tv Air Force General Paul Selva Testifies at Reappointment Hearing CSPAN July 18, 2017 8:49pm-10:45pm EDT
rwords on 1: watch aftee "book tv." now i hearing for the air force general to be reappointed as vice chair of the joint chiefs of staff. he was appointed by president obama in 2015 and has been nominated by president trump for another two-year term. iraniansked about the nuclear program, north korea and cyber security. financials personal information was targeted after the data breach. john mccain normally chairs the senate armed services committee, but he is recovering from surgery, so senator james imhoff filled in. sen. inhofe: this meeting will
come to order. first of all we all have on our minds and in our prayers senator mccain. he is going through some recovery right now and will be back this week. that will change the way we are doing business in a little bit, but nonetheless we hope he is back very soon. and our committee meets this morning to consider the nomination, the renomination of to bel silva -- selva vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. i think we have been through this round of questions. we will forgo that. assuming you have changed your mind from last time, is that correct? any family you would like to introduce? gen. selva: i will do that in my opening statement. your record is well-known. the first two years as joint chiefs of staff has been marked
by great challenges the ofionals 30 in the events crisis in the middle east and russian aggression, actions korea, nuclear and long-range missiles. men and women continue to serve in the battle in afghanistan, the country never again a safe haven for terrorists. looking at your leadership in the department of defense and armed services, it presents renewed opportunities are armed services as we work prepare for the threats of the future, crises around the world that will multiply service members. a diverse array of local conflicts since world war ii. jury ating military challenging times requires strong leadership. the committee looks forward to your testimony about how you plan to guide our men and women
gen. selva:. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to join you in wishing senator mccain a speedy recovery and rapid return to responsibility. this might be one of the few navy becauseay go i certainly do, i want to say him back. -- see him back. we noticed the first three here on time were all three army. thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcomingjoin you in -- as we consider reappointment by the joint, we think you for your many -- thank you for your many years. i went to recognize your wife for many years of support. the united states faces a wide range of challenges. if you are reconfirmed, you will
be an integral player in the complex international issues facing the national interest, influencing active measures aimed at undermining the american people in election processes and others. russia continues to threaten neighbors and nato allies. there complying with commitments on the minsk cease-fire agreement. they have support for the assad regime. north korea is a grave national security threat, and the community grapples with the idea there are no quick options. there have been sanctions against north korea and threatening the rules-based order in the asia-pacific region by economic and portion of the vulnerable neighbors and undermining the freedom of navigation. iran continues development of ballistic missiles as well as other destabilizing measures.
while we continue to make standing military progress against isis, they have get to articulate a broad government strategy the issue that gave rise to isis. , the committee looks forward to hearing from you for these issues. the vice chairman is given a number of responsibilities, -- the joint requirements. by making the vice chair the vice principal, i join requirements. given acquisition programs to necessary, i look forward to the effectiveness of the new authorities and whether you believe the changes are warranted. the vice chairman is courageous, working with senior policymakers
and the national security council in issues. in light of the strategic challenges earlier, we look forward to the effectiveness of the current interagency process. and you have been a part of the deputy secretary at work, forcing the innovation strategy. office,tegic abilities defense innovation, and other special projects. a second term, you will provide final continuity between the last administration and the present administration. it is imperative that secretary mattis continue to use the most dynamic sectors of the economy. selvayou again, general for your willingness to serve our nation, and i look forward to your testimony. gen. selva: you are recognize -- sen. inhofe: you are recognized,
general selva. gen. selva: thank you. i would like to recognize general mccain -- senator mccain's service. i hope he is back here at work. ranking member read, distinguish members of the committee, it is an art to appear here before you. i am grateful to the president and secretary of defense for their continued trust and faith in my ability to serve. i would like some brief points before a continue. i look forward to your questions. i want to commend those who wear the cloth of our nation. i have had the opportunity to visit service members and their families around the globe, and i am continually impressed by their dedication, service, and talent. it has been my honor to serve in the united states armed forces as the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and i will strive to keep a with them. ,econd as you already mentioned
it is important to acknowledge the complex challenges that face the joint force today. the domination of external challenges presented by adversaries and competitors and internal challenges like readiness or modernization amplified the continual budget instability are all issues with which this committee is very familiar. value the dialogue i and other senior military members have with this amity, and i think the committee for your work -- thank the committee for your work with the servicemen. i hope through my work and our discussions i made to you the seriousness i take of my responsibilities. i would like to recognize my wife, the love of my life, who is here with me today. know, she was a classmate when we attended the air force academy. she is not only a lifelong
friend and partner but provides me with the help only someone in her physician can, and -- her position can, and i will be grateful. members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to .e considered for a second term i look forward to your questions. thank you.: i would like to start off with one that has been foremost on my mind and the minds of most of the members here as well as the uniformed. i applaud people for being straight forward but the threat we are facing now, that would be north korea. they successfully tested a ballistic missile on the fourth of july. the country also completed a successful military test may 14. the experts consider north 4rea's missile test on july to be the most significant advancement towards nuclear
capability in the intercontinental ballistic missile. we have had a lot of witnesses talk about this. we have a lot of what that would mean to the united states. if you look at the protected range, somewhere around 5000 miles which would put personal that united states into range. it is a scary thing. we have the armed services committee hearing on the asia-pacific strategy on april 25. we had a panel of experts, and they were good. they agreed with me north korea represents the most imminent threat to the national security. i thought we could go ahead and start with three questions concerning them. one, two you agree with the experts that came to that conclusion concerning our national security?
and secondary, north korea is strategyexport nuclear to countries like and thirdly, what is your level of confidence in terms of our intelligence community's ability to monitor what is really going on there. those three things can start of thought. >> thank you. i agree the north koreans are moving quickly. not saying the tests on the fourth of july demonstrates they have the capacity to strike the united states with any degree of
accuracy or reasonable confidence of success. what the experts tell me is that north koreans have yet to demonstrate the capacity to do the guidance and control but would be required. was only referring to range. referring tonly range. sir, we will have to watch carefully g developments on those capabilities. i agree with the intelligence communities and the others that the democratic people's republic of korea is an arms proliferator. there is no evidence they have engaged in proliferation of long-range missiles but they have proliferated every other missile systems that they have invented so it is a clear pathway to potential proliferation of these kinds of weapon systems.
>> and the capability of our intelligence? >> i am relatively capable -- i of thetively confident capability. kim jong-un and his forces are good at concealing and deception. we have a ceiling that would be happy to talk about it in a classified session. and militaryilians that monitor those activities. >> it has been said outside because behind hearing that the -- thehe has been doing nicest thing i can say about kim jong-un is he is totally unpredictable and the most unpredictable of anyone i have ever had any kind of experience with or even read about and that is what is scary. do you agree with that? >> yes, sir, i do agree with that assessment.
>> this committee has received uniformsmony from the and the experience people outside of the uniforms that only one third of our army brigades are ready. ourear about the 62% of f-18s that the marines have been using do not work. we recognize that what we're going through the last few years, the first thing to go is maintenance and then of course, modernization. so i would like to have your assessment of whether or not you do agree with the gentleman who said for example, he testified before this committee that 50% of the air force, kforce are sufficiently ready for a highly contested fight against adversaries. going beyond equipment, going to individuals. secretary wilson, another
wilson, and a general told us they would be short 1500 pilots, most of them fighters, by the end of the share. do you agree with these assessments? you want to elaborate on anything they said? >> i agree with both assessments. both speak to the availability of funding and resources to make what wees ready for call high-intensity combat against a fierce competitor. the budget in 2017 is helpful. the proposed budget for 2018 is down the pathway to being able to restore much of the training, but it will be a two-year process before receiving readiness. >> i agree with that. senator reid: thank you general for your service. one of the issues in terms with -- dui -- theyg
were hoping for knowledge on these satellites. inexpensive i should say. and also exploiting them with artificial intelligence, something we really need. particularly in korea. we are told they are about to run out of money and we have not received reprogramming yet. i would say this is an urgent need. can you explain why they are in this distress and what we could do? gen. selva: yes, sir, i can. we put great emphasis on the experimental project they are working on for us. we were notified last week by the director that we have a reprogramming proposal in staff as we speak that will address the balance and requirements for
this fiscal year and we will begin some of the funding for programs that will extend into the next fiscal year year. they will be able to do that with year-end money. >> one of the areas of concerns is a situation in iraq. i was there about her weeks ago. the ground.ess on general townsend is doing a great job as the commander on the ground along with, when i was at key west, the second brigade was leading the advisory for. .- effort the issue now becomes as we reduce their affect on isis, the long-term crisis. --o, i heard there was according to the revolutionary guards ever ran, they are decimating a retaliation group. can you give us any insight? frome fighting is far
over. isis has lost the sanctuary of mosul but they still have a lot of small towns they control. there is a plan with the iraqi security forces to begin a campaign. in move those towns into on bear province to secure the border with syria. important work because that will deny isis sanctuary on both sides of the border. i share your concern. i read this morning about the iranian public parts making a statement that if they are declared an international terrorist organization they will retaliate against our forces in iraq and. we will have to take that into consideration. >> to i. in another area in your policy, you indicated -- which is something that has been said by
so many -- that our adversaries in technology savvy eroded what used to be h amend this over max by the united states. the question is, what are we doing to get back way ahead. not just a few inches and metaphorically. gen. selva: you alluded to the work we've been doing over the past couple years and the advanced concepts arena as well as working with former deputy secretary called the third offset strategy. those are concepts that would allow us to contest what we call the anti-access area denial strategies that many of our adversaries have attempted to impose on us by making our bases and forces more resilient and able to survive under the kind of tax associated with the area denial strategies. particularly china and north korea. it allows us to eject force that
in otherwise would be presumed denied. >> finally quickly, we have been working for several different congresses on acquisition reform. we have passed legislation. we have a long way to go. we both recognize that. as chairman, you have been given additional responsibility both actual and referential, symbolic. can you tell us what you are doing to kind of help them jumpstart acquisition and get it so we can deliver systems? if anything, they have had tough luck at getting systems from the drawing board into the field. can you comment? >> we are implementing last year's nba. there is more flexibility. the advisor to the chairman for
readiness and the deployment of systems that support readiness. the second is building the relationship was serviced use and service to censor a secretary is in their acquisition authority roles. we are now requiring service directly to acquisition authorities, not only for the basic design and integration capabilities going into systems but actual performance on the line of buying systems. one really striking example of the capability was a piece of work we did to move counter unmanned aircraft systems technologies into iraq from idea to fruition measured in months. on delivery to deployment measured in weeks. those are numbers that are actually quite useful. >> thank you mr. chair. mrs. you general selva and apple. thank you for your service to our nation as well. in your answer to our advanced
policy questions regarding southeast asia, you suggest short-term stressors can be managed within the alliance construct and a few weeks ago referring to the will of been specifically, secretary mattis testified that in 2014 we canceled our named counterterror operation with a premature view of success, causing us to lose funding lines we would have otherwise been able to offer. agree with me and a secretary mattis that reestablishing a named operation is something we should consider as part of our alliance obligation in order to make sure that those short-term stressors do not turn into a prolonged or long-term catastrophe? gen. selva: yes ma'am. in every case where we see the resurgence of terror networks, particularly in the southern philippines i think it is worth considering whether we reinstate a named operation. not only to provide for the resources required by to get the
specific command commander and field commanders in the philippines the kind of authority they need to work with indigenous philippine forces to help them be successful in the battle. >> thank you. i hope we can work with secretary mattis on this issue. you have been moving on -- moving on to another topic, you have been overly critical of congress about the budget tosses. i agree it is long past time for us to break the cycle of the continuing resolutions. we're not doing ourselves any favors. however, budgets are a two-way street. the dod has not been able to conduct or pass a clean audit for a very, very long time and so that is not helping our cause either. what specifically were you doing your next few years to achieve a clean audit that you have not maybe been able to accomplish in the last two years?
gen. selva: i have found of the last couple years that achieving a clean audit is a vexing journey. in particular, the discussions over the valuation of rope property are in obstacle in the way of getting that work done. the debates over what we own and what it is actually worth. that inhare with you advance of his confirmation, the newveral hours with deputy secretary of defense patrick shanahan discussing how we might get at this issue of valuing capital property is said that we can in fact clear a clean audit. we will commit to working not together to the defense management action group to come to a resolution. >> ever shake up. i hope we can move forward especially when it comes to real property. we have to on this. we absolutely must get this done. to know how the dollars are things spent so we can reassure
our taxpayers that we in congress and you as the dod are doing the right. so thank you, i hope we are successful. you also support providing assistance to ukraine, something i've been pushing for a number of years as well. other than being actively engaged with the inter-agency on this issue, what specific steps to make thisin dod happen? gen. selva: we are working very closely to put requirements on the table for a inventory of what the defense of aid might look like. it might be more than just a military recommendation, this will be a policy choice on whether or not we are going to give the tools they need to defend themselves against what we believe to be a russian-supported insurgency movement in the mosque. reported recently
attempt to deny montenegrins succession to nato, what steps should we be taking to reconfirm our commitment to nations like ukraine, kosovo, and other candidates just in reassuring them that we will assist them should they wish to become nato members? >> one of the tools i think we can bring to bear as the joint staff and military team and contacts with chiefs of defense and leaders of their militaries to make sure that all of those countries, in spite of what is going on internally with or without the interference of the russian government, actually are able to make the military reforms that are necessary so they can move towards a path to leadership in nato. >> i appreciate that. there are a lot of partnership programs out there and those countries need our help. thank you. >> hello. thank you for being here and thank you for your service. welcome to your family.
i want to talk to about where we china combat and military sexual assault. in 2013, then-chairman of the chief of staff, general martin dempsey said a majority expressed a lack of confidence in our ability to solve this. we are currently on the clock, if you will. the prison of the united states and was in december, you have got a year to review this thing and show me to make a difference. we understand just because senator gillibrand's vote was defeated yesterday it does not mean a year from now it may not be reintroduced and if we have not been able to demonstrate we are making a difference, you know, then we deserve to be held to the scrutiny and standard. this is now four years later and we do not see a change in the overall numbers. we do not see a change in the rate of prosecution. we do not see a change in the reign of conviction. and we do not see a change in the rate of retaliation.
so i am really worried that in these measurable swear commanders are entirely responsible for outcome, they have not met the level of scrutiny and oversight that is really necessary to really tackle this problem effectively. so, do you agree that more needs to be done to create environments where it comes and bystanders can be report and not be retaliated against? >> senator, i believe survivors of sexual assault and bystanders should begin an environment where they can report what is happened and we can provide an unbiased investigation and possible prosecution of the perpetrators of the crime. >> do you agree we have not achieved enough progress? >> i do not agree we have not progress butgh perfection is the only achievement and can be allowed in this case. sexual assault is contrary to the notion that we treat all soldiers, this sailors, airmen, and reads with the dignity they respect because they wear the uniform of this nation.
fore're not going perfection. we're going for a climate where men and women can be served -- can serve without being sexually assaulted. where they can report crimes they know it will be prosecutors. where they can report crimes and know it will not be retaliated. we're not even close. the estimate lester was 15,000 sexual assault, unwanted sexual contact, and rape. that is nowhere where we need to be. almost 60%ve an retaliation right and the rate of conviction has not moved in five years. so, i do not think we are achieving enough progress. we've done a lot of good things in terms of getting better evidence sharing records. getting better evidentiary standards. making sure there is special counsel for the individuals who our rate of unrestricted reports, where you are willing to put your name and make it public, is going down.
our rate of restricted reports is going up. so the confidence in the system is not there. so, i really hope you will commit to me to do a full look into this issue. look for new solutions. look for untried solutions. because what we're are doing today is not working and we have done every small recommendation we could do by every many that has offered them. i will commit'am, to take a deep dive into all of the programs implemented and look at whether or not they will be effective in supporting the survivors of sexual assault and making sure we get to unbiased investigations and prosecutions. >> thank you. i would now like to talk about our transsexual service members. twice as likely to serve, according to one study, then me general population but i am concerned about the recent six
i'm an month delay the department has approved before leading transgender people and listen services will have unintended consequences. what have you learned so far in your review of this issue hand how is the implementation going so far? gen. selva: thank you senator. am all for every person that can meet the physical standards for our armed services to do so. our decision to delay transgender person into services was largely based on a disagreement on the science of how mental health care and hormone therapy for transgender genderedll help solve dysphoria. there are a host of other problems with potential physical standards that the service chiefs ask for additional time to excessive they can make necessary changes to infrastructure as well as training curricula for our basic trainees who come in in the
transgender status, particularly those who have not undergone gender reassignment surgery and while they present as their tyga gender are still physiologically still in their first gender and those issues have to be dealt with before we can begin to access -- except those individuals into service. >> thank you general -- senator gillibrand. senator cotton. senator cotton: congratulations on your reappointment. i would like to discuss the intermediate range missile treaty service between the united states and the soviet union, now russia, that prevents from 500-550sile kilometers. russia has been known to be cheating on this treaty. the state department found that three years ago. you testified that to your knowledge, russia is not intending to return to compliance. do you remain of the same
opinion today? gen. selva: i do. there is no new intelligence and says the russians are inclined to return or abrogate the treaty. they are trying to walk the middle line. senator cotton: i have to say i president putin change. even if it's much more from the prohibition on intermediate range missiles that europe. the one country that could produce those missiles and point them at the united states is restrained. nothe other hand, i do think he likes the fact that countries on his periphery can produce and deploy them. him get away let with that, there is no reason for him to quit cheating. is there anything in your mind we could do to put pressure on russia ring them back into comp?
so: -- gen. selva: within the boundaries of the treaty, it is our assessment that the russians have gone beyond that and fielded an intermediate range cruise missile which could be nuclear capable. so we do have some options to put pressure on the russians not only diplomatically but also within the military realm. you raised that because the iron of treaty act would raise money just for that. --fact, the senate passed the administration put out a statement in policy last week that had some issue with that provision. i suspect we are working on it. in the end, since we all want to
see russia come back into compliance. putting aside its impact, i want to bring your attention to admiral harris's testimony a few months ago when he stated that over 9% of china's land-based missile forces all between the range of 500-550. but china is not a signatory, only the united states and russia. we do not have matching capabilities. do you interpret this imbalance as a potential problem in the asia-pacific? gen. selva: it would be easy to interpret that as an offensive and balance but we're not restricted from building ballistic missile systems that can be launched from ships or airplanes in the intermediate nuclear forces treaty. it is specific to land-based missiles. so with respect to whether or not we use the imf treaty to say
targets inside china might not be held at-risk, i think is a bridge too far. i believe we can assert that the deployment of missile systems would allow us to hold those targets. >> they do. although the obvious disadvantage of ships and aircraft as they are awfully small to land which is why china has 90% of their missile forces and not range with land. we are limited by our ships and aircraft. do you think we should consider extending offensive capabilities to allies in the asia and civic not bound by this treaty to help counterbalance china's offensive capabilities? gen. selva: i think that his options we should look at as people provide sound advice to military leaders. it would be a sound advice on whether or not to use that leverage against the chinese. cotton: general millet and general mcmaster in his
previous job of testified the army was arranged and outgunned. and out-gun. there talking about missiles, correct? mile range? gen. selva: added as the argument. many of our multiple launch rocket systems are out ranged by the russians within the ranges stipulated. kotten: but below the 500 kilometers which we addressed, also that we cannot go beyond the range? gen. selva: yes, sir. senator cotton: thank you. ?> senator kaine sen. kaine: i want to thank everyone who has mentioned hopes and prayers for senator mccain to get back so we can harass the witnesses as we are accustomed to do. selva, i know you are interested in innovation and
that is an important part of innovation and getting where we are. i am concerned that small companies in silicon valley for example will not even interact with the pentagon because the process is so cumbersome and lengthy and burdensome. and now we are at a point where a significant majority of defense funding goes to four or five major contractors. how do we deal with the system itself, and the structure, the infrastructure of acquisition so that we can open up to greater innovation coming very frequently from smaller companies? gen. selva: senator, for large ingrams or small companies silicon valley, they are probably not going to be the competitors we are looking for. with that said, two important programs are underway as we speak. the first is a venture capital incubator at national defense
university that helps learn the ins and outs of the venture capital business. enter capital is what runs silicon valley. it is the willingness to take risk on new program's, new technologies, rapid motor typing that might or might not deliver at relatively small amounts of money and that is the recently established in part the defense innovation unit experimental in silicon valley. not only to have a point of presence to interact with these new technology companies but to have a funding vehicle where we can engage in rapid prototyping and venture-capital-like activities. heinz is that far enough in long to determine whether not it is working? gen. selva: i think so. we have expanded the concept to technology centers in boston and austin, texas, as well. we're finding the kind of companies that can bring is the innovative ideas that can be scaled to programs.
the thirdtalk about set. the first two are focused on the warsaw pact and the soviet union. talk about the third offset is a would relate to the multiplicity and diversity of threats we face today. gen. selva: thank you senator. the threats we face today are largely based on mimicking our command and control philosophies, but adding to them long grade strike that can deny us access to the areas that we previously had free access to. the projection of power is fundamental to our ability to fight wars. as we look at the third offset, the principal things we were examining and continue to examine our artificial intelligence and the ability to team humans and machines to speed our understanding of the complex battles represented by these new adversaries and
competitors and react inside of that space pastor then they can respond to our actions. it also involves building around our bases and forces a degree of resiliency through camouflage concealment deception as well is and prevent our opponents for being able to hold the whole force at risk using their ballistic and missile systems. >> i assume part of this is resiliency and defense against cyber. i would assume that if a conflict was to begin, the first phase would be cyber to take out communication systems and those kind of things. as a part of the thinking? yes, sir.: thinking is the partnership between humans and machines. in that space, machine-to-machine defensive cyber networks is an explicit tax. if we cannot defend our networks at machine speed, we are giving
our opponents maneuvering space in that domain to defeat us in detail. >> proxy can take this for the record, i recently finished general mcmasters book about vietnam dereliction of duty and critical. vertical -- i would like your thoughts, not now, but in writing on what the role of the joint chiefs are in a situation where the political leadership is either not listening or taking a position that you feel is contrary to the country's interests in terms of capabilities. general mcmaster does a masterful job of outlining the problem, but i am interesting thesome thinking of what is answer to the problem he illuminates a brilliantly and not book. gen. selva: in short, i would say our responsibility is to
provide.com on us military advice. in the absence of a role of forces, to follow that advice. we continue to give it. thank you. senator warren: thank you mr. chairman. like my colleagues, went to state for the record how much we him senator mccain and wish a speedy recovery. i also note that senator reid and senator kaine talked about dui x so i won't go back through that. i express my strong support for what you are doing there and how much more we can do. i wanted to focus on general silver. i heard you publicly describe the main global threats that we face as challenges. russia, china, iran, north korea, and violent extremism. i want to ask you about another global threat, climate change. since the report from two years ago and i quote, global climate
change will have wide ranging implications for u.s. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it problemsavate existing such as poverty, social tensions, environmental segregation. ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions. in short, this dod report described climate change as a threat multiplier. so, general selva, what impact you believe the change in climate will have on the military services and what do you believe the department of defense should be doing now to prepare for this impact question mark gen. selva: thank you, ma'am. willynamics are happening drive uncertainty and will drive conflict. i would just provide one example of how that can happen and this is a man-made problem.
the dams along the nile river control the flow of water into what was the fertile crescent of egypt. what are flowthe causes the egyptians to become more hostile to their neighbors, who are putting dams upstream of the egyptian stretch of the nile river. i could build that argument in a friday of countries around the world and those are man-made problems. not directly related to climate change but related to how we as humans change our environment. if you extend that argument to the kinds of things that might happen if we see title rises, if we see increasing weather patterns of drug and flood and forest fires -- dropped and flood and forest fires and other national disasters, we will have to be prepared for what that means in terms of instability in regions of the country where those impacts happen. particularly in places where
there is massive food and stability. africa is a classic example, where a small drought over a theted time can decimate crops and cause instability and make that an area fertile for recruitment of extremists because they see no other way. similarly, you could look at the decimation of the fisheries off of somalia that contributed to piracy because the fisherman could not make their livelihood best,ng what they do which is fishing on the fishing reels off of somalia. we have to be prepared. it will cause as to have to address questions like humanitarian disaster relief and it will also causes to have to focus on places where climate instability might cause actual political instability in regions where we had not previously had to pay attention to. senator warren: climate change is an ongoing problem.
climate change will have a profound impact directly on our military and on our military infrastructure end on how military is able to carry out its mission. i really hope in addition to all of these local challenges that you have in front of you, and i know they are are many and they are serious. we need to lead today on this challenge, general. tomorrow may be to late. i want to follow-up in the little bit of time i have remaining on senator kaine's question about the third upset. upset. i know you have made it a priority in your first term. but, what i am concerned about is we do not seem to be moving very fast. many of the technologies we are talking about are still in the development phase. meanwhile, our competitors are continuing to improve their
capabilities. it can take years, sometimes decades from the time we first sign a contract for new technology to actually make it out into the field. and you can take this for the record, what can we do about this to speed up our response time? >> i would make to quit points. rapid prototyping. we have to be willing to invest and fail in systems that might not work. we cannot be bashful about bringing new software into our architectures. we have worked very closely with companies in silicon valley to do rapid prototyping testing and the climate of software that helps with things like automatic target recognition and change detection. i think those are two things we can do right now and be quite successful. senator warren: thank you. i know you share my concern about being outpaced by
technology. thank you. mr. chair.u forme begin by thanking you your service to our country. your previous work before you took your current position, you were the commander of the u.s. transportation command and i know in your statement for the record you straight at our military strategy is predicated on the ability to deploy and sustain forces. they stun your previous position, you understand the need to be able to get to where the fight is at. i understand you appreciate the reliance we have on commercial air carriers in order to do that within our current plans. as you already know, right now extend themeans to cyber protection to the critical commercial carriers.
we have talked about this and a few hearings, including just last week. my question for you is, if you were an adversary nation how would you explain this and how would that impede the ability of the united states should deploy forces question mark i realize that you may be limited as to what you consent about this in an open session, but i think it would be really good for this committee and the american people to hear a few general comments on the issue because unless we continue to focus and gain public support for what i think we need to do with regard to cyber protection, it is going to be very difficult to get to where we have to be and we have to have the commercial air carriers available in times of an airlift. can you comment about what that means and how our adversaries might exploit the current situation? gen. selva: i am caution cautious other than echoing what
you said and an open session. i will out the following, it is not just our air carriers that make us successful. merchant air carriers, marines, rail and trucking industry, all three together land, sea, air art the capability we bring to be able to deploy forces around the world. all of those capabilities i just theribed are dependent upon quality and veracity of data they use to move our forces. those, that data, networks, are just as important as the trucks, trains, ships, implants that move our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines. >> thank you. this public-private cyber security solution would give us experience to build the betweenk to use
organizations and and outside government. can you give me an update, at least in general terms, on how the security gap is being addressed today? ofarly, it is not a case where we are just planning for the future. we have rings and waste today. can you give us some reassurances? gen. selva: based on experience in my previous job, the trans-con j six director of communications is given the authorities and responsibilities of protecting not only the transcontinental network but extending through contract vehicles through our civilian providers, those data standards and network standards that allow them to subscribe to many of the protections afforded to the transcontinental network which may be a model upon which we can build the continuing public-private partnership into critical infrastructure in other sectors of the economy.
>> thank you, sir. any minute or so i have remaining come in your experiences two years enough time to maximize the vice chief potential to provide optimal strategic guidance as well as maintain continuity for a large portfolio? >> no sir, it is not and that is why i'm glad to see the work done in the 2017 defense authorization act that makes the chairman and feist chairman positions four-year towards with only one central renomination for a two-year extension. that four-year term will allow the chairman and vice chairman to have the authority you expect of uniformed members and those position. >> thank you, sir. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. sen. peters: thought senator peters: great to have you here before us. the opportunity to have discussion with you here as well as in my office, thank you.
i want to thank you for your focus on advanced technologies and/or understanding of how we need to be on the forefront of that to keep our competitive edge. i would say before adding a question that we afford about silicon valley and boston when it comes to advance technology, but we have all of that in michigan as well. when the u.s. patent office opened their first field office outside of question 10,, they did it in detroit, michigan, because more patents are filed their then any world's given the fact that we have more engineers the any other place in united states per capita. i hope you are continuing to focus on a wide geographic space and understand we have incredible capabilities throughout our country. i recently met with general put trias, the acting director of capabilities center and dr. thomas russell from acquisitions and technology of
the army to discuss the army robotics and autonomous systems strategy. during that meeting we discussed the challenges of building these capabilities with entry efficacy ofd the employing a thomas and semi-autonomous in future topics. over the next five years, autonomy in robotics, artificial intelligence, common control. hear yourke to assessment and analysis as to the status of each of the services and the department in researching and utilizing particularly autonomy and robotics. gen. selva: thank you. all of the services are quite engaged in a campaign to understand where advanced artificial intelligence and autonomy can be inserted into current concepts of operations and how they might he used in new and imaginative concepts of operations to help the feet
adversaries across the spectrum of potential conflicts we might find ourselves in. i am very careful in public settings about the discussion of the very specifics of some of autonomy-initiated things especially as they relate to advanced air defense and areasing in denied because they will actually expose some of the father we believe our opponents have and he will actually expose some of the tools we think we can bring to bear. if you will allow me to use shorthand, it is very compelling one one looks at the capabilities that artificial intelligence can bring. the speed and accuracy of command and control at the capabilities that advanced robotics might bring to a complex battle space, particularly machine-to-machine interaction in cyberspace where speed is of the essence. i will stop there at the risk of exposing things we are doing.
>> i fully understand, general. the approache of to a thomas weapons system is due to be renewed this year. this directive specifically assigns responsibility for the development for autonomous and semi-autonomous platforms. in doing so, the department has stated it will not allow any rubber machine to take legal action without a human operator empty decision-making loop. aware of thee moral and ethical issues associated with that, however our adversaries often do not consider the same moral issues we consider each and every day. russia withently aia neural network people believe identifying and neutralizing targets and suggesting russian weapon makers see robotics and aia as a key for future sales for adversaries
of hours around the world. so given the dod directive scheduled to update and renew this year, can you give a short thoughts regarding what seems to be russian developments in ai targeting? gen. selva: yes, sir, i will. there will be debate in the department about whether or not we take humans out of the decision to take lethal action. i will type in this forum i am an advocate for keeping that restriction. because we have values and many of the things we do are governed by the laws of war which say we must take proportional and discriminate action against an enemy to achieve our this. reasonableink it is to put robots in charge of whether or not to take a human life. that does not mean we do not have to address the development of those kind of technologies and potentially find their vulnerabilities in its fleet
those honorable eddies -- exploit those vulnerabilities to our benefit. something onnleash humanity something we do not know how to control. that is way off in the future but it is something we need to deal with right now. >> thank you, and general. you senator inhofe. general, wind you expect the -- to be complete? >> might expectation is it will take several more months to complete the nuclear posture review and the ballistic missile defense review will follow it. the second review is informed by posturing. strategic >> you said the npr would be examining response options to russia's violation of the inf treaty. as i correct?
do you mean the npr will describe potential options or will it contain a decision that we pursue a particular course of action? gen. selva: the design of the npr is to provide the president with option so we will provide a set of options that maybe reasonable responses to the russian activity with respect to the inf. decisions, just options? gen. selva: yes, ma'am. >> and i know we conferred with the russians about the violation and what has there response been? gen. selva: may have been wrote on how they -- they have been moot on how they intend to respond. greg said they said they would come back into compliance with the treaty? they had they said how intend to come back into compliance with the treaty which mark gen. selva: no, ma'am.
aggression activities are part of the environment with them with which we will present options to the president. >> if they would all of a sudden step forward and begin a dialogue with is, would that change than the options you present? gen. selva: it would likely change those options but if the russian stepped forward and said they were work willing to return to compliance with the inf we would have to have a method to actually confirm that with the weapon systems they have deployed. greg so you would anticipate the options to contain they have not responded? >> so you would anticipate the options would contain that they have not responded? gen. selva: yes ma'am. >> so there is no option that it groundmploy with the missile? do you agree with that? gen. selva: nee do not gain any advantage in europe and that is as close as i will get to agreeing with that.
>> do you believe there are broader strategic implications when it comes to confronting relations of the arms control agreement and that feeling to respond can have a negative consequence on those broader implications when it comes to nonproliferation? gen. selva: i think, ma'am, with regard to any treaty of nonproliferation the inability to enforce the standards to which the parties have agreed whether laterally or bilaterally renders all other agreements less compelling. >> can you tell us your opinion on where we go from here? gen. selva: i think we should use all of the tools that exist within the treaty to negotiate with and try to compel the russians to return to compliance. i am not saying they will. we should also take a look inside of the treaty as we present options to the president
in those research and development programs that are available to us to actually increase pressure on the russians. >> thank you. as you know, russia contains more tactical weapons than the united states and they are deploying more nuclear-capable sea, air, and ground launch missiles. do believe the line between strategic nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons is eroding and what implications does this have for any future arms control talks? gen. selva: as we discussed, nuclear returns with the russians and now the chinese and likely other countries, we need to make clear there is no firebreak between strategic nuclear weapons and "nonstrategic nuclear weapons." suffice -- advice the
standing administration has received? gen. selva: it is the advice we have given every standing president in history. >> you agree it must include limitations on tactical nuclear weapons? gen. selva: i think it would be a useful diplomatic exercise and a useful initiative to attempt to negotiate with all holders of tactical nuclear weapons. potentialction and elimination to avoid potential for miscalculation in the future. >> should be more than just an exercise? should be part of the goal we are trying to attain in any treaty? gen. selva: yes, ma'am. let me be clear. i did not mean it as an intellectual exercise, i minted as an actual form of diplomacy to get that done. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> welcome back, and general. i want to follow up on the questions on the third offset
that senator king and senator warren raised. energy.o talk about as vice chair of the joint chiefs, you have unique insight into the oversight council which identifies capability gaps for the military and generates requirements to fill those gaps. for the purposes of things like protection, counter rockets, counter artillery, counter-mortar. directed energy weapons systems have advantages but seem to be able to -- unable to enter because alternative kinetic options already exist. what do you think is preventing the transition of these technologies to the war fighter? pursuit of perfection? or are direct of the energy weapons being held to a ifferent standard?
gen. selva: i do not believe they are being held to a different standard. the introduction of directed energy into defensive capabilities has proven a difficult task in order to produce the power and the concert -- concentration on targets to destroy them. particularly on ballistic missiles, we have had significant progress in the counter unmanned systems area and bringing directed energy weapons into either defeating these sensors or dvd the actual aircraft themselves. i think the promise is there but it is a matter of the concentration of the energy to have lethal effect. back to your original point, i do not believe we are holding the erect of the energy technology to a different standard. it we continue to investigate whether or not it gives us the advantage that technology advocates promise. specifically with respect to the
necessity to kill an incoming and attic missile -- incoming kineticc -- incoming missile. >> i would ask you to take a look at these today. once you see artillery shells shot out of the sky in an unmanned aerial the local, i think we had a point where this is ready for prime time as opposed to continuing to chase perfection and i think that the solutions it offers avoids many of the collateral damage issues etic inherently plague kin missiles. so, i would urge you to stay at the cutting edge of what we can offer right now within this technology. i want to shift a little bit to the issue of russia.
you and i have talked a little bit before about that. to me and many of my colleagues i think the pattern of behavior for russia is painfully obvious. they will do what it takes to achieve their objectives with very little limitations. whether it is interfering in u.s. elections, european elections, formulating assassination plots like in --taigne may grow montenegro. russia is treating the world like it is the wild, wild west. should there be consequences for the kind of hostile actions we've seen for russia? was directed at the united states and our allies in europe? gen. selva: senator cowan my believe there should be consequences. the russians have developed and we needn procedure and to understand what that strategy means and how to count red and impose the kinds of consequences
necessary to event them from being successful or two deter them from the activity in the first place. part of that is understanding how they are doing what they are doing. >> absolutely. do you have thoughts on what those consequences should look like if we want russia to change their current pattern of he hager? gen. selva: i think this is going to require that we bring all of the tools of america to bear. military tools will not be enough particularly given the kinds of circumstances where the russians attempt to cover it below our threshold to respond. >> and that includes things like the removal of properties that we have seen her in the united alles, we should consider of those things working in concert? those amongall of others, yes. to having ammit meeting and bringing in the experts who can bring us up-to-date to make sure we're not missing anything.
>> i would deeply appreciate that. i think there are a handful of projects on the shelf. a great deal of interest in moving forward toward that. >> yes, sir. >> thank you senator. sullivan. senator sullivan: congratulations on your renomination. let's talk about readiness for a minute. from 2010-2016, did -- the department of defense budget was cut by 20 -- 24%. a quarter of the budget, gone. did you support that drastic cut? gen. selva: sir, i was not in the position i am enduring that time. i was the executor of the cuts at the receiving end both the estate field to mander and a combatant commander. those cuts hurt not only our ability to respond with respect to purchasing new weapon systems and being ready
for what we are facing today, but they also caused us to balance readiness and procurement and because acumen is something you can do for to the future, we deferred a lot of training during that time to make the numbers work. >> i agree with that and i think they are coming home to roost in terms of readiness. do you believe a lack of readiness can be deadly for our military members? >> a lack of readiness can be deadly. is important to understand what we did during that time period was focus on the fight right ahead of us. --make sure forces
>> the article said marine-aviation related deaths are going up. we had a horrible accident just two weeks ago. were killed in that. what are we doing about those kind of training accidents? they are undermining the ability of the forced to operate and risking the lives of the men and women who volunteered to defend our country. it's outrageous. >> first of all, i mourn the loss of the 16 murray's as well. -- marines as well. but it is way too premature to
make conclusions about the cause of that accident. in deference to the bravery of those 16 marines i think we should reserve judgment on whether training was an issue on that accident. it is common among aviators, of which i am one, that training does have value in increasing the safety and efficacy of our force. during those times when we compromised on training, we do assume risk. that is a consequence of having to balance with a budget we are given to operate. i think we should be careful about making conclusions about last week's accident or using a similar article to make allusions about the liability of aviators inside the marine corps. 5, marine aviation-related deaths hit a five-year high.
and something needs to change. to me, it relates to training. are they flying less hours right now? >> i'm not disputing that we need to focus on training and safety within all of our aviation services. don't get me wrong. with reference to the pacific accident -- >> that's an example of what is happening too often. i think it relates directly to 25% decline in military spending. nobody talks about. this congress approved that the previous administration cut a quarter of the defense budget. >> it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that reductions in training are potentially because of an increase in the risk we take to do the work we do. >> may ask a follow-up? the question about north korea.
testimonyed he -- the is consistently in an open setting. when kimonger if, but jong-un will have intercontinental ballistic missile to thread not just alaska and hawaii, but the entire continental united states. can you describe assisting fleet what -- describe succinctly what goal is and how we can help you? is the goal to prevent at all cost kim jong-un having that capability? as you know, he is rapidly getting it. what's the goal and how can we supported? >> -- support it. attemptirst is to diplomatically and militarily
preventing them from having an missile. >> would weep reactively -- would we preemptively attack? >> we would have to entertain that option. that would be up to be president. >> which would need the authorization of congress. >> we need to think seriously about what the consequences of that action would. a parallel line would be if he continues on the path of developing weapons that can attack the continental u.s., we have a parallel effort to provide for the defense of the similar missile systems that can handle the volume at this point of missiles that could strike us here across all of u.s. territory. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator sullivan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, it is good to see you again.
thank you very much for your continuing service. discussing the threats posed by both russia and north korea, there are two very different countries we are trying to figure out -- what's it going to take for us to alter the behavior of both of these countries? in the case of russia, it appears as though maintaining sanctions and possibly imposing ofe sanctions had some kind affect. would you agree with that? >> yes. in concert with our nato allies and other partners that targeted sanctions on russia do actually have affect and can affect their behavior. >> isn't it a lot harder to figure out what will incentivize north korea to alter their push to become a nuclear power? we think it will be placing a lot of emphasis on our hope that
china will play a pivotal role in reining in north korea's ambition. do you think we are placing too much emphasis on china? diplomaticmentioned solutions or diplomatic approaches. adon't know that we even have confirmed ambassador to south korea, for example. thoughts about what more we can do i.e., to incentivize china to do more with regards of north korea or for us to pursue some other avenues, longshots as they may be, because kim jong-un does not appear to respond to the usual approaches. >> i think the work that is being done to pressurize the situation with respect to north korea in terms of economic sanctions and broad trade
sanctions is helpful. it is also quite useful to get the chinese to do whatever they can diplomatically and use whatever leverage they have. a point that is not lost on me a kim of you is that jong-un who has possession of nuclear weapons that can threaten the united states clearly has possession of weapons that can threaten his relation with china and fundamentally change the power structure in the region. makes a kim jong-un on with nuclear weapons a threat to china as well. ashink we should leverage much of that as we can to try to get the chinese not only to work on what they believe is maintaining the stability of north korea, but to put pressure on him not to deploy nuclear weapons should he continue their development. i think that accrues to our benefit because it avoids open conflict with north korea, although we need to be continued to be prepared in the event they are not successful. >> these think our best bet with
regard to north korea is to come to a much better understanding with china? because you say that economic sanctions have an impact on north korea, although it is hard to see that as having much of a deterrent effect at all. we all recognize that yes, a nuclear armed north korea is a threat to china. but it is very hard to tell well that there has been a tipping point reached with regard to north korea with some kind of a much more concerted effort come into place. do we have the kind of relationship with china right now that will enable us very what i wouldentify deem a tipping point and do something in a concerted way with the u.s. and china? >> i can only give you an of theent as an observer activities of the state department and secretary of state. they are giving a tremendous
amount of effort to building that relationship with china. china -- we have not seen that pressure be successful. >> i'm keeping my fingers crossed. with regards to the asia-pacific region, there are some who argue -- observe that we do not have a current overarching strategy to address the challenges in this part of the region which has some of the largest village area events -- do you agree that we do not have an overarching strategy to address the challenges in the asia-pacific arena? gen. selva: i do not agree that we don't have a strategy. the question is whether the critics of that strategy believe it is enough to deal with the threats of a resurgent north korea and emerging china and a resurgent russia, three of the principal threats in the region,
in addition to violent extremism. >> i am running out of time. statistically, what is that -- succinctly, what is that strategy? gen. selva: we manage long-standing alliances in the pacific with japan, korea, the philippines and others -- australia and new zealand. putting pressure on china not to destabilize the region. we are a nation that exists on trade and economic relationships on the region and very strong relationships and alliances in the pacific. some pieces without trying to outline all of it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate you being here. there's a lot of bipartisanship on this committee, and i think you know that based on the legislation we are putting forward.
the senior senator from hawaii serves as ranking member of the subcommittee that i have the honor of chairing. we recommended to the full committee, and this committee has reported language is contained in an act which sits as a policy of the u.s. that we moved to a 355 ship fleet. they have also taken this issue up and has put that in their bill and that bill is further along over there than here. iis 355 ship requirement -- hope you will take us back -- take this back to the joint chiefs of staff -- this 355 ship week wire meant is not something the ship industry came up with. it is not something we invented although we would
like to see the idea of defending our nation and military if -- this is a requirement that came from the people out in the field and sayingthe seas what we need to make america safe in this particular time. basically, they took the requirements, sent them in, and it was way more than 355. twice that much. then they said resource constrained, what should be the requirement. the considered opinion of the best military minds came up with the 355. i just want to emphasize to you that we take that requirement seriously. and we had been in the position this year both in the house and senate committees to give you what you need, and we want to communicate to you that we take this seriously and we want to be your partner there, and actually
give substance to what has been stated as the requirement. so please know that. also in the area of bipartisanship,, i want to applaud what senator heinrichs said about russia. russiaoting correctly, will do whatever they feel is necessary, and a look at the threshold of what we in the west are willing to tolerate and stay under that threshold. that's been a pretty good strategy for president putin. and i'm getting tired of it. and i hope the american people and the pentagon and this committee are getting tired of it because it threatens international security. question to a senator ernst about providing lethal weapons to ukraine. as i understand it in eastern
ukraine, the government of ukraine has troops there, and connecticutaged in activity -- in kinetic activity against russian backed forces. is that correct? >> yes. helpful to those ukrainian troops if they had better lethal weapons in which to defend their country and defend the government of ukraine? >> that's a policy choice. the kinds of lethal defensive weapons that have been advocated for ukraine allow them to defend themselves along the line of contact against those forces supported by the russians. >> ok, so there discussion among the joint staff about this, and i understand from your earlier answer you are working with the european command to identify what kind of necessary -- what
types of weapons are necessary. when can we expect a decision about that and how can we be held oh in exhorting our government to provide the kind of weapons that i think senator ernst and i and others are advocating? >> sir, those discussions are ongoing. i think within the coming months you will have an answer to that question. we have advocated for example, for lethal means like antitank weapons. defensive capabilities. >> who is the we? >> the joint staff. >> months, could be 11 months, could be two months. can yoiu give us a little more specific idea of when we might be able to make a up to thend stand
kind of activity that senator heinrichs talking about and his question? >> if i could take that indicated the actual timeline for discussions, i don't have it with me but i would be happy to do that. >> thank you very much. please be advised that this senator, for one, thinks that it is time for us to give these people what they need to defend their own country. >> let me add that currently be oklahoma -- the oklahoma 45th guard is over there treating them. -- training them. >> thank you. questionsfollow those asked by my colleague from mississippi. overwhelmingly endorse
that this nation should be providing the kind of lethal defensive weapons including antitank armaments that are necessary for the ukrainians to defend their own nation. you would agree with me that they are defending their own nation against russian aggression, correct? gen. selva: yes, they are defending their sovereignty. thinksaid a moment ago i that the question of whether to provide that type of weaponry is a policy choice. us inrhaps you can tell its graphic terms as possible -- in as graphic terms as possible what the difference would make if we provided those kinds of weapons to the gradients. they would be far more effective, correct? gen. selva: yes. let me make sure i'm clear on the policy question. the policy question is not whether or not to provide lethal defensive assistants, --
assistance, but the kinds and qualities to the gradients so they can -- >> maybe you can give us some examples. how enhanced with a b and in what quantities. >> one give them the most advanced? denni -- gen. selva: i don't want to be argumentative. some of the weapons we have have technology controls on them that we do not transfer them to other countries i must we can have assurances that the technology will not be exploited. you qualify the question by saying the lethal quite -- capa bilities they need, vs. the best
possible available. that's the choices we have to make. you thatd agree with we should not transfer technology that could be compromised or could be captured by our russian adversaries. i just want to join in the expression of inpatients, varies -- of the very strong impatience. i met last sunday with some ukrainian americans who came to us saying these weapons are going to be provided. is there some kind of barrier or obstacle? i am at a loss to give them the kind of answer they deserve. understand loss to what the barriers or obstacles are. i am not directing this question at you personally because i
recognize there are other factors at issue here. russiansect to interference in our elections, you had no reason to question the overwhelming unanimous views of the intelligence community that they interfered in our election, do you? no reason to have question their view but i have no firsthand knowledge of the information they are examining. >> and would you agree with me that having some kind of cyber russianspact with the seems full hearty at best? -- seems foolhearty at best. gen. selva: it is hard for me to say they would be any more reasonable about a cyber pact than they are about any of the other treaties without some
ironclad -- it is worth a conversation. but without any detail we are having a hypothetical discussion. >> their record in the cyber domain is one of attacking this nation, would you agree? gen. selva: yes. >> so sharing information with them is just going to give them , keysonal, in effects to our cyber kingdom. any kind of information sharing would be involved in a pact or agreement. ands highly foolhearty dangers to our national security. ? withou -- gen. selva: -- thank you for your service and congratulations.
>> i'll ech othat too. do you agree that given the threats we face, the air force needs to be bigger and more capable? gen. selva: yes. i believe that the proposal be chief of staff brought forward in the last budget. >> let's talk about three battlefields quickly. iraq. force support a residual -- gen. selva: yes. if the iraqis agree, we will likely need to do continued advising and training of iraqi security forces. >> also for the air force? gen. selva: yes. >> the iranians are there, correct? gen. selva: as a consequence of
a long relationship between iranis in, there are iraq. that doesn't mean they are controlling presence. offering iraq something they would want something would probably give us leverage. gen. selva: quite possibly. >> afghanistan. what is the state of the afghan air force in terms of capability to support their forces in the field? gen. selva: they are beginning to be able to support the forces in the field with a modicum of lift and would like a craft -- light aircraft. they are subject to maintenance woes of old russian aircraft. they have a proposal in place to replace their aging russian
vintage helicopters with uh-60's, the helicopters the afghan forces train on. >> until that happens to you agree it would be in our interest to provide air power to the afghan security forces as they fight terrorists? gen. selva: yes. particularly as a bridge to support them. >> do you support additional troops going into afghanistan? gen. selva: i think that would be a determination of what specific tasks the forces would be doing. as we look at afghanistan today -- >> counterterrorism would be -- gen. selva: that would be one. >> and have some hair power at their disposal. thier power at disposal. do we have a plan post-rocca? gen. selva: yes. >> what role should the u.s.
play in terms of stabilizing syria when rocca falls? gen. selva: it's a bigger task than that. e current center of external planning for isis in syria. they have already begun a migration towards the euphrates valley. until we have worked either by, or through partners on the ground or the syrian government she was a willingness to deny sanctuary to isis they will continue to be a threat to stability in iraq and the region. we will be done when we are done and rocca. >> airpower is being deployed in syria against isil. gen. selva: american and coalition care our from 69 nations are being used in iraq and syria as well as a small number of ground forces that are providing advice and assistance
to those elements will to fight isis in syria. >> would you be open to adding more airpower into the afghanistan -- i was shocked to hear the number of f-16s we have is pretty small. gen. selva: i have to look at the numbers, to be honest. the capacity of those airplanes to range most of afghanistan and service to targets in afghanistan with the help of tankers and bombers from the gulf is actually a compelling amount of air power in the region. >> i was shocked at the few we had given the task that we face. from the american military point of view, a lot of hard fighting yet to be done? gen. selva: yes. >> can you see a scenario where american pharoah power is not absolutely -- american air power is not absolutely essential? gen. selva: no sir. >> thank you, and thank you to all who serve in the air force. i will say at the outset that
our thoughts and prayers are with chairman mccain as he recovers from surgery and we look forward to him being back very soon. thank you for your service. i want to talk to you about several different topics i want to start with the iran certification. yesterday the administration certified to congress that iran is in compliance with the nuclear deal. i have very significant concerns with that certification. i want to ask you in your judgment, do you believe iran is in compliance with the deal? gen. selva: based on the evidence that has been presented by the intelligence community, it appears iran is in compliance with the rules that were laid out in the jpoa. >> are the testing ballistic missiles? gen. selva: yes but that was not covered under your -- the
agreement. >> how serious is the threat of iran developing nuclear weapons? gen. selva: without the controls has thecpoa, iran technical expertise to be able to continue down the path to develop nuclear weapons. >> as you know, a similar deal was negotiated with north korea in the clinton administration, and it resulted in north korea acquiring a substantial number of nuclear weapons. what do you believe makes this deal likely to result in any outcome different from what happened in north korea? gen. selva: i think there are two substantial differences at the outset. that does not mean there will not be setbacks in the agreement. the first is the inspection regime that went into the agreement that allows for international inspectors to inspect all of the areas that the iranians used in their development and storage of enriched uranium and potentially
the development of nuclear weapons. >> how much advance notice this iran get? gen. selva: i don't have the we are reasonably confident the inspectors are able to randomly inspect. have installed technical measures that allow for cost and surveillance at those insights. -- same sites. the second is provisions of that allow for the second -- that is not governed by the treaty. the agreement, it is not a treaty. >> iran had sentenced an american citizen, a princeton graduate, to 10 years in prison. does it concern you that we are certifying they are in
compliance in the wake of them and prison in another? the regimearly in that is not compliant. the specifics of the agreement are directed to explicitly at the evil of men and storage of nuclear weapons. >> we will continue this conversation. whole say i think the thing is in adequate. it is designed to facilitate cheating. it requires three weeks notice. in for the most part, the arabian self-and spec. the american people received numerous assurances that north korea would abide by an agreement very similar to this and north korea, kim jong-un, happily took the billions of dollars the clinton administration sent to them and use it to develop nuclear weapons. i believe ayatollah khomeini tends to do the same thing.
andink it was unfortunate dangerous. there is another certification due in october i believe and an upcoming deadline for waving sanctions. let me say i would urge the administration there is no greater threat on the face of the earth to united states then the threat of a nuclear iran. i think the certification yesterday is very hard to justify with the facts on the ground. let me shift to another topic. there is right now eight disagreement going on between the department of defense and house armed services committee concerning whether a separate military branch should be created for space. i am interested in your thoughts on that question. gen. selva: i do not believe right now is the time to have a
discussion about developing a space force. it would complicate the command and control of the space installation which is critical operations, so i believe the time is not right for a discussion about eight corps or force. i think there are three things we need to do. to our in progress. the first was the consolidation of our national military defensive space in a single command and control center that would allow us to operate the entire constellation as opposed space national defense center i believe it is called. is the commander
-- the air force base command with the responsibility is to manage the entire constellation through components of headquarters. aser the leadership implemented for the change in command and control implements. in the last few months. it is time to let that play out and see if we can get some efficiencies out of it. the third is to give the secretary of the air force the installation critical to defense. >> thank you senator hers. >> thank you mr. chairman. onthe outset, i want to say behalf of so many of us that have not had a chance to register, our wishes that chairman mccain have a speedy recovery and return as quickly
as possible. you know, you have had an extraordinary career. you are a distinguished -- i suspect there is not a problem in the world with you continuing that service and i thank you for your willingness to be able to do it. because of that experience, do you want to comment on the fact that russia has a history of meddling in other people's elections going way back. as far back as what we saw and what they did in georgia. what obviously we have seen that they have done in ukraine. and, using cyber.
i am asking this for your perspective because i think prudent understanding -- i think president clinton believes he in thee those on land, air, on the sea, under the sea, and he cannot beat us in space. but he thinks he can beat us in cyber and he has had a number of georgia, going back to ukraine, now in the european election. several european countries. so, do you want to comment about how serious this cyber attack problem from russia is, including our own country in the attacks we've seen here?
gen. selva: thank you. i indicated earlier i did not have any knowledge of the issian intelligence, however am a person who is spent a lot of time thinking about the security of the date in the system and i think we had to think very carefully about how we protect that data and how we use that data to facilitate the democratic process in our united states. an example i've used publicly, and if you forgive me i will use now is it is much easier to temper with registration data they have it is to temper with voting data. so if i wanted to complicate an american election or an election anywhere in the world, i would simply make it more difficult for people to vote as opposed to getting a and after the fact and change the record of their votes. our system, which is distributed across 50 states and municipalities, we need to be careful that we do not make
the decision that it is protected because of its diversity and distribution. we as a nation ought to think carefully about the value of the us. on all of our voting records in terms of how we register, where we register and how protecting that matters for future elections. and that we know that not russia, not china, not anybody else who wants to intervene in and in election will have the capacity to change our willingness and capacity to vote and our willingness and ability to vote our consciousness for those elected leaders of our country. it could bexample, something as simple as going into the registration records registrations, so a ,erson shows up and they say
mr. jones i am sorry you are not registered. when they show up on election day. or something as easy as going in and changing addresses. so that it fouls up the registration system of what precinct that you are in. it could be something as simple as this. gate, it would hugely comp -- complicate, especially in a place like florida that is had tremendous complications with its voting which has produced long lines that are sometimes as long as seven hours and that his recent history, by the way. imagine, with people trying to contest the fact that if they show up on election day and they say they are not registered and they know they
are and they are trained to prove that they are and how that would follow up all of the other -- foul upl up -- all of the other voters in line. i want to ask another question. is your experience? would you share with the committee your experience where your own privacy has been invaded on your personal accounts? is that something that you feel imfortable in sharing or think it would be very helpful for the committee to either know that publicly or privately.
gen. selva: i would show the small amount of information publicly. immediately following the breach where significant amounts of personal identification was made available through a loss of data about 48 hours later, i was locked out of one of my bank investment accounts as a consequence of a third party attempting to enter that account using information that was thaty garnered from personally identifying information is a confirmation -- as a consequence of the opium breach. i subsequently received a letter from the opium that my personal data was in fact part of the breach. i can guarantee you for that hour and a half-two hours that it took for me to work with my myk and brokerage company, attention was not entirely devoted to the task at hand. >> are you aware that has happened to other high-raking
announcer: calista gingerich testified today at her confirmation hearing. she talkedtestimony about protecting human rights and religious freedom. that is next on c-span. at the end of today's senate session, joint leaders said the congress would take a vote next week on the affordable care act despite a number of republican senators saying they would not support the measure. we will get a health care update later.
♪ >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up morning, we will continue our conversation on the budget and congressman tom reed will join us to talk about that and efforts to boost u.s. manufacturing. also, tim ryan on the future of the democratic party. also joining us, william holden from the wall street journal who will look at the future of nafta. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. wednesday morning. join me discussion. >> on friday, sarah huckabee sanders will discuss her involvement in politics is the daughter of former arkansas governor mike huckabee. why she joined the trump campaign and her approach to the job as deputy press secretary. watch the interview at 8:00 p.m. eastern