i [H.A.S.C. No. 115–36] MILITARY ASSESSMENT OF THE SECURITY CHALLENGES IN THE INDO–ASIA–PACIFIC REGION COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD APRIL 26, 2017 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 25–822 WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS WILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JIM COOPER, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia JACKIE SPEIER, California DUNCAN HUNTER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri BETO O’ROURKE, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MO BROOKS, Alabama RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona PAUL COOK, California SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio CAROL SHEA–PORTER, New Hampshire BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama JACKY ROSEN, Nevada SAM GRAVES, Missouri A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland STEPHEN KNIGHT, California STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma RO KHANNA, California SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee TOM O’HALLERAN, Arizona RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York TRENT KELLY, Mississippi (Vacancy) MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin MATT GAETZ, Florida DON BACON, Nebraska JIM BANKS, Indiana LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director KIM LEHN, Professional Staff Member WILLIAM S. JOHNSON, Counsel BRITTON BURKETT, Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Page STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 2 Thornberry, Hon. William M. ‘‘Mac,’’ a Representative from Texas, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 1 WITNESSES Harris, ADM Harry B., Jr., USN, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command ............. 3 APPENDIX PREPAREDSTATEMENTS: Harris, ADM Harry B., Jr. .............................................................................. 53 DOCUMENTSSUBMITTEDFORTHERECORD: Statement of GEN Vincent K. Brooks, USA, Commander, United Nations Command; Republic of Korea and United States Combined Forces Com- mand; and United States Forces Korea ...................................................... 91 WITNESSRESPONSESTOQUESTIONSASKEDDURINGTHEHEARING: [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] QUESTIONSSUBMITTEDBYMEMBERSPOSTHEARING: Mr. Bishop ......................................................................................................... 113 Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 114 Mr. Byrne .......................................................................................................... 116 Mr. Franks ........................................................................................................ 114 Mr. Gaetz .......................................................................................................... 116 Mr. Gallagher .................................................................................................... 115 Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 113 Mrs. Murphy ..................................................................................................... 115 Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 115 (III) MILITARY ASSESSMENT OF THE SECURITY CHALLENGES IN THE INDO–ASIA–PACIFIC REGION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 26, 2017. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William M. ‘‘Mac’’ Thornberry (chairman of the committee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORN- BERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, COM- MITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. No one needs reminding of the escalating tensions in the Asia- Pacific region. Recent weeks have witnessed intentionally provoca- tive words and actions from the North Korean regime. We are all concerned that the decades of self-imposed isolation of North Ko- rean leaders, and especially the cruel, erratic behavior of its cur- rent leader, make confrontation potentially more likely. In my view, we must work even more closely with our key allies, Japan and the Republic of Korea; we must continue to encourage China to help put North Korea on a different path; and we must increase our military presence and capability in the region. En- hanced missile defense is especially important. Of course, none of us wants another military conflict on the Ko- rean Peninsula, but we must also remember the lessons of the past. As T.R. Fehrenbach wrote on the first page of his classic his- tory on the Korean War, ‘‘This Kind of War,’’ quote, ‘‘Storm signals had been flying for more than 4 years, but the West did not pre- pare for trouble. It did not make ready because its peoples, in their heart of hearts, did not want to be prepared,’’ end quote. Well, whether we want it or not, we have to be prepared. Of course, North Korea is not the only concern in the PACOM [Pacific Command] area. China continues to build islands in the South China Sea and to militarize them. The future direction of the Philippines is unclear, and we are moving toward a closer relation- ship with new and developing allies like Vietnam. All of this and more are on the plate of our PACOM commander, Admiral Harry Harris, whom we are pleased to welcome today. Before turning to him, I would yield to the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Smith, for any comments he would like to make. (1) 2 STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Admiral Harris, for being here and for your lead- ership in the Pacific. And I agree with the chairman’s comments about the importance of the region. U.S. presence in that region has never been more important. Our presence, working with our al- lies, can be a calming influence in what is a very unstable place, as the chairman described. And most disturbing, and most concerning, obviously, is North Korea. I would say, I don’t think we are ignoring it this time. This is not like the first Korean war. I think there has been a great deal of attention paid to this problem in North Korea for several admin- istrations. And I think that is helpful, because the number one big- gest thing that we need is a clear deterrent to North Korea. We are not going to make Kim Jong-un a rational leader. We are not going to make North Korea anything other than a pariah state anytime soon. Nor are we going to stop them from having some military capability. We are aware that they have already developed a nuclear bomb. But the one thing we can do is make it clear that we stand with our allies in the region, with South Korea and Japan in particular, and we will be a credible deterrent to any military action in North Korea. I think that is the most important thing to do, is to make it clear to Kim Jong-un that if he does anything, we have the power and the will to respond and destroy him, because the only positive thing I can think about North Korea is that there is no evi- dence that their regime is suicidal. They don’t want to be taken out. So we have to make sure we maintain a credible deterrent. And China fits into this as well. China wants increased influence in Asia, and on a certain level, that is understandable. They are a growing power. They want to have influence. What we need to do is to work with them to make sure that that influence is for positive instead of for ill, and North Korea is a very, very good place to start. They could be a lot more helpful than they have been being on calming those tensions, and it is in their best inter- ests. They don’t want war to break out in North Korea any more than anybody else does. It would have a far more devastating im- pact on their interests. So there are a lot of challenges. I will just close by saying, I think there are also a lot of opportunities. The chairman alluded to some of those. We have a lot of allies in the region, and a lot of those relationships are growing. I would also mention—well, I am not sure—India in South Asia is certainly an ally and one that could become even more so. Aus- tralia. There are a lot of countries in that part of the world that want to work with us and that give us an opportunity to work to- gether to make that place and the world a more peaceful place. And with that, I look forward to the admiral’s testimony. I thank him for his leadership and for his attendance today. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, again, thank you for being with us. You are recognized for any comments you would like to make. 3 STATEMENT OF ADM HARRY B. HARRIS, JR., USN, COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND Admiral HARRIS. Thank you, sir. Thank you Chairman Thorn- berry, Representative Smith, and distinguished members. It is an honor for me to appear again before this committee. There are many things to talk about since my last testimony 14 months ago. I do regret that I am not here with my testimony battle buddy, U.S. Forces Command Commander General Vince Brooks, but I think you will all agree that he is where he is needed most right now, on the Korean Peninsula. Unfortunately for all of you, that means my opening statement is going to be just a tad longer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your reference to the T.R. Fehren- bach’s book, ‘‘This Kind of War,’’ which is on the PACOM reading list. Mr. Chairman, I request that my written posture statement be submitted for the record. The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, without objection, it will be part of the record. I have to say, not to you, but to other folks, we got it about 9 o’clock last night, which means nobody has read it, as well as General Brooks’ statement. So, again, not directed to you, but to all of the layers that such written statements have to go through, they need to be more timely for this committee if they are going to be relevant to our hearing. If it is just putting words down on paper, then fine. But we need to do better in the future. And I needed to say that, again not di- rected to you, but at those who seem to not have a sense of prompt- ness. So without objection, so ordered. Please continue. Admiral HARRIS. Thanks. As the PACOM commander, I have the extraordinary privilege of leading approximately 375,000 soldiers, sailors, marines, coast- guardsmen, airmen, and DOD [Department of Defense] civilians serving our Nation around half the globe. These dedicated patriots are really doing an amazing job, and thanks to them, America re- mains the security partner of choice in the region. That is important because I believe that America’s future secu- rity and economic prosperity are indelibly linked to the Indo-Asia- Pacific region. And it is a region that is poised at a strategic nexus, where opportunity meets the four challenges of North Korea, China, Russia, and ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]. It is clear to me that ISIS is a threat that must be destroyed now. The main focus of our coalition’s effort is rightfully in the Middle East and North Africa, but as we eliminate ISIS in these areas, some of those surviving fighters will likely repatriate to their home countries in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. And what is worse, they will be radicalized and weaponized. So we must eradicate ISIS before it grows in the PACOM area of responsibility. Then there is North Korea, which remains the most immediate threat to the security of the United States and our allies in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. This week, North Korea threatened Australia with a nuclear strike, a powerful reminder to the entire interna- tional community that North Korea’s missiles point in every direc- tion. 4 The only nation to have tested nuclear devices in this century, North Korea has vigorously pursued an aggressive weapons test schedule with more than 60 ballistic missile events in recent years. With every test, Kim Jong-un moves closer to his stated goal of a preemptive nuclear strike capability against American cities, and he is not afraid to fail in public. Defending our homeland is my top priority, so I must assume that Kim Jong-un’s nuclear claims are true. I know his aspirations certainly are. And that should provide all of us a sense of urgency to ensure PACOM and U.S. Forces Korea are prepared to ‘‘fight to- night’’ with the best technology on the planet. That is why General Brooks and I are doing everything possible to defend the American homeland and our allies in the Republic of Korea [ROK] and Japan. That is why the ROK–U.S. alliance decided last July to deploy THAAD, that is the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, which will be operational in the coming days and able to better de- fend South Korea against the growing North Korea threat. That is why the USS Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group is back on patrol in Northeast Asia. That is why we must continue to debut America’s newest and best military platforms in the Indo- Asia-Pacific. That is why we continue to emphasize trilateral co- operation between Japan, South Korea, and the United States, a partnership with a purpose if there ever was one. And that is why we continue to call on China to exert its consid- erable economic influence to stop Pyongyang’s unprecedented weap- ons testing. While recent actions by Beijing are encouraging and welcome, the fact remains that China is as responsible for where North Korea is today as North Korea itself. In confronting the reckless North Korean regime, it is critical that we are guided by a strong sense of resolve, both privately and publicly, both diplomatically and militarily. As President Trump and Secretary Mattis have made clear, all options are on the table. We want to bring Kim Jong-un to his senses, not to his knees. We are also challenged in the Indo-Asia-Pacific by an aggressive China and a revanchist Russia, neither of whom seem to respect the international agreements they have signed onto. For instance, the arbitral tribunal in The Hague ruled last year that China’s so- called Nine-Dash Line claim is illegal under the Law of the Sea Convention. Despite being a signatory to the convention, China ig- nored this legally binding, peaceful arbitration. In fact, China continues a methodical strategy to control the South China Sea. I testified last year that China was militarizing this critical international waterway and the airspace above it by building air and naval bases on seven Chinese man-made islands in the disputed Spratlys. Despite subsequent Chinese assurances that they would not mili- tarize these bases, today they now have facilities that support long- range weapons emplacements, fighter aircraft hangars, radar tow- ers, and barracks for troops. China’s militarization of the South China Sea is real. I am also not taking my eyes off Russia, which just last week flew bomber missions near Alaska on successive days for the first time since 2014. Russia continues to modernize its military and ex- 5 ercise its considerable conventional and nuclear forces in the Pa- cific. So despite the region’s four significant challenges, since my last report to you, we have strengthened America’s network of alliances and partnerships. Working with like-minded partners on shared se- curity threats like North Korea and ISIS is a key component to our regional strategy. Our five bilateral defense treaty alliances anchor our joint force efforts in the Indo-Asia-Pacific. So I continue to rely on Australia for its advanced military capa- bilities across all domains and its leadership in global operations. As Vice President Pence and Secretary Mattis reaffirmed during recent trips to Northeast Asia, our alliance with South Korea re- mains steadfast and our alliance with Japan has never been stronger. Even with some turbulence this past year with the Philippines, I am pleased that we are proceeding with an enhanced defense co- operation agreement, and we are looking forward to conducting the Balikatan exercise with our Filipino allies next month. And this past February, I visited Thailand to reaffirm our endur- ing alliance and to communicate that we look forward to Thailand’s reemergence as a flourishing democracy. We have also advanced our partnerships with regional powers like India and Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and many others, all with a view toward rein- forcing the rules-based security order that has helped underwrite peace and prosperity throughout the region for decades. But there is more work to be done. We must be ready to confront all challenges from a position of strength and with credible combat power. So I ask this committee to support continued investment to improve our military capabilities. I need weapon systems of increased lethality, precision, speed, and range that are networked and cost effective. And restricting ourselves with funding uncertainties reduces warfighting readi- ness, so I urge the Congress to repeal sequestration and to approve the proposed Defense Department budget. Finally, I would like to thank the Congress for proposing and supporting the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative. This effort will re- assure our regional partners and send a strong signal to potential adversaries of our persistent commitment to the region. As always, I thank Congress for your enduring support to the men and women of PACOM and to our families who care for us. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Admiral Harris can be found in the Appendix on page 53.] The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Admiral. Let me just remind all members that immediately upon the con- clusion of this open hearing we will have a closed classified session with Admiral Harris, and it will happen immediately after this open hearing has concluded. I know when we have done this before there has been some confusion about time apparently. So whenever we finish here, it will be upstairs as we usually do. Admiral, I appreciate your very strong comments about budgets. Obviously, that is of key importance to us this week, and no one 6 suffers the consequences of our failure to do our job than you do on the front lines. I want to ask my questions on defending against missiles, and actually I want to ask it in two different areas. You described some additional forces that we are putting into the region. I know there have been some press reports that say that somehow those forces are not able to defend against missiles launched from North Korea. Let me just ask, can American military forces in that region de- fend themselves against missiles launched from North Korea? Admiral HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. There was an article that came out this morning from one of the outlets that suggested that the Carl Vinson Strike Group—and I think it is appropriate that we are talking about the Carl Vinson here in this room, the Carl Vinson Room—that the Carl Vinson Strike Group, with its in- credible capability, to include two guided-missile destroyers, the Wayne E. Meyer and the Michael Murphy, and the Lake Champlain cruiser, that somehow that that carrier strike group would not be able to defend itself against ballistic missiles. I believe that that ar- ticle and articles like that are both misleading and they conflate apples and oranges, if you will. We have ballistic missile ships in the Sea of Japan, in the East Sea, that are capable of defending against ballistic missile attacks. North Korea does not have a ballistic missile antiship weapon that would threaten the Carl Vinson Strike Group. The weapons that North Korea would put against the Carl Vin- son Strike Group are easily defended by the capabilities resident in that strike group. If it flies, it will die, if it is flying against the Carl Vinson Strike Group. So I am confident in that strike group’s ability to not only defend itself, but to project power if that is the call that we received from the President and Secretary of Defense, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Well, then let me ask you more broadly about missile defense. We have some limited interceptors in Alaska and California. You mentioned some ships. We are, with the South Koreans, installing THAAD. So there are several pieces of this. But would you agree with my proposition that we probably need to amp up, to increase our missile defense capability in this region? Admiral HARRIS. I agree with you completely, Mr. Chairman. I believe that across the range of integrated air and missile defense, IAMD, that we can and need to do more. I believe that the inter- ceptors that we have that defend our homeland directly in Alaska and California are critical. I have suggested that we consider put- ting interceptors in Hawaii that defend Hawaii directly and that we look at the defensive Hawaii radar to improve Hawaii’s capa- bility. I believe that the Flight IX DDGs, [guided-missile] destroyers that are coming online, are exactly what were needed in the bal- listic missile defense space, if you will. And those are coming on- line, and I am grateful to the Congress for funding those. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Focusing on the chairman’s question in terms of domestic de- fense, the missiles in Alaska and in California, what greater capa-