much.

00:22:03So we're sharing this.

00:22:05First finding, DOD cannot and

00:22:08should not provide for the

00:22:10national defense by itself.

00:22:13The NDS calls for an integrated

00:22:15deterrence that is not reflected

00:22:17in practice today.

00:22:19Truly all elements of national

00:22:21power approach is required to

00:22:23coordinate and leverage resources

00:22:25across DOD, the rest of the

00:22:27executive branch, the private

00:22:29sector, civil society, and U.S.

00:22:32allies and partners.

00:22:34We agree with the NDS on the

00:22:36importance of allies and we

00:22:38commend the administration for

00:22:40expanding and strengthening NATO

00:22:42and building up relationships

00:22:44and capabilities across Asia.

00:22:46We also point out ways for the

00:22:48United States to be better

00:22:50partners ourselves, including by

00:22:52maintaining a more stable

00:22:54presence globally and in key

00:22:57organizations like NATO.

00:22:59We call for reducing barriers to

00:23:01intelligence sharing, joint

00:23:03production, and military exports

00:23:05so we can better support and

00:23:07prepare to fight with our closest

00:23:09allies.

00:23:10Second recommendation is

00:23:12fundamental shifts in threats

00:23:14and technology require

00:23:16fundamental change in how DOD

00:23:19functions.

00:23:20This is particularly true of how

00:23:23DOD works with the tech sector

00:23:25where most of our innovation

00:23:27happens.

00:23:28We say that DOD is operating at

00:23:30the speed of bureaucracy when the

00:23:33threat is approaching wartime

00:23:35urgency.

00:23:36DOD's structure is optimized for

00:23:38research and development for

00:23:40exquisite irreplaceable

00:23:42platforms when the future is

00:23:44autonomy, AI, and large numbers

00:23:46of cheaper and attritable

00:23:48systems.

00:23:49I know this because I

00:23:51represented the aerospace center

00:23:53of Los Angeles in Congress for

00:23:55so many years where exquisite

00:23:57irreplaceable satellite

00:23:59platforms were built, and now we

00:24:01know that there is a plethora of

00:24:03commercial platforms that can do

00:24:05many of the same things and offer

00:24:07redundancy.

00:24:08DOD programs like replicator and

00:24:11the defense innovation unit and

00:24:13the office of strategic capital

00:24:15are great, but they're

00:24:17essentially efforts to work

00:24:19around the larger pentagon

00:24:21system.

00:24:22In addition, since the 2018

00:24:24report, the joint staff has

00:24:26worked to develop operational

00:24:28concepts to overcome deficits in

00:24:30numbers and geography.

00:24:31Our commission finds that there

00:24:33is more work to be done to truly

00:24:36operate a joint force with

00:24:38technological and strategic

00:24:41advantage.

00:24:46Thank you.

00:24:47Mr. Wicker, you raised the issue

00:24:49of the force sizing construct in

00:24:51your opening statement, and we,

00:24:53as you noted, found that it is

00:24:55inadequate.

00:24:56I mean, it was written actually

00:24:58before the invasion of Ukraine

00:25:00and before the emergence of this

00:25:03tightening alliance between

00:25:05Russia and China, and we propose

00:25:08that the force needs to be sized

00:25:11the joint force in conjunction

00:25:13with U.S.

00:25:14partners to defend the homeland

00:25:16but simultaneously be able to

00:25:18deal with threats in the

00:25:20Indo-Pacific, Europe and the

00:25:21Middle East.

00:25:22These are not all the same

00:25:24fight, so different elements of

00:25:26the force would be required in

00:25:28different parts of the globe,

00:25:30but U.S.

00:25:31global responsibilities require

00:25:33a global military response as

00:25:35well as a diplomatic and

00:25:37economic one.

00:25:38President Putin in some ways has

00:25:40done us a bit of a favor by

00:25:43invading Ukraine and exposed as

00:25:45a result some of the limitations

00:25:47of U.S.

00:25:48defense industrial production

00:25:49and shown that it's grossly

00:25:51inadequate to provide the

00:25:52equipment technology and

00:25:54munitions that the U.S.

00:25:55military and our allies and

00:25:57partners need today, let alone

00:25:59given demands of a potential

00:26:01future conflict, which might be

00:26:03even more taxing.

00:26:05The DOD workforce and the all

00:26:07volunteer force provide us with

00:26:09a kind of unmatched advantage

00:26:12but recruiting failures have

00:26:14shrunk the force and have raised

00:26:16serious questions about the

00:26:18sustainability of the all

00:26:19volunteer force in peacetime,

00:26:21let alone if we had to mobilize

00:26:23for a major conflict or a

00:26:25protracted conflict.

00:26:26The civilian workforce at DOD

00:26:28and in the private sector also

00:26:30face critical shortfalls and we

00:26:32can discuss some of that later

00:26:35in the hearing.

00:26:37Just a few more findings.

00:26:39We found that the joint force is

00:26:42at the breaking point of

00:26:44maintaining readiness today.

00:26:46Adding more burden without

00:26:48adding resources to rebuild

00:26:50readiness will cause it to

00:26:52break.

00:26:53And secondly, we found that the

00:26:56United States must spend more

00:26:59but also spend better.

00:27:01This is a point we make

00:27:03consistently.

00:27:04It's not just more legacy

00:27:06programs.

00:27:07It's more spending that gets us

00:27:09to the ability to deter and win

00:27:12future wars.

00:27:13Additionally, we think that

00:27:15Congress should revoke the

00:27:172023 spending caps and provide

00:27:19real growth.

00:27:20I know senator wicker loves this

00:27:22one.

00:27:23For fiscal year 2025 defense and

00:27:26non-defense national security

00:27:28spending that at a bare minimum

00:27:31falls within the range of

00:27:33recommended by the 2018 NDS

00:27:35commission.

00:27:36That range was never achieved.

00:27:38Subsequent budgets will require

00:27:40spending that puts defense and

00:27:42other components of national

00:27:44security, other components

00:27:46jointly across government and

00:27:48the tech sector and partners and

00:27:51allies, other components on a

00:27:55glide path to support efforts

00:27:57commensurate with the U.S.

00:27:59national efforts seen during the

00:28:01cold war.

00:28:02But we agree, and let me

00:28:04underscore this because some of

00:28:06the commentary about our report

00:28:08has missed this.

00:28:09We agree on a unanimous basis

00:28:11that the national debt is its

00:28:13own national security challenge.

00:28:16If we want to approach cold war

00:28:19levels of spending, we need to

00:28:21increase resources and reform

00:28:24entitlement spending.

00:28:26During the cold war, top

00:28:28marginal income tax rates were

00:28:30above 70% and corporate tax

00:28:32rates averaged 50%.

00:28:34We don't call for those numbers,

00:28:36but we are calling for an

00:28:39increase in resources and point

00:28:41out that interest on the debt is

00:28:44higher than our total number of

00:28:48the total top line of defense

00:28:50spending.

00:28:51So, Mr. Chairman, ranking member

00:28:53wicker and many good friends on

00:28:55this important committee, we

00:28:57thank you for your role in

00:28:59establishing our commission, and

00:29:01we're happy to share our report

00:29:04with you, and we welcome the

00:29:06opportunity to answer questions.

00:29:08Thank you.

00:29:09Well, thank you very much, chair

00:29:12woman Harmon and vice chair

00:29:15Edelman for your impressive and

00:29:17sobering testimony.

00:29:20Just to reiterate, you've said

00:29:22it several times, but it's

00:29:24important to note is that our

00:29:26funding can't be exclusive to

00:29:28the department of defense.

00:29:29We have to look at the department

00:29:31of treasury, department of

00:29:32state.

00:29:33You even indicate the department

00:29:34of education because of the

00:29:36shortfalls we're seeing in

00:29:37recruitment, which can be traced

00:29:39back to a very poor education

00:29:41and very poor public health,

00:29:43obesity.

00:29:44Just again, representative

00:29:46Harmon, ambassador Edelman, your

00:29:48comments on that.

00:29:50Yes.

00:29:51Thank you.

00:29:52Absolutely.

00:29:53All elements of national power.

00:29:56The U.S.

00:29:57Needs to project power across

00:29:59our government, leverage the

00:30:01enormous talent and innovation

00:30:03of the tech sector, connect both

00:30:05of those to partners and allies,

00:30:08and then we have impressive

00:30:11deterrence and in the kind of

00:30:14integrated deterrence that the

00:30:16NDS, the 2022 NDS calls for that

00:30:20has never been achieved.

00:30:22Thank you.

00:30:24When I was in the service a long,

00:30:26long time ago, the stock phrase

00:30:28was shoot, move and communicate.

00:30:30Now I believe the phrase is

00:30:32communicate so that you can

00:30:34shoot and move.

00:30:35One of the key elements I think

00:30:37is we have tried but we're not

00:30:39there yet with a communication

00:30:42system that reaches every aspect

00:30:44of our military, which is

00:30:46uninterruptible and which is

00:30:48dependable.

00:30:49Ambassador Edelman, your

00:30:50thoughts on that issue.

00:30:52No, I very much agree with that

00:30:54and that, of course, what the

00:30:56joint all domain command and

00:30:58control system is meant to

00:31:00address.

00:31:01But as you say in your as you

00:31:04suggested in your question,

00:31:06Chairman Reed, the department is

00:31:08not quite there yet and we're of

00:31:10course it's complicated by the

00:31:12fact that the system is being

00:31:15done by all three services and

00:31:17then has to be brought together

00:31:19and unified.

00:31:20So there's a lot of work to be

00:31:22done on that and it's one of the

00:31:24areas where we think

00:31:26insufficient progress has been

00:31:27made.

00:31:28In terms of priority, I would

00:31:30think it would be very, very

00:31:31high on the list.

00:31:32It's not number one.

00:31:33As I said, if you can't

00:31:35communicate, you can't do lots

00:31:37of things.

00:31:38Is that your feeling?

00:31:39Absolutely.

00:31:40If I could just add one thing to

00:31:42that.

00:31:43We call for interoperability,

00:31:45which has not been achieved

00:31:47across the Pentagon, let alone

00:31:49with other government agencies,

00:31:50let alone with partners and

00:31:52allies, and we make a point that

00:31:54some of our classification

00:31:56systems work against each other

00:31:58in terms of sharing information

00:32:00and the goal would be to have an

00:32:02effective communication system

00:32:04across all elements of national

00:32:06power.

00:32:07Thank you.

00:32:08The other one of the many points

00:32:11and you've emphasized and I think

00:32:13importantly so is we have to

00:32:15engage the American people, not

00:32:17just in getting out the word

00:32:19about the threat but also getting

00:32:21them involved, and that puts a

00:32:23big emphasis on public service,

00:32:25not just in the military domain

00:32:27but in civilian public service,

00:32:30and can you just elaborate on

00:32:34those starting with Chairman

00:32:37Harmon?

00:32:38Well, the notion of public

00:32:40service isn't new, as you know,

00:32:42Mr. Chairman.

00:32:43It's been around for years.

00:32:45It was around when I served in

00:32:47Congress, and Congress did not

00:32:49act on any of the proposals that

00:32:51I saw.

00:32:52It is still a way to get all of

00:32:56the public at the proper age

00:32:59engaged in understanding the

00:33:01requirements of citizenship.

00:33:03A lot of our young people have

00:33:05no earthly idea, sadly, because

00:33:08they have no civic education,

00:33:10what our government really is

00:33:12and what are the ways to serve

00:33:14and surely one of the most

00:33:16honorable ways to serve is as a

00:33:18member of the military.

00:33:19You did it, and other members of

00:33:21this committee have done this,

00:33:23and I think that is the way to

00:33:25revive a kind of sense of

00:33:27coherence and patriotism that we

00:33:29are lacking right now.

00:33:31And adding to this, Ambassador

00:33:33Edelman, is the point you make

00:33:35in the report.

00:33:36The size of our military force

00:33:38is too small, and our ability to

00:33:40expand it rapidly is probably

00:33:44very weak.

00:33:45Is that a fair estimate of our

00:33:48situation?

00:33:49I think that is a fair estimate,

00:33:51Mr. Chairman.

00:33:52You know, we have not really as

00:33:54a society talked about the need

00:33:56for national mobilization, but

00:33:58if the worst were to happen and

00:34:01some of the worst scenarios we

00:34:03discuss in our report were to

00:34:05come to pass and were we to face

00:34:08a global conflict, it would

00:34:12require mobilization on the

00:34:13scale of what we did as a nation

00:34:15during World War II, and we

00:34:17haven't done that in a long

00:34:19time.

00:34:20We haven't thought about that in

00:34:21a long time.

00:34:22There are a lot of elements to

00:34:24it, including stockpiling

00:34:25strategic materials, but being

00:34:27able to rapidly bring people

00:34:29into the military, et cetera,

00:34:31and I just don't think we're

00:34:33prepared to do it.

00:34:34I think we have to have a

00:34:36national discussion about this,

00:34:37and I think it goes hand in hand

00:34:39with the earlier discussion you

00:34:40had with my colleague about

00:34:43national, about public service

00:34:45and serving the nation.

00:34:48We had in World War II two

00:34:51years, essentially from

00:34:52September 1st, 1939 to December

00:34:557th, 41, to prepare, and I doubt

00:34:58we'll have two years to prepare

00:35:00in this environment.

00:35:01Thank you very much.

00:35:03Senator Worker, please.

00:35:05Well, thank you very much for

00:35:07your testimony, and again, thank

00:35:09you, Mr. Chairman.

00:35:11There was a time when we could

00:35:13sort of count on a rivalry

00:35:15between Russia and China.

00:35:17We don't see much of that

00:35:19anymore, and of course, I've

00:35:23spoken of this axis of

00:35:26aggressors.

00:35:27How are they cooperating with

00:35:29each other now, and in a real

00:35:33crisis, what do we need to look

00:35:36out for about increased

00:35:38cooperation among the four

00:35:41countries that I've identified?

00:35:44That includes, of course, Iran

00:35:47and North Korea.

00:35:48Representative Harmon.

00:35:49Well, I think Ambassador

00:35:50Edelman would want to add to

00:35:52this, but I remember being a

00:35:54member of the Defense Policy

00:35:56Board when Jim Mattis was

00:35:58Secretary of Defense, and his

00:36:01piece of advice to us was let's

00:36:03do everything we can to keep

00:36:05Russia and China apart.

00:36:07Well, oops, that has not

00:36:09happened, and there is a, you

00:36:11know, this close friendship and

00:36:14collaboration between them.

00:36:16You asked how is it manifested.

00:36:19Well, we see it most at the

00:36:21moment in Ukraine, where Russia

00:36:24was the aggressor, violating

00:36:26international law and invading

00:36:28Ukraine, and China is a huge

00:36:31help to Russia in evading our

00:36:35sanctions by buying Russian gas

00:36:38and by its efforts to ship into

00:36:41China material for the war, and

00:36:44then you add in, as you

00:36:46mentioned, Iran and North Korea,

00:36:49which are suppliers of drones

00:36:51and other lethal material to

00:36:53Russia, and this unholy

00:36:55alliance, or whatever I think

00:36:57you call it, alliance of

00:36:59aggression, is extremely

00:37:01dangerous.

00:37:02Let's remember that both North

00:37:04Korea has nuclear weapons.

00:37:06Iran is at breakout for nuclear

00:37:09weapons, and the other two

00:37:11countries are nuclear countries,

00:37:14and where this goes is, it

00:37:17seems to me, terrifying, and

00:37:20that is, again, why we need to

00:37:22leverage all elements of national

00:37:24power to make sure we deter

00:37:27these countries from acting

00:37:29against us.

00:37:30Ambassador Edelman, respond as

00:37:33you'd like, but also you might

00:37:36also want to take this question

00:37:39as you speak.

00:37:41Representative Harmon mentioned

00:37:43Ukraine.

00:37:44Why is Ukraine important to this

00:37:47entire discussion, and if

00:37:50Ukraine manages to be

00:37:52successful and keep their own

00:37:54borders and their own country,

00:37:56what signal does this send to

00:37:59the rest of the world, and

00:38:01particularly to Xi Jinping?

00:38:04Thank you, Senator Wicker.

00:38:06I really don't want to add very

00:38:08much to what Representative

00:38:10Harmon just said, other than to

00:38:12say, in short, what we're

00:38:14watching is a war of

00:38:17premeditated, unprovoked

00:38:19aggression by Russia that is

00:38:21being financed by China, and

00:38:24enabled by its transfer of dual

00:38:27vision tooling that's allowed

00:38:30Russia to get its defense

00:38:32industry up and running despite

00:38:34U.S. Sanctions and export

00:38:37controls.

00:38:38Drones provided to Russia,

00:38:40including a factory built in

00:38:42Russia by Iran, and, of course,

00:38:45millions, literally millions of

00:38:47rounds of 152 ammunition for the

00:38:51Russian military coming from

00:38:53North Korea.

00:38:54Some people ask, what's that to

00:38:56us?

00:38:57How does that affect the United

00:38:59States and our people?

00:39:00Well, it affects the outcome, of

00:39:02course, of the fight in Ukraine,

00:39:04which gets to your second

00:39:06question.

00:39:07I mean, first, Ukraine offered

00:39:09to give up, and I was involved

00:39:11in some of the diplomacy of this

00:39:13back in the 90s, the nuclear

00:39:15weapons that were left on its

00:39:17territory after the end of the

00:39:19Soviet Union.

00:39:21As a result of that, Ukraine

00:39:23gave them up, but in exchange

00:39:25for assurances from the United

00:39:27States, Russia, Great Britain,

00:39:29and France that its territorial

00:39:31integrity would be recognized

00:39:33along the border lines that

00:39:35existed before the 2014 seizure

00:39:37of Crimea by Putin, which was a

00:39:39violation of those

00:39:41undertakings.

00:39:42If our assurances in the

00:39:44nonproliferation realm in this

00:39:46instance are shown to be hollow,

00:39:48it will raise questions in the

00:39:50minds of all of our allies about

00:39:52the assurances we've given them

00:39:54and how we should be giving

00:39:56them our extended deterrent

00:39:58assurances, whether it's for our

00:40:00allies in Europe, part of our

00:40:02multilateral NATO alliance, or

00:40:04our bilateral allies in East

00:40:06Asia, or our partners, parts of

00:40:08special relationships we've

00:40:10developed in the Middle East

00:40:12with Israel, the Kingdom of

00:40:14Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and

00:40:16Egypt, and others.

00:40:18So the whole fabric, frankly, of

00:40:20the international order is at

00:40:22risk here, depending on the

00:40:24outcome in Ukraine.

00:40:26And to your point, if Putin is

00:40:28successful in Ukraine, the

00:40:30lesson that Xi Jinping is likely

00:40:32to draw is that he, too, can be

00:40:35successful in Taiwan or in the

00:40:37East China Sea or the South

00:40:39China Sea.

00:40:40Thank you.

00:40:41Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:40:43Thank you, Senator Worker.

00:40:45Senator Shaheen, please.

00:40:47Well, thank you both for your

00:40:49work on this report.

00:40:51And thank you to the other

00:40:53members of the commission, those

00:40:55of you who are here and those

00:40:57who are not.

00:40:58You talked about the

00:41:00communications, the need for

00:41:02interoperability and for

00:41:04communications.

00:41:05But I didn't hear you talk about

00:41:07and also you talked about an

00:41:09approach that coordinates all

00:41:11elements of national power.

00:41:13But you really didn't talk about

00:41:15the information environment.

00:41:17So can you one of the areas

00:41:19that we're keeping up with our

00:41:21adversaries is in the

00:41:23information environment.

00:41:24It's with disinformation,

00:41:26misinformation.

00:41:27So can you talk about what the

00:41:29report suggests we should do

00:41:31with respect to information?

00:41:34Well, it's a hugely important

00:41:36topic.

00:41:37And you're right, we haven't got

00:41:39there yet.

00:41:40But malign influence, foreign

00:41:42malign influence in our pending

00:41:44election is something that we're

00:41:46all worried about.

00:41:47And it is a security threat.

00:41:49Let's go there.

00:41:51But certainly across the world

00:41:53foreign malign influence and

00:41:55disinformation can alter how we

00:41:59understand what the threats are

00:42:01against us.

00:42:02This is a huge focus now of our

00:42:05intelligence community and I'm

00:42:06glad this committee is also

00:42:08paying attention to it.

00:42:10We touch on it but we really

00:42:12and I'm just looking at

00:42:14ambassador Edelman, we don't

00:42:16have a focus on that.

00:42:18We do talk about AI, cyber and

00:42:21the information environment but

00:42:23we don't specifically address

00:42:25misinformation and I wish we had

00:42:28paid more attention to that.

00:42:30Let me just I remember being in

00:42:32this room I think after the KLM

00:42:36airline was shot down over

00:42:38Ukraine and general Breedlove

00:42:40who was then CENTCOM commander

00:42:42saying as long as it takes us

00:42:44two years to identify the

00:42:46Russians as being the people

00:42:49responsible for what happens, we

00:42:51are losing the fight.

00:42:53And I think that's a problem

00:42:55now.

00:42:56I appreciate everything you're

00:42:57saying about legacy systems but

00:43:00the reality is until we get that

00:43:03information domain into our

00:43:05discussions, we are not winning

00:43:07the fight.

00:43:08I agree.

00:43:09And we have to attribute where

00:43:12attacks are coming from in real

00:43:14time.

00:43:15It's tricky, for example, in

00:43:17responding to cyber attacks to

00:43:19know whether if China does

00:43:21something to us or Russia or

00:43:23some criminal syndicate we

00:43:24should respond immediately

00:43:25because tit for tat can lead to

00:43:28unwise outcomes for us but

00:43:30nonetheless we have to know who

00:43:32did what to us.

00:43:33And you're totally right.

00:43:34And we don't have a strategy.

00:43:36And we are not working the

00:43:38global engagement center at the

00:43:40U.S.

00:43:41to address that as its goal.

00:43:43It's not integrated with what

00:43:45we're doing at DOD.

00:43:47So we don't.

00:43:48We address that.

00:43:49We do say that the state

00:43:52department, defense department

00:43:53have to align their regions of

00:43:56operation with each other and

00:43:58then add in the treasury

00:44:01department with sanctions, add

00:44:03in all the other agencies of

00:44:05government like AID that have

00:44:07been here, add in partners and

00:44:10allies.

00:44:11That's the way to project

00:44:13American power.

00:44:14And you're right that a huge

00:44:16focus needs to be, absolutely

00:44:18needs to be on finding the

00:44:20source of dis and

00:44:22misinformation and making sure

00:44:23we correctly understand the

00:44:25threats against us.

00:44:26Senator Shaheen, if I just

00:44:28might add to what

00:44:30representative Harmon said,

00:44:32part of our emphasis on all

00:44:34elements of national power is

00:44:36precisely to get at the issue

00:44:38you raise, which is that we have

00:44:41disestablished a number of years

00:44:43ago the U.S.

00:44:44information agency.

00:44:45We don't really have a dedicated

00:44:48capability.

00:44:49We have in the department of

00:44:52defense a capability for

00:44:54military information to support

00:44:56operations, which is an

00:44:58important capability, but I think

00:45:00sometimes because there's a

00:45:02default to DOD, they end up

00:45:05engaged in information

00:45:06operations that are really

00:45:08beyond what they're capable of

00:45:10executing effectively, and I

00:45:12think that is a problem.

00:45:14So we need a better integrated

00:45:17effort across the entire

00:45:19panoply of national security

00:45:21institutions, but also need some

00:45:23dedicated effort on

00:45:24information.

00:45:25Our adversaries think

00:45:26information is a hugely

00:45:28important domain.

00:45:29They invest a lot in it, and we

00:45:31just have not matched that

00:45:33investment.

00:45:34So I certainly agree with that.

00:45:36I'm pleased to hear both of you

00:45:38say that.

00:45:39Hopefully that will be more of a

00:45:41focus going forward, and I

00:45:43appreciate the first amendment

00:45:45concerns.

00:45:46However, we were able to deal

00:45:47with that during the cold war.

00:45:49We ought to be able to deal with

00:45:51it today.

00:45:52Thank you.

00:45:53Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:45:54Thank you.

00:45:55Senator Fisher, please.

00:45:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

00:45:57thank you, representative

00:45:58Harmon and also Mr. Ambassador,

00:46:00all of the commissioners and

00:46:01good staff for the work you've

00:46:03done.

00:46:04Thank you.

00:46:05Mr. Ambassador, nuclear

00:46:06deterrence is the foundation.

00:46:08It is the bedrock on which our

00:46:10national security rests, and I

00:46:12understand that the commission

00:46:14did not seek to replicate that

00:46:17work that came out of the

00:46:19strategic posture commission,

00:46:22but it does highlight the

00:46:25importance of deterrence,

00:46:27strategic deterrence in view of

00:46:29China's development, Russia's

00:46:31development, on and on.

00:46:33As you consider the strategic

00:46:35elements of the national

00:46:37security policy for us, can you

00:46:39explain to this committee the

00:46:41role that nuclear modernization

00:46:43plays in the NDS commission's

00:46:46proposed multiple theater force

00:46:49construct?

00:46:52Nuclear deterrence, Senator

00:46:54Fisher, is at the, you know, is

00:46:57the fundament on which

00:46:58everything else is built in

00:47:00terms of our national security.

00:47:02It's operating every day.

00:47:04You know, it's not visible to,

00:47:06you know, American citizens, but

00:47:09the fact of our nuclear

00:47:12deterrent force, all three legs

00:47:14of the triad being available is

00:47:18the most powerful deterrent that

00:47:20we have to conflict.

00:47:22It's not sufficient, but it is

00:47:24the absolute basis, and we

00:47:26really, I think, agreed with the

00:47:29conclusion our colleagues on the

00:47:31strategic posture commission

00:47:32reached, which is that we have

00:47:34to move forward with alacrity on

00:47:36all the elements of

00:47:38modernization of the nuclear

00:47:40triad.

00:47:41That's the GBSD Sentinel program.

00:47:45That is the B-21.

00:47:47That is the Ohio replacement

00:47:50class.

00:47:51All of those things have to be

00:47:54accomplished, and there are

00:47:56problems.

00:47:57One of the reasons we highlighted

00:48:00education is that some of the

00:48:02problems that GBSD are running

00:48:04into has to do with lack of

00:48:07skilled, you know, workers to be

00:48:09able to pour the kind of

00:48:11special reinforced concrete that

00:48:13you need for the new silos for

00:48:17missiles, the new control

00:48:19systems for missiles.

00:48:21We lack welders in the

00:48:25submarine industrial base, as

00:48:27senator wicker knows well.

00:48:29So there's a lot that has to be

00:48:31done across the board in order

00:48:33to move forward with nuclear

00:48:35modernization, but it is

00:48:37absolutely fundamental to our

00:48:39ability to deter aggression

00:48:41against our allies and, of

00:48:43course, against the homeland.

00:48:44Thank you.

00:48:45And representative, I really

00:48:47appreciated your comments on the

00:48:49workforce and the need we have

00:48:51for that, for a national

00:48:53strategy, and to be able to work

00:48:55with senator king on a bill that

00:48:58we introduced that we were able

00:49:00to get some of those important

00:49:03factors into the NDAA so that we

00:49:06can address them and hopefully

00:49:08continue to grow what we need

00:49:11and meet those needs quickly.

00:49:14Ambassador, based on the

00:49:17commission's work, what do you

00:49:20think are the biggest barriers

00:49:22that we are going to face as a

00:49:25country to achieving that

00:49:28multiple theater force

00:49:30construct?

00:49:31And representative, I would like

00:49:33to hear your opinion on that as

00:49:35well.

00:49:36Well, the first, senator

00:49:39Fischer, to your question, the

00:49:41force right now is too small,

00:49:43and so we have to grow the force

00:49:45and that's in the face of the

00:49:51recruiting challenges that we

00:49:52have highlighted in the report

00:49:54that the army in particular but

00:49:56also the navy and the air force

00:49:58have faced.

00:49:59I'm going to interrupt you.

00:50:00Please.

00:50:01Why is it too small?

00:50:03Can you explain in this setting

00:50:05the threats that we are facing

00:50:07when we look at the adversaries

00:50:10that we face and how that has

00:50:12changed over the last decade?

00:50:15It's too small in part because

00:50:17the department was sizing its

00:50:19self for one conflict.

00:50:20But if you have to be present in

00:50:23three theaters, as we are now,

00:50:25we've got conflicts in two

00:50:27theaters now.

00:50:28If we have a third conflict in

00:50:30the third theater, it's going to

00:50:32require, you know, more, a lot

00:50:34more forces.

00:50:35People talk, for instance, about

00:50:37the Indo-Pacific being largely a

00:50:39navy and air force fight.

00:50:41That's correct.

00:50:42But the logistics that support

00:50:45the navy and the air force are

00:50:48largely manned by the army.

00:50:50So we have to have an army that

00:50:52is sufficiently large that it

00:50:54can operate in all of these

00:50:56places potentially

00:50:57simultaneously.

00:50:58Because honestly, it is very

00:51:00hard to imagine today a conflict

00:51:02in the Indo-Pacific that doesn't

00:51:04become a global conflict very

00:51:06quickly.

00:51:07Someone asked earlier in the

00:51:09hearing about cooperation

00:51:10between Russia and China.

00:51:12The last time I testified before

00:51:14this meeting, I said, you know,

00:51:16the last time I testified before

00:51:18this committee was two years ago

00:51:20about the so-called three-body

00:51:22problem, Russia, China, being

00:51:24both nuclear peers of the United

00:51:26States.

00:51:27And, you know, one of the

00:51:29criticisms that was leveled at

00:51:31my colleague Frank Miller and me

00:51:33was that, you know, well,

00:51:34there's no evidence that Russia

00:51:36and China are collaborating in

00:51:38the nuclear area.

00:51:39Well, we just saw them flying

00:51:41strategic bombers together, you

00:51:43know, up near Alaska.

00:51:45I don't know what more evidence

00:51:47you want that they're beginning

00:51:49to collaborate in that strategic

00:51:51area.

00:51:52If I could just add a few

00:51:54things.

00:51:55First of all, on the nuclear

00:51:57triad and the nuclear posture

00:51:59review, Senator Kyle is a dear

00:52:02friend of ours.

00:52:03He did great service in the

00:52:05Senate and writing that report.

00:52:08And we talked about whether we

00:52:11should in some ways overlap

00:52:14some of his recommendations, but

00:52:16we decided they were so good

00:52:18they should stand alone.

00:52:19So it's not that we don't care.

00:52:21It's just that we recognize good

00:52:23work.

00:52:24And add to that, though, that

00:52:27our nuclear agreements that were

00:52:30so important over recent years,

00:52:32especially the heroic work that

00:52:35President Reagan did, don't

00:52:38include China.

00:52:39And a number of them have lapsed

00:52:41and that is a truly dangerous

00:52:43situation, especially when rogue

00:52:45states like North Korea and Iran

00:52:47are part of the nuclear game now

00:52:49and there could be a nuclear

00:52:51arms race in the Middle East or

00:52:53in Asia also.

00:52:54So just would point that out.

00:52:56In terms of workforce and why is

00:53:00it small, well, one thing we

00:53:02have not done, and we mentioned

00:53:04this, is embrace the tech sector

00:53:07adequately.

00:53:08Future wars are not going to be

00:53:10fought the old way with

00:53:12vulnerable big platforms.

00:53:13They're going to be fought with

00:53:16more software.

00:53:17Less hardware, more software.

00:53:19Not to diminish hardware, but we

00:53:21need both.

00:53:22In fact, the chairman of the

00:53:24joint chiefs was at the Aspen

00:53:26security forum last week.

00:53:27Some of us were there.

00:53:29Senator Sullivan was there.

00:53:30And he said DOD is not a hardware

00:53:32department.

00:53:33Right.

00:53:34It's not.

00:53:35Or if it is, it should not be a

00:53:37hardware department.

00:53:38So not only do we need more

00:53:40people, but we need different

00:53:42skills.

00:53:43And we need people who

00:53:45understand the tech base.

00:53:47And in fact, we have said that

00:53:50the business model of the

00:53:52Pentagon ought to move to

00:53:54embrace the business model of

00:53:56the tech sector where failure

00:53:59sometimes is important so that

00:54:01you can improve things.

00:54:03And just one comment to a prior

00:54:06question.

00:54:07Some of us were in Ukraine.

00:54:09Looking at how they produce

00:54:11goods, including drones and

00:54:12tanks.

00:54:13And they have been much more

00:54:15innovative than we have.

00:54:16And there are lessons to learn

00:54:18there.

00:54:19Thank you.

00:54:20Thank you, Senator Fischer.

00:54:22Senator Hirono, please.

00:54:24Thank you very much,

00:54:26representative Harmon and

00:54:27ambassador Edelman and to all of

00:54:29you who worked on this very

00:54:31important review leading to

00:54:34seven very substantive

00:54:36recommendations, each of which

00:54:38requires some fundamental

00:54:40changes.

00:54:41So as I review your

00:54:43recommendations and noting that

00:54:45you started off, I believe, by

00:54:47saying that we need to inform

00:54:49the public as to the nature of

00:54:52the dangers that we're facing

00:54:55with the great power

00:54:57competition.

00:54:58And how we're going to do that,

00:55:00I'm not so sure.

00:55:02I am wondering whether your

00:55:04review included the fact that

00:55:07Russia, for example, is not only

00:55:09a great power competition in the

00:55:11military sector, but they are

00:55:13also engaged in our elections

00:55:16and misinformation when we have

00:55:19natural disasters, for example.

00:55:21I don't think very many people

00:55:23know that when Maui had its

00:55:25wildfire that there were

00:55:27indications that Russia had

00:55:29sent misinformation as to how

00:55:32the wildfire started and how to

00:55:36question what FEMA was doing.

00:55:38So I'm wondering whether you

00:55:40reviewed all of the different

00:55:43ways that Russia is providing

00:55:46misinformation in a lot of

00:55:48platforms, not just in the

00:55:50military arena.

00:55:52And what can we do?

00:55:54That's one way to inform the

00:55:56public, I would say, to the

00:55:58dangers that we face.

00:56:00I think the challenge, Senator

00:56:02Hirono, is that we're not

00:56:04Russia is very active in this

00:56:06space, you're correct, and it's

00:56:08an important part, actually, of

00:56:10their military doctrine, and

00:56:12they see information operations

00:56:14as part of a suite of

00:56:16activities as opposed to being

00:56:18stovepiped between information

00:56:20and other kinds of military

00:56:22operations, and we still, I

00:56:24think, see it in sort of

00:56:26stovepipes.

00:56:27But Russia is not the only

00:56:29challenge.

00:56:30Iran has been very active in

00:56:32this cycle with a very

00:56:34different agenda than Russia's

00:56:36but still interfering in our

00:56:38election.

00:56:39China as well is very active.

00:56:41All of our adversaries are

00:56:43active in this domain, and we

00:56:45need, I think, to take it very,

00:56:47very seriously.

00:56:48And I do think we need to inform

00:56:50the public.

00:56:51That's, I think, a

00:56:53responsibility that the

00:56:54executive branch certainly has,

00:56:56but I think, you know, you and

00:56:58your colleagues have a role to

00:57:00play as well.

00:57:01I think that we are also

00:57:03stovepiped in how we approach

00:57:05the dangers that are presented

00:57:07by China, Russia, Iran, and the

00:57:09other actors in the cyber

00:57:11space.

00:57:12And so one way that I think

00:57:14that the public will be

00:57:16apprised of the dangers is to

00:57:18inform them of the

00:57:20misinformation, et cetera, where

00:57:22they can relate, such as our

00:57:24elections, and I don't think

00:57:26we're doing such a great job

00:57:28with that.

00:57:29One of the other important

00:57:31recommendations you made, you

00:57:33talked about, Congressman

00:57:35Harmon, is that we are not set

00:57:38up to take risks in our

00:57:42acquisitions and other forms,

00:57:44and that the culture of not

00:57:47wanting to take risks, how do

00:57:49we even approach something like

00:57:51that?

00:57:52Because it's not just we need to

00:57:54maybe spend more money on our

00:57:56military, but how do we take

00:57:58the culture so it's not just

00:58:00about money, it's about

00:58:02attitudes, it's about risk

00:58:04taking, how do we approach that?

00:58:06Well, let me respond to

00:58:08something you started with,

00:58:10which is the devastation in

00:58:12Lahore, Maui, having been there

00:58:14just before the fire.

00:58:16It was a glorious place, and you

00:58:18lost so much of your history,

00:58:20and it's tragic that that

00:58:22happened.

00:58:23On this topic, we had a lot of

00:58:26discussion about risk taking,

00:58:28which is a core value of the

00:58:31tech sector.

00:58:32How do you learn unless you take

00:58:34risk?

00:58:35How does SpaceX learn unless

00:58:37it's prepared to lose a lot of

00:58:39its assets, and then build

00:58:42better based on lessons?

00:58:44Sadly, both the Pentagon and

00:58:47Congress are pretty risk

00:58:49averse.

00:58:50I'm not accusing anyone, any

00:58:52member of this committee

00:58:54personally, however.

00:58:55The way Congress operates with

00:58:57respect to requirements of the

00:59:00Pentagon, and not only some of

00:59:03the budget issues here, we'll

00:59:05get into those, I'm sure.

00:59:07Operating by CR and possible

00:59:10shutdowns is really an expensive

00:59:12way to proceed.

00:59:14I'm sure you are all aware of

00:59:16that, and hopefully we're in a

00:59:18new era where we don't do that.

00:59:21But if you build to requirements

00:59:25and then the requirement fails

00:59:27and then you do oversight and

00:59:29punish the people who have

00:59:30failed, that creates a risk

00:59:32averse culture.

00:59:33I'm not saying reward people who

00:59:35have failed, but understand that

00:59:37if we're going to iterate and

00:59:39build better models of pick

00:59:42anything, drones, tanks,

00:59:44anything you might need in

00:59:47current and future wars, we have

00:59:49to be prepared to fail.

00:59:51And we have to understand that

00:59:53culture.

00:59:54And this committee, by doing

00:59:56multiyear procurements and other

00:59:58things, which we point out would

01:00:00be very helpful, and allowing

01:00:02the Pentagon to change some of

01:00:04its, you know, some of the

01:00:06details of procurements as a

01:00:09routine matter, if that will

01:00:11improve the performance of

01:00:13whatever it's building, would be

01:00:15extremely helpful.

01:00:16So I'm glad you pointed that

01:00:17out.

01:00:18We tried to point it out as

01:00:20well.

01:00:21Thank you.

01:00:22Senator Brown, please.

01:00:23Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:00:24First let me begin by thanking

01:00:26both of you and the members of

01:00:28your commission for the work and

01:00:30the service to our country that

01:00:32this provides.

01:00:33Most recently when director

01:00:35Haynes and general Cruz were

01:00:36before this committee, I think

01:00:37it was in May, they confirmed

01:00:39that the initial or the

01:00:41initiation of hostilities

01:00:42between the United States and

01:00:44either Russia or China would

01:00:46increase the likelihood that

01:00:48hostilities would be initiated

01:00:50against the U.S.

01:00:51as well.

01:00:52It would appear based on the

01:00:54conversation so far that your

01:00:56commission would agree with that

01:00:58assessment.

01:00:59Is the department planning for

01:01:01this reality in which conflict

01:01:03with either Russia or China

01:01:06likely means a conflict with

01:01:08both today?

01:01:09Ambassador Edelman?

01:01:10Well, the department's plans

01:01:16basically as embodied in the

01:01:19NDS of 2022, like its

01:01:22predecessor in 2018,

01:01:24essentially is geared towards

01:01:27defeating one adversary while

01:01:30holding the others, you know,

01:01:32harmless essentially by nuclear

01:01:34deterrence.

01:01:35What I don't think the

01:01:37department is actually begun to

01:01:39wrap its arms around is

01:01:41precisely the scenario you

01:01:43outlined where to give an

01:01:45example, if we got into a

01:01:48conflict in the Indo-Pacific,

01:01:50whether it be over Taiwan or

01:01:52South China Sea or East China

01:01:54Sea, what might Russia do?

01:01:56You know, one thing that comes

01:01:58to mind is take advantage of the

01:02:01separatist movement in Moldova

01:02:03to move on Moldova, a country

01:02:06that's trying to move closer to

01:02:08the European Union and to the

01:02:10west, which would then

01:02:12precipitate, you know,

01:02:13additional conflict in Europe.

01:02:17Or take advantage of the ethnic

01:02:19Russian-speaking minorities in

01:02:21the Baltic states, say Latvia,

01:02:23to initiate a conflict there.

01:02:25How would we manage that?

01:02:27When you raise that question

01:02:29with department leaders, they

01:02:31basically say, well, to go back

01:02:33to the chairman's point earlier,

01:02:35well, that would be sort of like

01:02:37World War II or, you know, would

01:02:39require national mobilization,

01:02:41and that's correct, but we

01:02:43haven't really taken the

01:02:45next steps to really focus on

01:02:47what that and what a protracted

01:02:49conflict would actually look

01:02:51like.

01:02:52We're optimized to fight very

01:02:54short wars.

01:02:55Representative Harmon, I

01:02:56appreciated your comments at the

01:02:58very beginning of this

01:02:59discussion in which you shared

01:03:01that yesterday your family was

01:03:03challenged and that your

01:03:05daughter was going through some

01:03:07very serious surgery and this is

01:03:09something that every family can

01:03:11identify with.

01:03:12You also talked about the

01:03:14technologies involved in your

01:03:15decision-making was that you

01:03:16would stay there if anything

01:03:19serious was still in the air,

01:03:21and I appreciated that, and

01:03:23believe me, this entire

01:03:24committee would have supported

01:03:25you in that decision.

01:03:27You also indicated the need or

01:03:29what this country represented

01:03:31with regard to the technologies

01:03:33that we have and that we

01:03:35sometimes don't take advantage

01:03:37of.

01:03:38We have that opportunity with

01:03:40this report to talk about those

01:03:42technologies today.

01:03:43There are five different domains

01:03:45in which our country will be

01:03:47attacked in the future.

01:03:48Air, land and sea most people

01:03:50would understand, but space and

01:03:52cyberspace are the new domains

01:03:54which will precede any attack on

01:03:56the first three.

01:03:57With regard to cyber, today in

01:03:59the United States we just

01:04:01recently came through a time

01:04:03period in which an accident

01:04:05occurring by one company

01:04:07literally crippled a significant

01:04:09part of our airline industry.

01:04:12Is it fair to say that both

01:04:14Russia and China have

01:04:16capabilities to do more than

01:04:18simply cripple airline

01:04:21capabilities, and what exactly

01:04:23would that look like for the

01:04:25American people should we have a

01:04:27contest with either one of those

01:04:30two adversaries?

01:04:31Well, thank you, Senator Rounds

01:04:33for your personal comments.

01:04:35I really appreciate that, and I

01:04:37hope everyone on the committee

01:04:41is as fortunate as I was with

01:04:44the news that I got late last

01:04:46night which enabled me to get on

01:04:48the 6 a.m. plane.

01:04:50On cyber, it's a huge threat,

01:04:53and I don't think we minimize it

01:04:55in any way.

01:04:56One of the things we might

01:04:58anticipate, for example, is if

01:05:00China decides to annex Taiwan or

01:05:03whatever euphemism they might

01:05:05use, they might engage in a

01:05:09major cyber attack here first

01:05:11for which we are underprepared,

01:05:13cyber attack of our

01:05:14infrastructure.

01:05:15When I was in Congress, I

01:05:17represented the port of Los

01:05:19Angeles, which with the port of

01:05:21Long Beach is the largest

01:05:23container port complex in the

01:05:25country.

01:05:2650% of our container traffic

01:05:28enters and exits through those

01:05:30ports.

01:05:31There are cranes on the port,

01:05:33surprise, to move the cargo, and

01:05:35those cranes have Chinese

01:05:37citizenship.

01:05:38So guess what?

01:05:39All of which are subject to the

01:05:41possibilities of cyber attack.

01:05:42Absolutely.

01:05:43We should anticipate that our

01:05:45ports could go down.

01:05:46Throughout our entire society,

01:05:47we find that to be the case.

01:05:49I'm agreeing with you, and this

01:05:51is devastating.

01:05:52Does the American public

01:05:53understand this?

01:05:54No.

01:05:55This is our point about public

01:05:57awareness.

01:05:58This is something that's

01:05:59happening right now.

01:06:00If anyone's watching this

01:06:01important hearing, they're

01:06:02learning things that they might

01:06:04not know otherwise.

01:06:05It's an opportunity for

01:06:06people to educate the public,

01:06:08and thanks to your committee for

01:06:10doing it, about the grave

01:06:12threats we face.

01:06:13So cyber is a huge threat.

01:06:15You also mentioned space.

01:06:17Again, something I know

01:06:18something about since I used to

01:06:20call my district the aerospace

01:06:22center of the universe where

01:06:24most of our intelligence

01:06:25satellites were made.

01:06:27We are more dependent on space

01:06:29as a country and more vulnerable

01:06:31in space because of that

01:06:33dependency than any other

01:06:34country.

01:06:35So opening up space, which is

01:06:37one of the threats we address,

01:06:39is absolutely crucial, and it's

01:06:41not just military space but

01:06:43commercial space.

01:06:44A lot of how you talked about

01:06:46communication, a lot of how we

01:06:48communicate is through

01:06:49commercial space, and think how

01:06:51inconvenienced the public would

01:06:53be if all of a sudden their

01:06:55little devices, which we're all

01:06:57dependent on, didn't work.

01:06:58Thank you.

01:06:59I'm out of time and over time.

01:07:01Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:07:03Well said, Senator.

01:07:04Thank you.

01:07:05Senator King, please.

01:07:06Thank you, Mr. Chair, and

01:07:08thanks to our witnesses.

01:07:09It's good to be back before you.

01:07:11Ambassador Edelman 11 times

01:07:13testifying here, and Jane

01:07:15probably about the equivalent,

01:07:17we should give you guys some

01:07:19steak knives or something.

01:07:21Very helpful report.

01:07:23A couple of thoughts before I

01:07:25have some questions.

01:07:26Ambassador Edelman, you

01:07:28mentioned your testimony earlier

01:07:30when you talked about potential

01:07:32for nuclear collaboration

01:07:33between China and Russia.

01:07:34You were kind of criticized for

01:07:36that, and I remember that, and

01:07:38frankly, the Pentagon, during

01:07:39the entire time I've been here,

01:07:41beginning in 2013, when we asked

01:07:43questions about the possibility

01:07:44of cooperation between Russia,

01:07:46China, Iran, and North Korea,

01:07:48they've kind of pooh-poohed the

01:07:49idea as if historical enmities or

01:07:51border disputes or the past

01:07:53would block them from being able

01:07:55to work on a collaborative way,

01:07:57and I've always found that

01:07:59dismissive attitude naive, and I

01:08:01think that the results of today

01:08:03are showing the degree to which

01:08:05these nations, seeing the U.S.'s

01:08:07strong alliances, realizing they

01:08:09don't have them, they're drawn

01:08:11closer and closer together.

01:08:12There may be barriers to the

01:08:14level of cooperation, but we

01:08:16shouldn't assume those barriers

01:08:18are going to inhibit significant

01:08:20collaboration, and I think

01:08:22that's one of the aspects of

01:08:23your testimony, your joint

01:08:24testimony in the report, that's

01:08:26very powerful.

01:08:27I did chuckle at one of the

01:08:29punchlines, which is that we need

01:08:31to do a lot more defense spending

01:08:33and bring the deficit down, too.

01:08:35We hear that punchline at a lot

01:08:37of hearings and a lot of

01:08:38different committees, but that's

01:08:39why, you know, that's why we get

01:08:41elected to do what we do, and

01:08:42there are tough choices to be

01:08:43made.

01:08:44Here's a question that I have.

01:08:47If you asked American public, and

01:08:49I do think educating the public

01:08:51about the challenge is important,

01:08:52if you said what's the most

01:08:53important national security

01:08:55threat today, I bet the top one

01:08:57would be fentanyl.

01:08:59I think before just the American

01:09:01public would cite Ukraine or

01:09:03would cite the possibility of a

01:09:05war against Taiwan, I bet they

01:09:07would say fentanyl.

01:09:09The national defense strategy in

01:09:112022 had one paragraph about the

01:09:15western hemisphere.

01:09:18You have a section dealing with

01:09:20Africa and Latin America that is

01:09:22a much longer paragraph.

01:09:24I like that.

01:09:26And yet it's about Africa and

01:09:28Latin America, and it talks about

01:09:30the fact that China and Russia

01:09:31are making Africa and Latin

01:09:33America real centers of

01:09:35activity, and as the chairman of

01:09:37the Americas subcommittee on

01:09:39foreign relations, when I travel

01:09:40in the Americas again and again

01:09:42and again from governments left,

01:09:44right, center, or unpredictable,

01:09:46what I hear is we'd rather work

01:09:48with you than with China, for

01:09:49example, but you're not present.

01:09:52Yeah, we appreciate you

01:09:53lecturing us not to accept a

01:09:55free 5G system from China, but

01:09:57what do you have on the table?

01:09:59We appreciate you telling us not

01:10:00to allow Russia to help with

01:10:02port investments, but what do

01:10:03you have on the table?

01:10:05And I think the fact that we

01:10:07spend so little intellectual

01:10:11energy focusing on our own

01:10:13hemisphere, and I just match

01:10:15that up against I think the

01:10:17American public would say

01:10:18fentanyl is like the biggest

01:10:20challenge, national security

01:10:21challenge that they see every

01:10:23day.

01:10:24Now, this committee has done

01:10:25some good work.

01:10:26We have done significant

01:10:28investments in fentanyl

01:10:29interdiction technology.

01:10:30I had a chance to see some of

01:10:32it that is being piloted in

01:10:36Brownsville about two weeks ago

01:10:38that I think will really help

01:10:39us, and Senator Ernst and I in

01:10:44last year's NDA did a provision

01:10:46that calls for greater mil-to-

01:10:48mil cooperation between the

01:10:50United States and Mexican

01:10:51militaries on the fentanyl issue,

01:10:53but why don't we just spend

01:10:55more energy on the Americas?

01:10:57What blocks us from more focus

01:11:00in the hemisphere?

01:11:01And I just worry we can't see

01:11:04it our own backyard to

01:11:06especially Chinese investments

01:11:08and count on our ability to

01:11:10lecture about the danger of

01:11:11Chinese investments to carry the

01:11:13day.

01:11:16I agree, and I think we all

01:11:18agree.

01:11:19We did meet the head of South

01:11:23Com.

01:11:24We met the head of Africom,

01:11:26both of whom told us that we're

01:11:29underinvesting in Latin America

01:11:32and in Africa.

01:11:34And just in Africa, a stat.

01:11:37Of the 35 youngest countries in

01:11:39the world, 32 are in Africa.

01:11:42So in terms of a youth bulge in

01:11:44a growing population, I mean,

01:11:46this is where the future is.

01:11:47I think the population in

01:11:48Africa is going to double by

01:11:512050, and it will be the most

01:11:54populous continent, I think, in

01:11:58the world.

01:11:59I'm not positive that it will

01:12:01exceed China and India, but I

01:12:04think it will.

01:12:05And we're underinvesting.

01:12:07And in South America, for

01:12:09example, we heard that there are

01:12:10five countries with no

01:12:12ambassadors, no confirmed

01:12:13ambassadors, and our military

01:12:15footprint in Africa is

01:12:16decreasing.

01:12:17I think we all agree on this

01:12:19commission that investment has

01:12:22to improve and, again, our whole

01:12:27idea about all elements of

01:12:29national power has to include

01:12:31partners and allies in those

01:12:33regions.

01:12:34Not an afterthought, not to say

01:12:36oh, yeah, about Africa and

01:12:39South America.

01:12:40And on fentanyl, I believe that

01:12:43President Biden and President

01:12:45Xi, when they met in San

01:12:47Francisco, came up with some

01:12:51deal on China policing the

01:12:54precursors of fentanyl, which

01:12:55come into our country mostly, I

01:12:57think, through Mexico.

01:12:59That deal hasn't been fully

01:13:01implemented, but it's a start,

01:13:03and it's absolutely important

01:13:05given how devastating fentanyl

01:13:07is to young people in this

01:13:09country who take drugs

01:13:11unsuspecting that they're laced

01:13:13with fentanyl.

01:13:14It's absolutely crucial as a

01:13:15national security threat to us

01:13:16that we do more.

01:13:17Thank you.

01:13:18My time is up.

01:13:19Thanks, Mr. Chair.

01:13:20Thank you, Senator Kaine.

01:13:21Senator Toperville, please.

01:13:22Thank you very much.

01:13:23Following up on that, is our

01:13:25southern border a national

01:13:26threat?

01:13:27I've only seen it in your report

01:13:29one time.

01:13:30Yes, absolutely, the border

01:13:32security is a threat.

01:13:34We do call in the report for

01:13:37additional funding across the

01:13:39agencies of national security,

01:13:41including DHS, which has the

01:13:43fundamental responsibility for

01:13:44the border.

01:13:4580,000 Chinese coming across the

01:13:47border in the last nine months.

01:13:48Is that a threat?

01:13:49That's a pretty good threat,

01:13:50isn't it?

01:13:51It's a potential threat, sir,

01:13:52yes.

01:13:53That's huge.

01:13:54I don't understand why we're

01:13:55not talking about it more.

01:13:56Fentanyl, I saw a report the

01:13:58other day where you can order

01:13:59fentanyl from China and make it

01:14:01at your own house.

01:14:02You can order it, be delivered,

01:14:05and make millions of pills

01:14:08without any repercussion.

01:14:10I mean, we've lost our minds.

01:14:12We're losing our kids.

01:14:13You talk about education.

01:14:14I spent 35 years in education,

01:14:17and your report mentions

01:14:20changing our military standards.

01:14:23Is that correct, to take more

01:14:25young men and women in the

01:14:27military?

01:14:28Part of what you hear from the

01:14:30services when you talk about the

01:14:32recruitment challenges they face

01:14:34under Tuberville is that some of

01:14:37the standards are no longer

01:14:40really relevant, and some of

01:14:42it's an artifact.

01:14:43Such as?

01:14:44Childhood asthma, for instance.

01:14:46Is that something that...

01:14:48Flat feet.

01:14:49A lot of people got out of

01:14:51Vietnam because of flat feet.

01:14:53So the question is do you

01:14:55continue to use those standards

01:14:57which are screening out people

01:14:58who might otherwise be willing

01:15:00and ready to serve, or do you

01:15:02change it?

01:15:03Some of it's a function of the

01:15:05changing tracking that we have

01:15:08in medical records that allow

01:15:10things that wouldn't have come

01:15:12up 10 or 15 years ago to block

01:15:14somebody from service, and that's

01:15:16I think what we were talking

01:15:18about.

01:15:19What's hurting us, too, is a lot

01:15:21of our government schools.

01:15:22I call them government schools

01:15:24because I went in thousands of

01:15:26them while I was coaching

01:15:28recruiting.

01:15:29And the problem we have is hate

01:15:31that's being taught in a lot of

01:15:33our government schools towards

01:15:34our country.

01:15:35Why would any young man or woman

01:15:37be being taught to hate?

01:15:39It's absolutely amazing to me

01:15:41the direction this country is

01:15:43going.

01:15:44So is there any agreement there,

01:15:46Representative Harmon?

01:15:47I mean...

01:15:48Yeah, there is agreement there.

01:15:50I think hate on both sides is

01:15:52totally destructive.

01:15:53I think the absence of civics

01:15:55education and the absence of

01:15:57institutions that help people

01:15:59understand what patriotism

01:16:01means, we had a conversation

01:16:03about national service, which

01:16:05is absolutely a way to get all

01:16:07of our youth back together.

01:16:09I mean, this country sadly is in

01:16:11a point where many people say

01:16:13our biggest enemy is us fighting

01:16:15each other.

01:16:16I was just going to talk about

01:16:18standards.

01:16:19One of the problems is the kind

01:16:21of deployments the military

01:16:23does.

01:16:24Every two years moving somewhere

01:16:26where in many cases the spouse

01:16:28works and having to change his

01:16:30or her job every two years is

01:16:32very burdensome.

01:16:33It's also hard on kids.

01:16:35And so that could change.

01:16:37And we talk about incorporating

01:16:39more of the tech base and the

01:16:41tech skills into the work that

01:16:43our military does.

01:16:44I mean, after all, future

01:16:46fights, we were just talking

01:16:48about this, are in more domains.

01:16:50They're in cyber and space, not

01:16:52just in air, land and sea.

01:16:54So if we don't have the skill

01:16:56sets to fight those wars, we're

01:16:58going to lose.

01:16:59Yeah, because we don't have a

01:17:01middle class.

01:17:02We're technical schools.

01:17:03All these kids we tell, hey, you

01:17:05got to go to a four-year school

01:17:07to get a job.

01:17:08We all knew that.

01:17:09When we grew up, that's what

01:17:11we were told.

01:17:12But now that's not true.

01:17:14A lot of these kids go to school

01:17:16and they're ways paid and

01:17:18unfortunately they get some kind

01:17:20of social justice degree and

01:17:22they can't get a job at Walmart.

01:17:24We have got to start training

01:17:26our kids again.

01:17:27We're losing the ball here.

01:17:29To me, that's a national security

01:17:31issue.

01:17:32I don't think we can do those

01:17:34things.

01:17:35Let's go to Ukraine real quick.

01:17:37We got to get out of this,

01:17:39right?

01:17:40This has got to be solved.

01:17:42Do we let Ukraine into NATO?

01:17:44Your thoughts?

01:17:45NATO has already made the

01:17:47decision back in 2008 that

01:17:49Ukraine at some point will be in

01:17:51NATO.

01:17:52That's a decision that was taken

01:17:54under the George W. Bush

01:17:56administration in which I

01:17:58served.

01:17:59I think the alliance, the just

01:18:01completed summit of the alliance

01:18:03has made clear that while there's

01:18:05an ongoing conflict in Ukraine,

01:18:07it's probably not appropriate to

01:18:09have Ukraine be a member.

01:18:11But the alliance has undertaken

01:18:13a series of actions and the U.S.

01:18:15bilaterally with Ukraine has

01:18:17undertaken a series of actions

01:18:19to build a bridge towards

01:18:21Ukraine's potential future.

01:18:22With that being said, should we

01:18:25allow with the new government in

01:18:27Mexico, Mexico join BRICS?

01:18:29Should we allow that?

01:18:31Because it's coming.

01:18:32It's coming.

01:18:33Senator, I don't know that we

01:18:35have any ability to, you know,

01:18:37the BRICS is an organization

01:18:39which the United States is not a

01:18:41party to.

01:18:42I'm just asking your opinion.

01:18:44Because we're doing the national

01:18:46defense strategy and we're going

01:18:48to be looking down the barrel of

01:18:50a gun on this because they're

01:18:52going to be on our border.

01:18:54You just said NATO was going to

01:18:56have Mexico go into BRICS if

01:18:58offered that position with the

01:19:00new president they have.

01:19:02Well, the BRICS is actually kind

01:19:04of an invention of Goldman

01:19:06Sachs.

01:19:07It's not really a serious

01:19:09military organization of any

01:19:10sort.

01:19:11As we speak, it is coming.

01:19:13With India joining, with Iran

01:19:15joining, Saudi Arabia joining, it

01:19:17could be a threat.

01:19:18Thank you, Mr. President.

01:19:20Thank you very much, Senator

01:19:22Tugville.

01:19:23Senator King, please.

01:19:24Thank you.

01:19:25The first country to adapt new

01:19:27technologies generally wins

01:19:29wars.

01:19:30The long bow at the battle of

01:19:32Agincourt, the tank in World

01:19:34War I, radar in World War II.

01:19:37We are systematically missing

01:19:40technologies.

01:19:41It's one of the great failures

01:19:43of the last 10 or 15 years in

01:19:45our defense structure.

01:19:47Directed energy, hypersonics, AI

01:19:50cyber, information warfare.

01:19:52We are woefully behind on

01:19:54every one of those.

01:19:56Directed energy.

01:19:57We're shooting down $20,000

01:20:00missiles with $4.3 million

01:20:03missiles of our own.

01:20:05That's ridiculous.

01:20:06And the budget for directed

01:20:08energy in the defense

01:20:09department has fallen by half

01:20:11in the last three years.

01:20:13Representative Harmon, is it

01:20:16systematic legacy thinking?

01:20:18What's the problem?

01:20:19Why did we miss these obvious

01:20:22technologies?

01:20:23Well, you heard us say that the

01:20:26Pentagon is moving at the speed

01:20:28of bureaucracy.

01:20:29I think it is legacy systems,

01:20:32old think.

01:20:34I think Congress is somewhat ----

01:20:36I think it's legacy thinking.

01:20:38Legacy thinking.

01:20:39Fine.

01:20:40But I think that Congress is

01:20:42somewhat complicit in the way

01:20:43the budget process doesn't work

01:20:45and this insistence on

01:20:47requirements and oversight

01:20:48rather than on what is the

01:20:51problem set we are solving for.

01:20:53Which is how the tech sector

01:20:54thinks.

01:20:55I've been making a comment

01:20:57about DIU, the defense

01:20:59innovation unit that was set up

01:21:01by the late secretary, Ash

01:21:03Carter, that maybe we should

01:21:05outsource the Pentagon to DIU,

01:21:07which is ably headed by someone

01:21:09named Doug Beck who had 11

01:21:11years' experience in the private

01:21:12sector because they know how to

01:21:14think about this.

01:21:15I couldn't agree with you more.

01:21:17The budget of DIU is $1 billion

01:21:20out of $850 billion.

01:21:22Doug Beck says he can leverage

01:21:24that.

01:21:25Technologies that win wars.

01:21:26Right.

01:21:27I'm in violent agreement with

01:21:28you.

01:21:29He says he can leverage that

01:21:31into $50 billion of commercial

01:21:33investment.

01:21:34But that's still a pittance

01:21:36compared to the kind of change

01:21:38we need to undergo, not just at

01:21:40the Pentagon but at the Pentagon

01:21:42lashed up with other government

01:21:44agencies, with the tech sector

01:21:46and with partners and allies.

01:21:48That is our point about all

01:21:50elements of national power,

01:21:51which will win the next war.

01:21:53Let's talk about cyber for a

01:21:54minute.

01:21:55I think it's kind of pathetic

01:21:56that today, just today, this

01:21:58morning, at the beginning of

01:21:59this meeting, we approved the

01:22:01very first assistant secretary

01:22:03of defense for cyber.

01:22:05Cyber has been a serious threat

01:22:07in this country for 15 or 20

01:22:09years, and just today, we're

01:22:11finally getting there.

01:22:12To me, that's emblematic.

01:22:14Let me talk about another point

01:22:16about cyber.

01:22:17Several of our members and

01:22:19you-all have talked about the

01:22:20cornerstone of our defense

01:22:21strategy is deterrence.

01:22:23In cyber, we have no deterrent

01:22:25strategy.

01:22:26We're trying to patch our way

01:22:27out of this.

01:22:28People have attacked our

01:22:29country.

01:22:30They've attacked our elections.

01:22:32They've attacked our

01:22:33infrastructure.

01:22:34There have been no consequences,

01:22:36no results.

01:22:37No one fears us in the cyber

01:22:39realm.

01:22:40Do you agree with me that we

01:22:41need to develop a cyber

01:22:43deterrence strategy?

01:22:44It doesn't necessarily have to

01:22:45be cyber for cyber, but there

01:22:47has to be a price to be paid for

01:22:48attacking this country in the

01:22:49realm of cyber.

01:22:51Mr. Ambassador?

01:22:52Senator King, I think one of

01:22:54the challenges with deterrence

01:22:56and the cyber realm is that

01:22:58first, attribution is

01:22:59frequently, you know, a

01:23:01problem, but secondly, the

01:23:03actions you take are not

01:23:05necessarily visible, and

01:23:08therefore, it lacks the kind of

01:23:12visible signs that we have in

01:23:14other realms.

01:23:15It needs to be visible to the

01:23:17adversary.

01:23:18Well, the problem is it needs

01:23:19to be visible to the adversary,

01:23:21but the question is, is it

01:23:23visible to your allies who you

01:23:25are also trying to protect with

01:23:27your deterrent?

01:23:28I did want to, if you permit me

01:23:31on the directed energy point,

01:23:33because I think it's a very

01:23:35powerful point that you make, I

01:23:37think directed energy has

01:23:39suffered a bit from over

01:23:41promising in the past, and it's

01:23:43been the next big thing in a lot

01:23:45of people have felt that it's

01:23:47not been delivered, but clearly

01:23:49what you identified is correct,

01:23:51which is we can't be on the

01:23:53wrong end of the cost

01:23:55imposition curve where

01:23:56adversaries can use very cheap

01:23:58attributables that we're

01:23:59shooting down with million

01:24:00dollar missiles.

01:24:01That's just not sustainable, but

01:24:03there is progress being made on

01:24:05directed energy, including by

01:24:07our allies.

01:24:08The U.K. Has a system, dragon

01:24:10fire, that looks like it's got

01:24:12some promise.

01:24:13The Israelis have got iron beam.

01:24:15So there's activity going on,

01:24:17and I think you're right that we

01:24:19need to invest more time and

01:24:21effort in it.

01:24:22If I could just add one thing on

01:24:24cyber, I think you serve on the

01:24:26intelligence committee as well.

01:24:28There are things we're doing

01:24:30that we can't talk about that

01:24:32are deterring cyber against us,

01:24:34and we're in other networks, and

01:24:36I won't elaborate on that.

01:24:37I'm sorry, but if we can't talk

01:24:39about it, it's not deterrence.

01:24:41You've got to be able to talk

01:24:43about it.

01:24:44You can't keep the doomsday

01:24:46machine a secret.

01:24:47Not all the time.

01:24:48Our adversaries do understand

01:24:50some of the things we're doing

01:24:52for deterrence.

01:24:53Attribution is still an evolving

01:24:55art, and we can't always

01:24:57identify who's doing what to us,

01:24:59but I think we're stronger in

01:25:01the cyber realm than may appear

01:25:03publicly.

01:25:04I think we have capabilities.

01:25:06My time is up.

01:25:07I commend you for mentioning

01:25:09terrorism.

01:25:10It's a great power competition.

01:25:12One demented individual almost

01:25:16upset our entire presidential

01:25:18process a few weeks ago.

01:25:20I think terrorism is still a

01:25:22very, very significant threat,

01:25:24and I'm afraid we are not

01:25:26attending to it sufficiently.

01:25:27Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:25:28Thank you, Senator King.

01:25:29Senator Cotton, please.

01:25:30Representative Harmon,

01:25:31Ambassador Edelman, and the rest

01:25:33of the commission, thank you for

01:25:35your good work once again.

01:25:37Ambassador Edelman, you spoke

01:25:39with Senator Fischer about the

01:25:41multiple theater force

01:25:42construct, basically the kind

01:25:43of threats we're planning for,

01:25:44and there's a time when this

01:25:45nation planned to fight two

01:25:46major wars at a time, and I

01:25:48think now we're down to a force

01:25:50that can fight one conflict and

01:25:52protect our homeland and

01:25:54hopefully scare bad guys

01:25:55everywhere around the world

01:25:56without starting a war.

01:25:57Is that right?

01:25:58That is correct.

01:25:59That's what the 2022 NDS

01:26:01describes.

01:26:02So that's what our national

01:26:05defense strategy says.

01:26:06Is the current force even

01:26:08capable of doing that, in your

01:26:10opinion?

01:26:11Putting aside what it should

01:26:12be capable of doing, which I'll

01:26:13come to momentarily, can it

01:26:14even do that?

01:26:15I think they're very serious

01:26:17questions about whether the

01:26:18force in being could actually

01:26:20execute the strategy.

01:26:21Okay.

01:26:22There's been some talk about

01:26:23this access of Russia and China

01:26:25and North Korea and Iran.

01:26:27You might add in a few other

01:26:29ancillary bad actors like Cuba,

01:26:30for instance.

01:26:32Do these countries have to get

01:26:35together in a secret diplomatic

01:26:37meeting and agree to carve up

01:26:39different parts of the world or

01:26:41to act in concert?

01:26:42Russia, you strike Ukraine.

01:26:43China, I'm going to hit Taiwan

01:26:45and then Iran's going to go for

01:26:47the jugular in Israel.

01:26:48Do they have to get together

01:26:50like the Molotov-Ribbentrop

01:26:51summit and have a pact to act in

01:26:53concert together?

01:26:54They could do that, but they

01:26:56don't necessarily have to do

01:26:57that.

01:26:58I mean, the problem we face is

01:27:00twofold.

01:27:01We face one problem that you've

01:27:03just described, which is

01:27:05concerted, you know,

01:27:08collaboration in aggression, but

01:27:10there's also the potential of

01:27:12opportunistic aggression if

01:27:13something happens in one theater

01:27:15and one of the other actors

01:27:17decides to take advantage of it

01:27:18to do something in another

01:27:19theater.

01:27:20Representative Harman, I see you

01:27:21nodding your head.

01:27:22Would you like to add your

01:27:23perspective?

01:27:24I totally agree with that, and

01:27:25we see that all the time.

01:27:26And I'm not sure if you were in

01:27:28the room, but one of the things

01:27:30that Ambassador Edelman said is

01:27:32that China is watching intently

01:27:34whether Russia can get away with

01:27:37its illegal invasion of Ukraine,

01:27:39and if it can, that would empower

01:27:42China without a conversation with

01:27:44Russia to move against Taiwan.

01:27:46And this idea well found in

01:27:48history that these adversary

01:27:50nations don't have to sit down at

01:27:52a secret summit, that they can

01:27:54just see that, for instance, the

01:27:56United States and its allies are

01:27:58being taxed in Europe and

01:28:00therefore now is the time to

01:28:02become more aggressive in the

01:28:03Middle East if you're Iran, or

01:28:04maybe China goes to the jugular

01:28:06in Taiwan.

01:28:07It gets back to the point about

01:28:09this force construct as well.

01:28:10What they also see is what the

01:28:12United States says it's capable

01:28:14of doing and the fact that it

01:28:15may not even be capable of doing

01:28:17that.

01:28:18Is that right?

01:28:19I agree.

01:28:20Yeah.

01:28:21And the word pivot probably

01:28:23should be retired.

01:28:24I don't think we can leave

01:28:25anywhere.

01:28:26I think we have to have an

01:28:27understanding of the threats

01:28:29against us, not just against

01:28:31regions.

01:28:32We have threats against regions

01:28:33everywhere and the whole idea of

01:28:35this multiple force construct is

01:28:37flexibility and having an

01:28:39adequate deterrence so we don't

01:28:41engage in more wars.

01:28:43Another related point, there's

01:28:45been some questions about the

01:28:47information environment,

01:28:49misinformation, disinformation,

01:28:51cyber threats as well.

01:28:53Those are important.

01:28:54Don't get me wrong.

01:28:56But are wars going to be won in

01:28:58the information environment and

01:29:00cyber without things that go

01:29:02boom in the real world?

01:29:04Ambassador Edelman?

01:29:05You have to have both.

01:29:07I don't think you were in the

01:29:09room, Senator Cotton.

01:29:10I said that our adversaries,

01:29:12particularly the Russians who

01:29:13have written a lot about this

01:29:15doctrinally see information as

01:29:16part of a suite of activities

01:29:18including all of their kinetic

01:29:20activities whereas we see it in

01:29:22sort of silos.

01:29:23But they see it totally

01:29:25differently and you have to be

01:29:27able to bring all of those

01:29:29together in war.

01:29:30We've learned a lot and we've

01:29:32technologically seen advances on

01:29:34the battlefield in Ukraine on

01:29:35both sides but isn't it the case

01:29:37that the most important

01:29:39technological advances or the

01:29:40advances that enhance the power

01:29:42of the things that go boom on

01:29:44the battlefield, the munitions,

01:29:46the aircraft, the drones, the

01:29:48interceptors and so forth, not

01:29:50things that are just done from

01:29:52keyboards sitting back in

01:29:53Washington?

01:29:54I want to be careful because I

01:29:56think part of the answer is that

01:29:58some of what we've done, for

01:30:00instance, in arming the

01:30:02Ukrainians with different

01:30:03off-the-shelf commercial drones

01:30:04has been undone by Russian

01:30:06electronic warfare which is done

01:30:08from a keyboard.

01:30:09So an electronic warfare is

01:30:11sometimes, you know, attributed

01:30:13to quote information, you know,

01:30:15warfare as well.

01:30:16So I think it's...

01:30:17Keyboards closer to the

01:30:19battlefield with big dishes that

01:30:21shoot invisible things up in the

01:30:23sky, right?

01:30:24Not just people sitting at a

01:30:26keyboard writing a hashtag.

01:30:27Correct.

01:30:28Correct.

01:30:29Thank you both.

01:30:30My time has expired.

01:30:31Thank you very much, Senator

01:30:32Cotton.

01:30:33Senator Manchin, please.

01:30:34Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

01:30:35thank both of you all for very

01:30:37informative discussions this

01:30:38morning.

01:30:39I appreciate all the hard work

01:30:40you've done.

01:30:41When I first came to the Senate

01:30:42in 2010, I came leaving the

01:30:44governor's office of West

01:30:45Virginia and wasn't really that

01:30:47much in tune on the national

01:30:49threats that we had.

01:30:50I was worried about the threats

01:30:51we had in West Virginia.

01:30:52So when I came here, I tried to

01:30:54bone up.

01:30:55I was on this committee, my

01:30:56colleagues, and I'll never

01:30:57forget, and it had to be early

01:30:59February or late January of

01:31:012011, we had all the joint

01:31:03chiefs of staff and all the

01:31:05questions were being asked and

01:31:06identifying the problems we had

01:31:07around the world and the threats

01:31:08we had.

01:31:09The question was asked to

01:31:10Admiral Mullins, Mike Mullins at

01:31:12that time, what's the greatest

01:31:13threat the United States faces?

01:31:14I thought I'm going to hear

01:31:16about, you know, learning about

01:31:17China more and about Russia and

01:31:19always being Russia and the

01:31:20threat that they have.

01:31:21And then all of a sudden,

01:31:22without hesitating, he said the

01:31:24debt of our nation is the

01:31:25greatest threat that we face as

01:31:27Americans.

01:31:28So I would ask you all since we

01:31:30just hit $35 trillion of debt

01:31:32yesterday, what do you all

01:31:34believe is the greatest threat

01:31:35we face?

01:31:36Jane?

01:31:37Well, let me agree with you that

01:31:39our hemorrhaging debt is a huge

01:31:41threat.

01:31:42And one of the things we do in

01:31:44this report, we identify the

01:31:46national debt as a national

01:31:48security threat.

01:31:49And we say, you know, the

01:31:51national debt is a national

01:31:52security threat.

01:31:53And we say that we need to spend

01:31:56smarter and spend more on

01:31:58defense and pay for it.

01:32:00We on a unanimous basis are not

01:32:02recommending printing more

01:32:03money.

01:32:04We are recommending finding a

01:32:06way to raise the revenues and

01:32:08reform entitlements.

01:32:09I know that's a sacred cow

01:32:11sadly these days.

01:32:12But reform entitlements.

01:32:13And we point out that the

01:32:15interest on the debt is larger

01:32:17than our defense budget.

01:32:19So you both agree to that?

01:32:22Yes, sir.

01:32:23Okay.

01:32:24Second, I would say that on your

01:32:26report, you talked about the

01:32:28current force structure that we

01:32:30have.

01:32:31And I think you had identified

01:32:33that the Marines are the only

01:32:35ones meeting that.

01:32:36And we agree with that.

01:32:38What you failed to do is

01:32:40basically identify why we have

01:32:42not or why you all did not take

01:32:44up women being in selective

01:32:46service or joining selective

01:32:48service.

01:32:49Women make up 74% of health care

01:32:51and education industry, 52% of

01:32:53financial activities.

01:32:54They're a tremendously strong

01:32:55force.

01:32:56And there's a lot of women I

01:32:58don't want to go up against, I

01:33:00can tell you that, in so many

01:33:02ways.

01:33:03But why do you believe, I guess

01:33:05my question is simple, does the

01:33:07commission support women

01:33:08registering for selective

01:33:09service?

01:33:10Well, I'll speak for myself.

01:33:12I do.

01:33:13I think that women are a

01:33:15majority of our population, a

01:33:17majority of the most talented

01:33:19women serve on this committee.

01:33:21So, yes.

01:33:22They should be.

01:33:23We should be.

01:33:24And...

01:33:25I'll make it clear that we

01:33:27talked about it does not require

01:33:29women to participate in military

01:33:31draft.

01:33:32I understand.

01:33:33It's registering.

01:33:34Yes.

01:33:35And my answer to that is yes.

01:33:37How come you all didn't address

01:33:39it?

01:33:40You know, I don't have a good

01:33:42answer for you, Senator Manchin.

01:33:44It's not something we took up.

01:33:46It's not something that the

01:33:48services face.

01:33:49I got you.

01:33:50I hope you all would revisit

01:33:52that, if you will.

01:33:54So my last, I have two more

01:33:56questions.

01:33:57My next question would be Russia.

01:33:59What have we learned about

01:34:01Russia during the Ukraine war?

01:34:03Do you think it's basically

01:34:05shown Russia's vulnerability or

01:34:07have they learned basically where

01:34:09the vulnerabilities were,

01:34:10strengthened them?

01:34:11What's your concerns?

01:34:12I think we've learned a lot of

01:34:14things.

01:34:15We've learned that Russia is a

01:34:17feature, not a bug of the system

01:34:19that Vladimir Putin has created

01:34:21since he became president of

01:34:23Russia, you know, at the turn of

01:34:25the century.

01:34:26I think we've learned that

01:34:28Russian military doctrine is not

01:34:30necessarily going to predict how

01:34:32they actually will fight when a

01:34:34conflict comes up.

01:34:35I think we've learned that we've

01:34:38relearned a lesson that has been

01:34:41true of Russian military history

01:34:44for hundreds of years, which is

01:34:47they're willing to sacrifice the

01:34:50lives of their service folks to

01:34:53gain an objective without regard

01:34:55to, you know, to the human

01:34:57costs.

01:34:58My final question, if I could

01:35:00real quickly.

01:35:01I commend your report on

01:35:03attention to defense industrial

01:35:04bases, especially munitions and

01:35:06supply chain.

01:35:07However, there was no mention of

01:35:09solid rocket motors.

01:35:10We have a problem.

01:35:11And the problem is this.

01:35:13We continue to keep pouring money

01:35:15into aerojet rocket dine that

01:35:17continually falls short of

01:35:19producing the quality of rockets

01:35:21and the amount we need, but the

01:35:23government is into that,

01:35:25supporting it, and yet the

01:35:27federal government, we own the

01:35:29ABL lab at rocket city in West

01:35:31Virginia, and they have been

01:35:33producing unbelievable and no

01:35:34one is saying a word about it.

01:35:36No one is basically pushing, why

01:35:38are you shoving money into a

01:35:40private entity when the board

01:35:42of directors, when you own a

01:35:44company, when you own stock

01:35:46ownership, when you already own

01:35:48one, have you all looked at that

01:35:50or would you and basically bring

01:35:52it to a higher level?

01:35:54Sure.

01:35:55Absolutely.

01:35:56And you'll be missed here.

01:35:58You have been very articulate at

01:36:00identifying things not just that

01:36:02West Virginia does, but the

01:36:04energy needs of this country and

01:36:06why it matters that we export

01:36:08more energy.

01:36:09If you would look into it and

01:36:11look at the energy needs of

01:36:13West Virginia versus rocket

01:36:15dine and look at the ownership,

01:36:17the production, the quality of

01:36:19what we're producing there,

01:36:21because without that, as we've

01:36:23said before, we can't compete.

01:36:25We just can't.

01:36:26If you would do that, I would

01:36:28appreciate it.

01:36:29Thank you.

01:36:30Thank you.

01:36:31Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank

01:36:33you both so much for being here

01:36:35for your leadership and to the

01:36:37entire commission for their

01:36:38great work and support staff as

01:36:40well as the entire committee

01:36:42for being so very dedicated.

01:36:44Of course we've had the

01:36:46opportunity to hear about this

01:36:48urgent assessment of our

01:36:50national security landscape and

01:36:52it has changed quite

01:36:54dramatically since the last

01:36:56NDS.

01:36:57So thank you for your time and

01:36:59attention.

01:37:00The recommendation should be a

01:37:02road map to address our security

01:37:04challenges and restore American

01:37:06leadership on the world stage.

01:37:08I know we have talked about

01:37:10force structure and, Ambassador,

01:37:12we'll start with you.

01:37:14Only recently has the force

01:37:16planning shifted to a single

01:37:18conflict structure despite

01:37:20facing the most significant

01:37:22strategic competition our

01:37:23country has ever faced.

01:37:25So the report, I want to draw

01:37:27attention to the quote, and

01:37:29again, I know we've talked about

01:37:31it, but the report includes a

01:37:33quote from a defense strategist

01:37:35who warns, quote, there is no

01:37:37conflict.

01:37:38And he warns, quote, a force

01:37:40that can only wage one conflict

01:37:42is effectively a zero conflict

01:37:44force since employing it would

01:37:46require the president to

01:37:48preclude any other meaningful

01:37:50global engagement, end quote.

01:37:52And in light of this, again, if

01:37:54you can talk a little bit about

01:37:56the multi theater force

01:37:59construct, Ambassador, but then

01:38:01I also want to then lead into

01:38:05what Senator King alluded to

01:38:08with terrorism.

01:38:10Where does that leave our

01:38:13counterterrorism forces?

01:38:16Senator Ernst, I think the

01:38:22problem we have is that, to go

01:38:24to your point, if we have a

01:38:27force that's optimized to fight

01:38:29one war, when a crisis erupts

01:38:33and the president asks the

01:38:35secretary of defense and the

01:38:37chairman of the joint chiefs for

01:38:39military options to deal with

01:38:40it, the answer they're likely to

01:38:42get is, you know, Mr. Or Madam

01:38:44President, we can fight this

01:38:46fight, but you will be at very

01:38:48high risk in all these other

01:38:50places.

01:38:51And against that backdrop, you

01:38:53know, what kind of decisions

01:38:55would, you know, come out of

01:38:57that?

01:38:58It's why I think it's described

01:39:00as a zero war force.

01:39:02Our view was that you have to be

01:39:04able to deter and potentially

01:39:08defeat adversaries in all three

01:39:10of the main theaters that we

01:39:12have been engaged in since the

01:39:14end of the second world war.

01:39:16And which we repeatedly engaged

01:39:18in.

01:39:19I mean, there's been no shortage

01:39:21of efforts to try and extricate

01:39:23the United States from the

01:39:25Middle East.

01:39:26The last NDS in 2018 said we

01:39:30should be willing to run risk in

01:39:32the Middle East.

01:39:33I think on October 7th we got a

01:39:35sense and then again on April

01:39:3713th of what running additional

01:39:39risk means in the Middle East.

01:39:41So it's our view that we have to

01:39:43be able to, you know, manage to

01:39:45do all of those things and in

01:39:47that regard I think we're

01:39:49consistent with our colleagues

01:39:50on the strategic posture

01:39:52commission who argued something

01:39:53quite similar.

01:39:54But we also have to be able to

01:39:56deal with the ongoing threat as

01:39:58senator king said of terrorism

01:40:00and to be able to continue to

01:40:02focus on the things that special

01:40:04operations command has been

01:40:06focused on for a number of years

01:40:08making sure that we don't have

01:40:10terrorist plotting to, you know,

01:40:12create mass casualties either in

01:40:14the homeland or, you know, with

01:40:16our allies.

01:40:17Yes.

01:40:18If I could just add to that.

01:40:20I was in congress on 9-11.

01:40:22Many, many years ago.

01:40:24I was a member before that of a

01:40:26commission on I think the

01:40:28commission on terrorism which

01:40:30predicted a major attack on U.S.

01:40:32soil.

01:40:33No one was listening.

01:40:35And then came 9-11.

01:40:37And we surged everything to the

01:40:39GWAT, the global war on terror.

01:40:41Surging everything is not a good

01:40:43strategy.

01:40:44We missed when we did that.

01:40:46And I think it's important to

01:40:48remember that.

01:40:49And I think it's important to

01:40:51remember that.

01:40:52We missed when we did that the

01:40:54rise of China.

01:40:55We missed the rise of Russian

01:40:57grievance.

01:40:58We missed the kind of world we

01:41:00now live in.

01:41:01We have to do all these things

01:41:03at the same time.

01:41:04Walk and chew gum at the same

01:41:06time.

01:41:07And this report tries by

01:41:09promoting this all elements of

01:41:11national power strategy to talk

01:41:13about how we could do that.

01:41:15And we don't think we, the

01:41:17commission, on a unanimous basis

01:41:19that accepting risk in certain

01:41:21areas of the world basically

01:41:23meaning not projecting U.S.

01:41:25leadership is a successful

01:41:27strategy.

01:41:28We have to be strong everywhere

01:41:30which doesn't mean we have to

01:41:32have boots on the ground

01:41:34everywhere but we have to have

01:41:36an all elements of national

01:41:38power strategy everywhere.

01:41:39Yeah, I am in absolute

01:41:41agreement.

01:41:42Representative Harmon.

01:41:43And mentioning SOCOM, special

01:41:45operations command, I do think

01:41:47it's incredibly important.

01:41:48And I'm in full agreement that

01:41:50we need to be able to face

01:41:52multiple fronts.

01:41:53I think all of us on this

01:41:55committee would agree with that.

01:41:57But we also have to have those

01:41:59that are nimble, agile, those

01:42:01that can respond quickly to

01:42:03situations.

01:42:04Those forces are found in

01:42:06SOCOM.

01:42:07We need to be able to leverage

01:42:09different tools of power in

01:42:11other regions to create

01:42:13stability.

01:42:14So whether it's kinetic action

01:42:16through the military or just

01:42:18through our allies, we need to

01:42:20create greater stability all

01:42:21around the world.

01:42:22And I think we can achieve that

01:42:24but we have to be willing to

01:42:26invest.

01:42:27And diplomacy is one of our

01:42:29tools.

01:42:30So it's soft power matters but

01:42:32hard power does too.

01:42:33And we're not talking about

01:42:35selecting parts of the world

01:42:36for one and other parts for the

01:42:38other.

01:42:39We're talking about a

01:42:40combination that's greater than

01:42:41the sum of the parts.

01:42:42Absolutely.

01:42:43Again, I want to thank you both

01:42:45for your service and our entire

01:42:47report staff.

01:42:48Thank you very much.

01:42:49Thank you, Senator Ornst.

01:42:50Senator Gilliland, please.

01:42:51Thank you, Congresswoman

01:42:52Harmon.

01:42:53Thank you, Ambassador Edelman.

01:42:54So grateful for your testimony

01:42:55and thank you for the great work

01:42:57of this report.

01:42:58One of the things that you

01:43:00concluded was that the DOD

01:43:02should invest more in cyber

01:43:04capabilities and capacity.

01:43:05Over the last two NDA cycles we

01:43:07included a cyber academy to

01:43:09create an ROTC type program.

01:43:11There's about 600 schools

01:43:13eligible right now across the

01:43:15country who are already

01:43:16participating in this program.

01:43:17It's built on an NSA smaller,

01:43:20much smaller program.

01:43:21Can you talk a little bit about

01:43:23how this cyber academy and its

01:43:251,000 slots a year could help

01:43:27meet DOD's future needs?

01:43:29I don't doubt that it will help

01:43:34fill the gap because we need

01:43:37more cyber warriors.

01:43:38I do think that Cyber Command

01:43:40has actually done a pretty good

01:43:42job, Cyber Command and NSA

01:43:44under General Nakasone's

01:43:46leadership and now his

01:43:48successor, at building the

01:43:50force, which, you know, when we

01:43:54looked at this from the

01:43:56commission point of view six

01:43:57years ago there were questions

01:43:59about how well we were doing.

01:44:00I think we've actually made a

01:44:02lot of progress in the ensuing

01:44:05years.

01:44:06But obviously the more we can

01:44:09generate young cyber warriors

01:44:11who are, you know, willing to

01:44:14come to work for the government

01:44:16because that's been an issue in

01:44:17the past, that is going to be a

01:44:19boon.

01:44:20I would just add that, and I'm

01:44:22not sure you hear when we talked

01:44:24about it, that the two new

01:44:26defense domains are space and

01:44:28cyber and we now have space

01:44:30force and we have Cyber Command

01:44:32and slowly we are building the

01:44:35skill sets that we need for our

01:44:38defense capability, not just in

01:44:40the Pentagon to be robust and

01:44:42effective.

01:44:43And so a major cyber attack on

01:44:46U.S. soil could presage China's

01:44:49annexation of Taiwan.

01:44:50That's something we mentioned

01:44:51before.

01:44:52That could happen.

01:44:53Is the American public aware of

01:44:55this and ready?

01:44:56Absolutely not.

01:44:57Is there Chinese technology all

01:44:59over America including in our

01:45:01ports?

01:45:02Absolutely.

01:45:03And so building more capable

01:45:06people who have the ability to

01:45:09do that, who have the training

01:45:11and having a more focused

01:45:14government on the threats are

01:45:16both essential things to do.

01:45:18So one of the concerns I have is

01:45:20that the current recruiting

01:45:22technique for Cyber Com, Cyber

01:45:26Force is that they're recruiting

01:45:28from the existing services.

01:45:30So Navy has to give X number

01:45:32every year, Army, Marines, et

01:45:35cetera, Air Force.

01:45:36And not all the services can

01:45:38meet the goals.

01:45:39Not all the services have the

01:45:40senior cyber personnel that a

01:45:42Cyber Command actually needs and

01:45:44wants.

01:45:45And when they do leave to Cyber

01:45:47Command, then there's no cyber

01:45:49expert left in the service

01:45:50because they just gave those

01:45:52personnel to Cyber Command.

01:45:54So one question I have for space

01:45:56as well, shouldn't we consider

01:45:58having a West Point for cyber or

01:46:00a West Point for space or having

01:46:02one new service academy to

01:46:04educate and train the military

01:46:07personnel for Cyber Command and

01:46:09Space Command?

01:46:10And the reason I say this is

01:46:12because the cyber academy that

01:46:13we have created is just civilian

01:46:15jobs because 50% of all cyber

01:46:17jobs are civilian.

01:46:18So let's at least recruit from

01:46:20the entire country in an ROTC

01:46:22type program for nonmilitary

01:46:24personnel.

01:46:25And so that arguably can be 1,000

01:46:27kids a year graduating with that

01:46:29capability.

01:46:30So let me push the next question.

01:46:321,000 of civilian personnel is

01:46:34great.

01:46:35Not going to meet all our needs.

01:46:36Do you think we should think

01:46:37about or at least do a study on

01:46:39the importance of perhaps having

01:46:40a service academy to directly

01:46:43train military personnel and

01:46:45commanders in cyber and space?

01:46:48It's not something we examine,

01:46:50Senator Gillibrand, but I

01:46:51certainly think it's something

01:46:52worth some study to see whether

01:46:54that would generate the kind of

01:46:56flow through that you would want

01:46:58to staff those skill sets, as my

01:47:01colleague just said.

01:47:02And we also talk about

01:47:04integrating the tech base with

01:47:06the DOD base and make a

01:47:09recommendation that the business

01:47:11model of the tech base may be

01:47:13much more successful than the

01:47:15business model, you know,

01:47:17government at the pace of

01:47:19bureaucracy of the Pentagon.

01:47:21And the tech base produces a lot

01:47:23of highly trained cyber folks

01:47:26through our national university

01:47:29system and private universities.

01:47:31So I think the study is still a

01:47:33good idea, but I also think

01:47:34there are resources we're not

01:47:36leveraging that we could.

01:47:37So even a more serious question,

01:47:39you conclude that given that

01:47:41much of the critical

01:47:42infrastructure that the United

01:47:43States relies on for the

01:47:45power projection overseas falls

01:47:46outside of the DOD's remit, the

01:47:48department needs to further its

01:47:50integration with and increase

01:47:51the capability of the other

01:47:53parts of the U.S.

01:47:54Government, including DHS and

01:47:56CISA, intelligence community,

01:47:57FBI and state and local

01:47:59governments.

01:48:00This finding I find to be the

01:48:02most troubling because it's

01:48:04entirely outside the DOD's

01:48:06mission.

01:48:07It's outside their authority.

01:48:09It's outside the job they want,

01:48:11the job they're willing to do.

01:48:13But in actuality, we don't

01:48:15therefore have domestic cyber

01:48:17defense.

01:48:18FBI is the best cyber response

01:48:20organization to the globe.

01:48:22CISA can literally only offer

01:48:24best practices, and their best

01:48:26practices are the best practices

01:48:28and they're doing great outreach

01:48:30and all the things, but there's

01:48:31no one to stop, and this goes to

01:48:34Senator Angus King's questions,

01:48:36there's no one to stop a

01:48:39significant cyber attack, let's

01:48:41just say on military bases,

01:48:43taking out all of our

01:48:45capabilities domestically to

01:48:46have an electric grid, a water

01:48:48supply, food supply, emergency

01:48:50services, stock exchanges.

01:48:52There's no one to stop that as

01:48:55if we'd want that in a war

01:48:57scenario, and we stop a bombing

01:49:00that's going to happen on our

01:49:01subway system, but we don't stop

01:49:03a cyber attack that's about to

01:49:04hit on our subway system.

01:49:06We'll do response.

01:49:07We do offensive.

01:49:08So with the zero seconds I have

01:49:10left, could you please talk a

01:49:12little bit about what we should

01:49:14be doing from a cyber defense

01:49:16for the homeland.

01:49:17This year's NDA has a

01:49:19requirement for a plan for how

01:49:20to protect at least our military

01:49:22bases, but I think we should be

01:49:24protecting all critical

01:49:25infrastructure.

01:49:26I think the department is just

01:49:28beginning to wrap its arms

01:49:30around this problem that as I'm

01:49:32not sure if you were in the

01:49:34room, Senator Gillibrand, when

01:49:35we said earlier the homeland, if

01:49:37there's a conflict, is not going

01:49:39to be a sanctuary anymore, and

01:49:41the first attacks will likely be

01:49:43in the cyber domain, and they

01:49:45will be incredibly disabling for

01:49:49our society, but also for the

01:49:51department.

01:49:52But getting all of the agencies

01:49:53of government that would have a

01:49:55role in all of this, because it

01:49:57goes beyond just DOD, it goes

01:49:59beyond just DHS.

01:50:00I mean, it goes to the

01:50:02department of transportation.

01:50:03It goes to commerce.

01:50:05I mean, it's an unbelievably

01:50:08complex issue, and we're only I

01:50:10think now kind of wrapping our

01:50:12minds around it, and it needs a

01:50:14lot more work and attention from

01:50:16the department.

01:50:17I think that Senator King

01:50:18mentioned that this committee

01:50:19just confirmed an assistant

01:50:21secretary of defense for cyber

01:50:23today.

01:50:24It's way too late.

01:50:25It's way too slow.

01:50:26You're absolutely right that all

01:50:28of this stuff has to be

01:50:30accelerated.

01:50:31I do think some of our

01:50:33capabilities that we can't talk

01:50:35about publicly are more

01:50:37extensive than people may

01:50:38believe, but the public is

01:50:40essentially clueless about the

01:50:42massive cyber attacks that could

01:50:44be launched any day of the week

01:50:46by our adversaries, not just

01:50:48nation-states but rogue actors

01:50:49as well.

01:50:50Thank you.

01:50:51Senator Shulman.

01:50:52Senator Sprint, please.

01:50:53Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

01:50:55thank you for your work, both of

01:50:57you.

01:50:58I want to ask a few questions

01:51:00about sort of this, our pivot to

01:51:03China, which I think, you know,

01:51:05in this place, in this town,

01:51:07there's hard to find bipartisan

01:51:09agreement on much.

01:51:10I think most people agree that

01:51:12China is our however you want to

01:51:14call it, chief adversary pacing

01:51:16threat, pacing challenge,

01:51:18however you want to wordsmith

01:51:19it.

01:51:20I think that's real.

01:51:22And I think there's

01:51:24recognition, I think, in your

01:51:26work and others that we have a

01:51:29capacity problem in effectively

01:51:31doing that.

01:51:32So I wanted to ask maybe Dr.

01:51:35Edelman, as relates to this,

01:51:38sort of like priorities.

01:51:40How would you, I guess for

01:51:42either one of you, what would

01:51:44you say, I mean, I think I have

01:51:46an idea of what the number is,

01:51:48the amount of money that we

01:51:51spend in Europe.

01:51:54How much of our defense budget,

01:51:57what, give me a ballpark of a

01:52:00dollar amount.

01:52:01Senator Schmidt, it's a little

01:52:03hard to disaggregate it because

01:52:05you've got command and control

01:52:07that covers a variety of sins,

01:52:10but if you're getting at the

01:52:12question of, you know, do we

01:52:15need to spend less on defense of

01:52:17Europe and more in the

01:52:19Indo-Pacific, I think we've got

01:52:21to be able to do both.

01:52:23Well, but here's the point.

01:52:25We're not doing both.

01:52:27And my argument isn't withdrawal

01:52:29necessarily.

01:52:30My argument is, you know, some

01:52:32estimates would be 150 billion

01:52:34to 300 billion a year.

01:52:36Let's just look at the

01:52:38numbers.

01:52:39Let's just use that as a number

01:52:41and people can debate what that

01:52:43actually is.

01:52:44I think for me, and I want to

01:52:46get your thoughts on this, if

01:52:48Canada and Europe went from, so

01:52:50they're a combined total of 2%

01:52:52right now.

01:52:53If they went to 3.4% of spending

01:52:56on defense, you know, as it

01:52:58relates to their GDP like we do,

01:53:01that's another $300 billion.

01:53:03And I'm just, have you guys

01:53:05grappled with this?

01:53:06Because to me, $300 billion

01:53:08allows us to, you know, continue

01:53:10to be, you know, an important

01:53:12ally for a European allies, but

01:53:14also allows us to do the things

01:53:16that we need to do for the

01:53:18homeland in China.

01:53:19So how do you guys view that?

01:53:21I think, look, our allies need

01:53:23to spend more on defense.

01:53:25That's clear.

01:53:26At the latest NATO summit,

01:53:28there's clearly a lot of talk of

01:53:30allies moving beyond, you know,

01:53:32spending more on defense.

01:53:34There's a lot of talk of allies

01:53:36moving beyond 2% of GDP, which

01:53:38now I think about two-thirds of

01:53:40them are hitting, to beyond

01:53:422%, to 2.5%.

01:53:44I think, you know, honestly,

01:53:46sine qua non of them doing that

01:53:48is also seeing us make the

01:53:50investment, which is why in

01:53:52increasing our top line, which

01:53:53is one of the reasons we came to

01:53:55the conclusions we did about,

01:53:57you know, the U.S. top line.

01:53:59Obviously, we need our allies to

01:54:01be producing more.

01:54:03Our defense industrial base is

01:54:05in very bad shape, as we

01:54:07discussed in our report.

01:54:09The European defense industrial

01:54:11base is, you know, in even worse

01:54:13shape.

01:54:14So we need, you know, their

01:54:16industrial base.

01:54:17We need our industrial base.

01:54:19We need our allies in the

01:54:21Indo-Pacific, Australia, Japan,

01:54:23the Republic of Korea, Taiwan,

01:54:25all need to be stepping up

01:54:27because to match what Russia,

01:54:29China, North Korea and Iran are

01:54:31doing is going to be beyond our

01:54:33ability to do it ourselves.

01:54:35We're going to have to do it

01:54:37with allies.

01:54:38So there's going to have to be

01:54:40broad investment across all of

01:54:42the regions.

01:54:43By the way, Middle East as well.

01:54:45We've got partners in the Middle

01:54:47East who could also be doing

01:54:49more in that regard.

01:54:50I would just add that I think

01:54:52Europe is waking up to this, and

01:54:54I think there's a robust

01:54:56conversation in Europe about

01:54:57doing more.

01:54:58Even possibly setting up

01:55:00I don't think this idea will

01:55:02ever take, you know, become a

01:55:04reality, some kind of a European

01:55:06force.

01:55:07But the point is spending more,

01:55:10leading more, fighting Europe's

01:55:12fight in Europe, and I would add

01:55:16that we embrace in this all

01:55:19elements of national power

01:55:21strategy that's the core of our

01:55:23report, doing more with partners

01:55:25and allies.

01:55:26Think about the Indo-Pacific.

01:55:28The Secretary of Defense is

01:55:29there now, I think, with

01:55:31Secretary Blinken talking about

01:55:33how to turn the enhance the

01:55:36command that we have in Japan

01:55:38into a more robust command.

01:55:40It shouldn't just be...

01:55:41I have limited time.

01:55:42I want to get to one more

01:55:44question.

01:55:45I think that's true.

01:55:46I think $300 billion would go a

01:55:48long way in allowing us to sort

01:55:50of as we talk about priorities

01:55:52and just to run through a

01:55:54couple, you know, 320 million

01:55:56would have gone a long way and

01:55:59almost fully funded, you know,

01:56:01the Guam missile defense project

01:56:03that we're not spending money on.

01:56:05You could go through this list

01:56:07about things of us being spread

01:56:09too thin and missing what our

01:56:11real priorities are, and I don't

01:56:13have time to go through them all

01:56:15but they're significant.

01:56:16I guess the final question of the

01:56:18time that I have is this question

01:56:20of the industrial base.

01:56:21To me there's no question Europe

01:56:23needs to step up and that's the

01:56:25heart of a lot of conversations

01:56:26but as it relates to our

01:56:28industrial base, I supported the

01:56:30plus up.

01:56:31I think we should be spending

01:56:33more.

01:56:34If there's a couple of things

01:56:36that could be done to actually

01:56:38produce the things that we need,

01:56:40we don't have enough of what we

01:56:42need, what are a couple of those

01:56:44top line suggestions that you

01:56:45would have that when people ask

01:56:47me back home when I talk about

01:56:49this challenge, what are the

01:56:50things that can be done

01:56:52differently?

01:56:53We have done their job for sure

01:56:55in providing for instance

01:56:57authority for multiyear

01:56:59procurement which is I think one

01:57:01of the most important things

01:57:03because industry responds to the

01:57:05notion that they're going to

01:57:07have a long timeline to produce

01:57:09this, not just a spike and then

01:57:11go down.

01:57:12It would be helpful if the

01:57:14appropriators would on their

01:57:15side make sure their dollars

01:57:17appropriated against that to do

01:57:19that for the department.

01:57:20That I know is one of the

01:57:22things that has held up the

01:57:24department until recently.

01:57:25I just add that we're not only

01:57:27talking about the defense

01:57:29industrial base.

01:57:30We're talking about the

01:57:32industrial base and embracing

01:57:34fully the tech sector which has

01:57:36much more to contribute to the

01:57:38defense of our country than it

01:57:40is able to contribute.

01:57:41Thank you.

01:57:42Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:57:43Thank you, Senator Schmidt.

01:57:45I want to thank Representative

01:57:47Harmon and Ambassador Adelman for

01:57:49their excellent testimony based

01:57:51on a superb report, and I also

01:57:54want to shout out to General

01:57:58Keene and Tom Mankin, Mara

01:58:02Rudman, Mariah Sixkiller, Lisa

01:58:05Sarzak and Roger Zakon, a great

01:58:08group.

01:58:09But I have to give a special

01:58:12kudos to David Granus, Ralph

01:58:15Cohen, Amy Hopkins, Travis

01:58:17Sharp, Dustin Walker and Becca

01:58:20Johnson because we all know you

01:58:22get the credit.

01:58:23They did the work.

01:58:24So thank you very much.

01:58:25But this has been an

01:58:27extraordinarily useful hearing

01:58:28and it's got us both informed

01:58:31and I think energized to move

01:58:33forward, and with that, I thank

01:58:35you all, and I will adjourn the

01:58:37hearing.

Jack Reed Leads Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing On National Defense Strategy Commission

Category

Transcript

Recommended