[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-86]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORITIES
AND ROLES RELATED TO CIVILIAN
LAW ENFORCEMENT
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JULY 9, 2020
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-162 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY,
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island Texas
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee ROB BISHOP, Utah
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN GARAMENDI, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JACKIE SPEIER, California K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland, Vice PAUL COOK, California
Chair BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
RO KHANNA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
FILEMON VELA, Texas SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
ANDY KIM, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr., MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
California MATT GAETZ, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania DON BACON, Nebraska
JASON CROW, Colorado JIM BANKS, Indiana
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York
Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
Will Johnson, Professional Staff Member
Mark Morehouse, Professional Staff Member
Natalie de Benedetti, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac,'' a Representative from Texas,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services.................... 5
WITNESSES
Esper, Hon. Mark T., Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of
Defense........................................................ 6
Milley, GEN Mark A., USA, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff........ 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Esper, Hon. Mark T........................................... 51
Milley, GEN Mark A........................................... 86
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Memorandum for Secretary of the Army: After Action Review of
National Guard Actions in Support of Civil Disturbance
Operations................................................. 93
Times of London Article...................................... 95
Fox News Article............................................. 104
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mrs. Hartzler................................................ 109
Mr. Moulton.................................................. 109
Mr. Waltz.................................................... 109
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Brindisi................................................. 114
Mr. Cisneros................................................. 113
Ms. Slotkin and Ms. Sherrill................................. 116
Mrs. Trahan.................................................. 114
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORITIES AND ROLES RELATED TO CIVILIAN LAW
ENFORCEMENT
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Thursday, July 9, 2020.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in room
2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. I call the meeting to order. I welcome our
witnesses, Secretary of Defense Esper and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Milley. We appreciate you being here today.
I do have to read an opening statement here about procedure
in light of the fact that we do have members who are
participating remotely in this hearing in accordance with House
rules. So I will do that, and then a couple other programming
notes, and we will get started.
I would like to welcome members who are joining today's
markup remotely. Those members are reminded that they must be
visible onscreen within the software platform for the purposes
of identity verification when joining the proceeding,
establishing and maintaining a quorum, participating in the
proceeding, and voting.
Well, we are not going to be voting. But members
participating remotely must continue to use the software
platform video function while attending the proceeding unless
they experience connectivity issues or other technical problems
that render the member unable to fully participate on camera.
If a member who is participating remotely experiences
technical difficulties, please contact us and we will help you.
When recognized, video of remotely attending members'
participation will be broadcast in the room and via the
television internet feeds. Members participating remotely are
asked to mute their microphone when they are not speaking.
Members participating remotely will be recognized normally
for asking questions. But if they want to speak at another time
they must seek recognition verbally. In all cases, members are
reminded to unmute their microphone prior to speaking.
Members should be aware that there is a slight lag of a few
seconds between the time you start speaking and the camera shot
switching to you.
Members who are participating remotely are reminded to keep
the software platform video function on for the entirety of the
time they attend the proceeding. Those members may leave and
rejoin the proceeding.
If members depart for a short period for reasons other than
joining a different proceeding, they should leave the video
function on. If members will be absent for a significant period
or depart to join a different proceeding, they should exit the
software platform entirely and then rejoin it if they return.
Members are also advised that I have designated a committee
staff member to, if necessary, mute unrecognized members'
microphones to cancel any inadvertent background noise.
Members may use the software platform's chat feature to
communicate with staff regarding technical or logistical
support issues only.
Finally, remotely participating members should see a 5-
minute countdown clock on the software platform's display. But,
if necessary, I will remind members when their time is up.
The only additional notes I would make to that, apparently,
if your microphone in here is left on when you are not speaking
it can generate some feedback within the platform.
So if you are not speaking turn the microphone off so that
we can avoid that feedback. So I am going to make an opening
statement. Mr. Thornberry is going to make an opening
statement.
We have a hard stop in this hearing at 3:00 o'clock. I am
not going to ask any questions. I will go right to the first
member on our side of the aisle who is in order.
I will just let my opening statement stand.
So the purpose of this hearing is to look at the events
surrounding the Department of Defense's response to the
protests that arose out of the murder of George Floyd in
Minneapolis, and sort of twofold what I would like to
accomplish.
One, we would like to better understand what happened, how
was the DOD [Department of Defense] involved, what were the
steps between the DOD and the White House and the decisions
that were made at the various points about DOD involvement
specifically in dealing with domestic unrest.
To begin with, there is the basic question of Guard units,
and this is pretty straightforward and we have used Guard units
for a number of different reasons to deal with the emergencies
in States across the country.
The Department of Defense works with the Governor of every
State to determine that. But getting a little clarity as to how
that process worked in this case would be enormously helpful.
Then there is the more complicated question of how this
applies to Washington, DC. As we all know, they don't have a
Governor. The Department of Defense has greater authority over
the Guard in the District of Columbia than they do in States.
How did that play out? How was the coordination handled between
the mayor of DC, the police force in DC?
And then also adding to the confusion, the Department of
Justice has various security personnel that they employed
within Washington, DC. There is considerable concern about how
all of that played out.
What was the level of coordination? Why were there
helicopters, military helicopters buzzing over the top of
protestors in the middle of that protest? Who made that
decision? What was the level of coordination?
And then connected to all of this, as we get beyond the
normal use of the Guard, is the Insurrection Act, is the
ability of the President to activate Active Duty military
personnel over the objections of Governors that use them to
deal with civil unrest.
How was that considered in this context? There seemed to be
conflicting statements out of the White House and out of the
Department of Defense about how that was being viewed.
We would like to know what came to pass in that regard, and
in particular, the one group of Active Duty troops that were
called up they were never, as I understand it, deployed but
they were put on standby across the river in Virginia for
potential use in Washington, DC. What played out in that
decision as well?
But then more broadly than just what happened in this
instant, this is something that is going to involve our country
in the future, without a doubt. We will have different
Presidents and different Secretaries of Defense and different
Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who will be having to
make decisions like this.
So what is the Department's view on the role that they
should play in dealing with civil unrest? What role should the
Guard play? How should they coordinate with Governors? When do
they think the Insurrection Act is appropriate to be used? How
does all of that play out?
And then, more specifically on that, is the question of
how, regardless of whether it is the DOD or the State or
whoever, how do you deal with civil unrest?
Now, I was struck by the fact that there seemed to be a
lack of coordination and a lack of thought in that response. I
am not talking about DOD.
I am talking about across the country as people saw these
protests rise up, in some cases turning violent, what was the
plan for dealing with that?
There's actually a lot of very well-documented history
about how to deal with domestic unrest, ranging everywhere
from, you know, civil war to protest movements, and we have
studied this extensively.
I have read quite a bit about it and, you know, what is our
plan? You had a lot of the President's rhetoric that sort of
sounded like, you know, basically, we will crush you so you
better stop doing this, to a more nuanced approach to how do
you de-escalate, how do you protect the legitimate right of
people in this country to protest while at the same time
stopping crime, stopping protest movements from becoming
violent.
I think it is something that requires thought, and all
leaders in a place to make those decisions need to be better
educated on how that comes to pass.
And then the last two things that I would like to touch on
is, one, the disturbing lack of coordination between what the
White House was saying and what DOD was saying and, in some
cases, doing.
The President started a lot of this with his announcement,
and forgive me, I forget the exact words, but the general gist
of it was, you know, we will bring order to this country and if
the Governors don't do it then I will use the Active Duty
military to do it for them.
That statement did not seem to be followed up by any actual
actions to do it, but why would he say that if that was the
case? And what sort of conversations went on between the
Department of Defense and the President and others in the White
House about the best way to respond to that?
And that gets to an interesting part of this and that is
the difficult position that any Secretary of Defense and any
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is in. You work for the
President. He is the Commander in Chief. That is the way the
flow chart goes, and his decisions are final and you have to
follow those.
Now, it is absolutely impossible that any person in either
of your positions would agree 100 percent of the time with
everything the President said. How do you handle those
disagreements?
How do you work through that, you know, admittedly, that
you can't come out in public and say, yeah, I think my boss is
an idiot; I completely disagree with his decision. And it is
something that happens in this committee all the time.
I have been on this committee through four Presidents--two
Republicans, two Democrats--and whenever that is the case,
invariably, the party up here that is not in the White House
tries to get everybody at the Department of Defense to admit
that some decision by the President, they don't agree with it.
Under President Obama it happened all the time. We had DOD
personnel up here. Some decision was made. They would say, come
on, you really don't think that is the right thing to do.
I do understand that, in my time anyway, I have never seen
a single solitary witness confess and say, oh, yeah, I thought
that was stupid. That is not the way it works, and I am not
looking for that.
I am looking for an understanding as to how the White House
and DOD can better coordinate. We have had a disturbing
pattern, not just on the domestic unrest issues but on a number
of issues, of the White House seemingly out of the blue making
bold policy statements that affect DOD decisions that do not
appear to have been well coordinated or certainly not well
delivered: the decision to pull out of Syria, the decision to
remove troops from Germany, the decision to ban transgender
people from serving in the military.
That one was particularly galling because it came within
days after every service chief had testified that there was no
problem with them serving. Then a tweet goes out and DOD has to
respond.
That sends a mixed message to the country about what our
defense policy is and, in particular, what happened on Syria
when that announcement was made and then we had to figure out
how to make that work.
So we are curious within those limitations how is that
coordination happening.
Lastly, there is concern about the politicization of the
military and, again, this is not unique to any one President.
The President is the Commander in Chief, has a duty to, you
know, guide the military and, at the same time, has political
interests.
But how do we make sure those two things get separate--stay
separate, sorry. And the biggest concern of that, obviously,
was the incident at St. John's Church when the President and
Secretary of Defense and a few others, you know, took a picture
in front of the church and then it was quickly turned around
into a political ad.
You know, it is, I think, incredibly important that we
respect the institutions of our government irrespective of who
is in charge. You know, we are a nation of laws, a nation of
institutions, not a nation of any one individual.
Long after this President is out of office, long after all
of us are gone from our current positions, there will be new
people in those positions and those institutions need to
survive on their own, not to serve any one particular person's
political interests.
And I am very concerned about the Department of Defense
becoming unduly politicized. I will say, for the record, that I
think both of these gentlemen have done, by and large, an
excellent job of not doing that, even in what is a very
difficult environment.
We have seen politicization happen in the Department of
Justice, in the intel community, to, I personally feel, a
shocking degree. I have not seen that at the Department of
Defense and I respect that.
I just want to make sure that it doesn't happen because you
make bad decisions in that environment. If the decision is
based on the loyalty to one individual instead of loyalty to
the country, loyalty to the law, loyalty to what is in all of
our best interests, it makes a difficult job even more
difficult.
So I look forward to the witnesses' answers to these
questions and explanations of what happened, and more than
anything I think it is incredibly appropriate that the public
sees this in one straightforward situation where two of the
people who are in the middle of this can tell what happened,
what the thinking was, so that we can have greater confidence
in those institutions that we so greatly need to make sure that
we remain a stable and peaceful nation.
And with that, I will yield to Mr. Thornberry for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me join in
welcoming the Secretary and the Chairman to be with us, and we
appreciate your flexibility in these rather unusual
circumstances and locations and all that is required with--in
the current situation.
In addition to many of the specific questions that the
chairman laid out, I think one of the most important things
that you all can help us do, which the chairman also mentioned
a couples times, is help us look at these issues in context,
both in a historical context and a context of everything that
the military is being asked to do these days.
Because I am struck by the fact that even when you look at
DOD's support to civilian law enforcement, obviously, we think
of the protests and what happened here in Washington.
But elements of the military have been doing a lot of law
enforcement missions related to COVID [coronavirus disease] for
months. Again, it is primarily the National Guard that has been
doing that. But it seems to me since the beginning of the year
the military has been asked to take on a number of additional
missions unexpectedly that require different kinds of training
and preparation but, at the same time, you still have to pay
attention to the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the
Iranians, and the terrorists who are trying to kill us every
day.
And so it is in that larger context, I think, that I am
particularly interested in your assessment on how our people
are doing and also how our budgets are doing, because even when
it is the Guard in many of these situations that are being
asked to do civilian law enforcement, DOD is footing the bill
for that.
So, again, my point is in addition to a number of
particular questions, the larger context, how the military is
doing with these added responsibilities is important.
Last thing I just want to say is, agreeing with the
chairman, the temptation here is to focus on a particular
incident, a particular President, and particular political
differences.
I think what is most helpful for us, as the chairman said,
Presidents come and go. Everybody in our jobs come and go. We
are talking in part about an act that was passed in 1807 and
hasn't been changed very much since then.
So the historical context is also, seems to me, important
with the institutions. You know, I keep always in the forefront
of my mind the Gallup polls that are done every year, what
institutions do you respect the most. The military is at the
top of the list, and that is a key national strength of this--
of this country.
And whatever we do, we want to make sure that the men and
women who serve the military continue to have that exalted
position of respect throughout the country as Presidents come
and go and as issues and incidents come and go. And to me, that
is a key responsibility of this Congress.
Like the chairman, I am not going to ask specific
questions. I will go directly to the folks on our side.
But, again, thank you both for being here.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK T. ESPER, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Secretary Esper. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry,
and distinguished members of the House Armed Services
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be before you
today.
Throughout our history, the United States military has
demonstrated an unwavering commitment to uphold our oath to the
Constitution and to support our civil authorities.
Over the past several months, more than 60,000 service
members have unfailingly answered our Nation's call, working on
the front lines in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic,
saving lives and stemming the spread of the virus.
At the same time, we are hard at work as part of Operation
Warp Speed to accelerate the development, manufacture, and
distribution of therapeutics and vaccines at scale by the end
of the year.
And over the next few months, we will likely be called upon
by the States once again to support hurricane and wildfire
relief efforts.
No matter the challenges or circumstances, our service
members stand ready to serve and I am incredibly proud of their
dedication and commitment to our fellow Americans.
In late May, our ongoing support to civil authorities'
mission expanded in the wake of the horrible killing of George
Floyd and an officer being charged with his murder, a tragedy
we have seen repeated too often in our Nation.
Following his tragic death, thousands of our fellow
citizens sought to exercise their First Amendment rights to
free speech and peaceful assembly.
While most of these protests were law-abiding, it is clear
that some individuals exploited a situation to sow chaos and
commit acts of violence, destruction, and theft.
That is why at the height of the civil unrest more than
43,000 National Guard personnel were called upon by Governors
across the country to uphold the rule of law, safeguard life
and property, and protect the rights of Americans, all
Americans, to protest safely and peacefully.
As a former soldier and member of the National Guard, I am
a firm believer that in these situations the Guard is best
suited to provide domestic support to civil authorities in
support of law enforcement.
Using Active Duty forces in a direct law enforcement role
should remain a last resort and only in the most urgent and
dire of situations.
I want to make very clear that no Active Duty military
units engaged protestors or otherwise took part, direct part,
in civilian law enforcement or Federal protection missions in
the District of Columbia or anywhere else in the country.
And with regard to the role the National Guard played in
Lafayette Park on June 1, I also want to make clear the
following: that the Guard did not advance on the crowd, that
the Guard did not shoot rubber bullets, that the Guard did not
employ chemical agents of any type.
Rather, the Guard remained in a static role as backup to
law enforcement if needed.
A detailed account of DOD's involvement in the civil unrest
beginning May 29th, 2020, is included in my written testimony
submitted for the record.
Following the events that transpired in the District of
Columbia, I directed the Secretary of the Army to complete a
full after-action review by the end of July.
I also directed investigations into two separate incidents
that occurred that week.
And, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to
enter into the record my directive to the Secretary of the Army
with regard to the conduct of his after-action review.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information can be found in the Appendix on page 93.]
Secretary Esper. As the American people continue to express
their outrage at the killing of Mr. Floyd and long for
meaningful change, we once again face the painful truth that
racism is real in America.
We also know that the Department of Defense is not immune
to the forces of bias and prejudice, whether seen or unseen,
deliberate or unintentional. These issues have no place in our
military because they degrade the morale, cohesion, and
readiness of our force.
While our military has often led on addressing these
issues, the events of recent weeks are a stark reminder that
much more work remains to be done.
Therefore, on June 17th, I announced three new initiatives
aimed at advancing equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion
across our force.
First, I directed our civilian and uniformed leadership in
the Pentagon to bring me concrete ideas by the end of June that
we could implement quickly, such as removing photos from
selection boards.
Second, I established an internal Department of Defense
Board on Diversity and Inclusion, which will provide
recommendations by the end of the year on how we can increase
diversity and ensure equal opportunity for all service members.
Finally, I began the process of establishing a Defense
Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion in the Armed
Services that will be a permanent structure composed of an
independent and diverse group of Americans committed to
building upon the work of the Defense Board over the long term.
These are just the first steps towards shifting our culture
and creating lasting change across our enterprise. In doing so,
we will build a better force, one that is diverse, inclusive,
and more representative of the American people we serve and we
protect.
And while we may come from different backgrounds and parts
of the country, we all make the same commitment: to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States.
We all strive to uphold that oath and serve in an
apolitical manner at all times. By doing so, we earn the trust
and confidence of the American people.
Meanwhile, while much has been focused on our support to
our fellow Americans at home, thousands of military personnel
remain engaged abroad, in harm's way, to ensure that we can
enjoy the blessings of this country.
We take very seriously any threats to our forces, whether
in Afghanistan or anywhere else across the globe. I want our
adversaries to know that we will always do our utmost to ensure
their safety and security.
In closing, I want to assure the American people that the
Department of Defense takes seriously our oath to defend the
Constitution, with many having paid the ultimate sacrifice to
protect the sacred rights and freedoms this document guarantees
all of us.
We will continue to protect and defend our homeland, our
people, and our way of life as we work to build a better force,
one that represents the rich diversity of our great Nation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Esper can be found in
the Appendix on page 51.]
The Chairman. Chairman Milley.
STATEMENT OF GEN MARK A. MILLEY, USA, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF
STAFF
General Milley. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today with Secretary Esper.
It is indeed an honor to represent the soldiers, sailors,
airmen, Marines, and coastguardsmen stationed around the world
protecting our freedoms.
Today, as you know, we are operating globally and here at
home. The past few months have been exceptionally challenging
times for America. The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed our
health system, our economy, and the social fabric of our
communities.
In addition, George Floyd's death amplified the pain, the
frustration, and the fear that so many of our fellow Americans
live with day in and day out.
I have many policemen in my family and I am personally
outraged by George Floyd's brutal and senseless killing. The
protests that have ensued not only speak to this injustice but
also to centuries of injustice towards Black Americans.
We as a nation and as a military are still struggling with
racism and we have much work to do. We who wear the cloth of
our Nation understand that cohesion is a force multiplier.
Divisiveness leads to defeat. As one of our famous Presidents
said, a house divided does not stand.
Our troops are part of cohesive teams consisting of people
of different races and genders and religions and sexual
orientations, working to accomplish their mission in peace and
war all over the globe.
Equality and opportunity are matters of military readiness,
not just political correctness. There is no place in our Armed
Forces for manifestations or symbols of racism, bias, or
discrimination.
We, the military, have a long history of inclusiveness,
teamwork, and merit that is the keystone to American military
success.
In fact, this month, 71 years ago in 1948, Harry Truman
integrated the Armed Forces of the United States, 17 years
before the 1965 Civil Rights Act.
But we are not perfect and we must thoughtfully examine our
institution and ensure it is a place where all Americans see
themselves represented and have equal opportunity to succeed,
especially in leadership positions, and every member of our
joint force, including myself, has sworn an oath to support and
defend the United States Constitution.
This oath underpins my duties as the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and I am deeply committed to fulfilling both
the letter and the spirit of my oath, regardless of
consequences to self.
We, the United States military, hold dear the Constitution
and the principle of an apolitical military that is so deeply
rooted in the very essence of our republic.
My role as the Chairman is to be the principal military
advisor to the President of the United States, the Secretary of
Defense, the National Security Council, and the Homeland
Security Council, and throughout the recent period of civil
unrest in our Nation I exercise this role exclusively.
At no time was I ever in command of any forces. All of my
actions have been consistent with my statutory authority as an
advisor who is explicitly not in the chain of command.
We should also be proud, proud that the vast majority of
the protests we saw around the country were peaceful, and
peaceful protest means that American freedom is working.
Some protests, however, turned violent. In Minneapolis,
significant violence began on the evening of 26 May where
looting, commercial property damage, and arson quickly
overwhelmed the Minneapolis firefighters and police officers.
On 28 May, Governor Tim Walz declared a state of emergency
and activated the Minnesota Guard under his authority and
deployed them to Minneapolis to support State and local law
enforcement.
The Secretary of Defense and I spoke by telephone with the
Governor to better understand the situation in Minneapolis and
see if he required any additional assistance. This conversation
helped inform my military advice.
Over the night of 29 May, the number of violent protests
increased nationally to 13 major cities, escalating to 34 just
2 days later.
By the morning of 1 June, 29 States and the District of
Columbia had activated the National Guards, totaling more than
17,000 National Guards men and women.
And Washington, DC, our Nation's capital, faced 3 nights of
escalating violence starting on Friday, May 29th. The White
House increased its security posture. The Federal Government
vacated certain buildings. Our Nation's monuments and
government buildings were defaced. Businesses in DC were looted
and some were set ablaze.
With more than 420 arrests and 150 law enforcement officers
and half a dozen National Guardsmen injured, it was reported to
me that it was the worst 3 days of violence in Washington, DC,
in over 30 years.
There were troops and police from 22 different
organizations not including those from the Active Duty in the
vicinity of the military district of Washington. There were
three major departments--Department of Justice, Department of
the Interior, and Department of Defense--all involved.
There were National Guard troops from 11 different States,
and the chain of command for those National Guard troops ran
from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary
of the Army to Major General Walker, and it never changed.
Since the protests began, I sought information to help me
assess the ability of Federal, State, and local authorities to
handle situations under their responsibility and I met and
spoke with National Guard leadership and troops often, Army and
DOD leadership, Department of Justice and others, along with
Governors and DC officials.
I continually assessed and advised that it was not
necessary to employ Active Duty troops in response to the civil
unrest occurring in our Nation.
It was my view then and remains so now that local, State,
and Federal police, backed up by the National Guard under
Governor control, could and continually can effectively handle
the security situation in every case across the country.
However, I recommended to the Secretary of Defense and he
ordered about 1,700 Active Duty troops to an increased alert
posture in the vicinity of Washington, DC, but none of them
were ever used and there was never an Active Duty troop used in
any location anywhere in the United States.
Additionally, I repeatedly advised the Secretary of Defense
and he repeatedly ordered de-escalation measures to be taken,
including removing weapons and helmets and consistent with
force protection measures.
These de-escalation measures were widely implemented from 2
to 3 June, and by 4 June Active Duty and National Guard units
began redeploying in the vicinity of Washington, DC, back to
their home station. A more detailed account is in the written
record.
I am incredibly proud of the professionalism exhibited by
the citizen soldiers that make up our National Guard. Since
their formation, they have operated in support of local and
State governments throughout history, responding to hurricanes,
forest fires, health crises, COVID-19, the pandemic, and many
forms of civil unrest throughout the years.
By my research, I count at least 19 times that National
Guard and militia troops were used in support of the
Insurrection Act and it is important to note the Insurrection
Act was not invoked in the last several weeks.
The United States military comes from the people of our
Nation and we remain dedicated to the Constitution. We will
never turn our back on that document. We swore an oath of
allegiance at the cost of our lives to an idea embedded within
that document and we will always protect it.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Milley can be found in
the Appendix on page 86.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Members will now be recognized in the order that they were
here when the gavel dropped. There is a 5-minute limit and we
will have--we won't have enough time to get to every member so
I am going to be ruthless on the 5-minute clock, and one of the
hardest problems there is a lot of times witnesses are in the
middle of an answer when that 5-minute clock goes up.
I am not attempting to be rude or attempting to cut you
off. I will try to give you the opportunity to complete your
thought. But as members ask questions and witnesses answer,
understand when the 5 minutes is up we are going to do our
level best to as quickly as possible move on to the next
member.
And with that, first on our side is Representative Davis,
who is participating remotely.
Representative Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to Secretary Esper and General Milley. We appreciate your
joining us for this.
I wanted to start with you, Mr. Secretary. You mentioned
the after-action review on July 30th. Is that on course for the
end of the month and will we be scheduling a briefing on that?
Secretary Esper. Congresswoman, I am not sure I heard--
parts of your question didn't come through. But I think you
asked is the--is the after-action review on track and will you
be briefed on it.
If that was your question, I spoke to Secretary McCarthy
just yesterday. As you may know, he played a very prominent
role in all this.
I know he briefed the committee a few weeks ago, along with
General Walker. But he is handling that piece of the review.
His assessment, currently, it is on track.
I am, though, however, more concerned about getting it
right than getting it done quick. But my aim would be after
that to make that available to you.
Also something that I put forth in my directive to him was
to be prepared to take his findings and recommendations and to
have a similar conversation, a similar type of review process,
with law enforcement that was on the ground in DC because I
think that is a very important second step in that process to
have that discussion so that we can have lessons learned----
Mrs. Davis. Yes. Thank you.
Secretary Esper [continuing]. And work them out between us
and law enforcement for the--if this happens again.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know we are all
concerned about being prepared, and I wanted to especially
focus on the 1st of June because that was a time that there was
concern that there was a great deal of violence that day and
the understanding, I think, of most people that were on the
ground in terms of--including the reporting of the Washington
Post and others is that that particular day actually it was
peaceful.
And there may have been a few incidents. I don't know. I
wasn't there. But I understand from all the reporting that that
was the case, and that they--in fact, the Park Police, as you
mentioned, was there. You talked--General Milley talked about
the Guard being there as backup.
But we saw Attorney General Bill Barr actually talking
about the fact that it was--that it was violent and that they
needed to move forward because the--they were very worried of
things coming out of control.
And I just wondered if do you--from where you sit today, do
you think that that assessment, that in fact it was violent on
that day and that there was a need to even have the Guard as
backup?
Is that true? Do you think that in further reflection that
isn't quite what people thought?
Secretary Esper. Congresswoman, I think when you look back
at the days leading up to June 1st you see a tremendous amount
of violence that had been building up over a period of days.
If I had my numbers right, that over a period of 3 days I
think eventually, regrettably, over 50 Park Police officers
were injured. Over 60 Secret Service agents were injured.
We had six National Guardsmen hurt to include one who was
hit in the head with a brick and suffered a concussion. You had
parts of DC to include the church set on fire, and other acts
of vandalism across the area.
So there was a great deal of consternation by law
enforcement with regard to what might happen that evening of
June 1st.
I think that is why there was the push to get additional
law enforcement in as soon as possible, backed up by National
Guard, so that you had enough presence to calm the situation
down, regain some degree of control, and allow for Americans to
peacefully protest their government to express their outrage
over the brutal murder of George Floyd and to allow those
things to happen free of violence from those individuals, those
folks out there who were trying to cause mischief.
So that's my assessment. The Chairman may have something to
add on that.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Well, I think I was just going to say, Secretary, I think
that this certainly is an area to take a very hard look at and
to be certain that it is clear among the departments, because
even when we ask those questions when we had Army leadership
here, they actually were not clear about what was going on.
They had situational awareness but they didn't know who
ordered the clearing of protestors and who authorized the
helicopters to use----
The Chairman. I am sorry. The gentlelady's--your time is
expired.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Turner is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First off, I want to thank Secretary Esper and General
Milley for your leadership. You give great confidence to
everyone on this committee on both sides of the aisle.
I want to appreciate your strong words, both of you, on the
killing of George Floyd and the fact that your whole focus as
protecting people's First Amendment rights is incredibly
important and should be foundational and important to this
discussion.
I appreciate your recognition of the outrage everyone felt,
and I appreciate your condemnation of racism and the fact that
we are dealing with this as a nation across all areas and you
are being called in a very difficult time.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your statements on diversity
and inclusion. This committee took several actions with the
National Defense Authorization Act that I think will be helpful
and we look forward to your comments on those.
You made a statement. I have three questions and we have
limited time. I have three questions.
One, you said that the Guard is best to support these
efforts. Is it because of their dual nature of the fact that
they are both private citizens and serve in the military?
Secretary Esper. I think--first of all, Congressman, thank
you for your comments. First of all, I think that, one, they
are citizen-soldiers and that matters because they often come
from those communities in which they may be serving.
They are protecting their fellow Americans. They understand
what is happening in the neighborhoods, in the communities. So
I think that is important.
Number two, they are trained, in many cases, to do civil
disturbance, and number three, they are equipped to do this. So
it is part of what we call their mission essential task list,
their METL tasks, in most cases to perform these duties and,
again, having been a citizen-soldier myself I appreciate their
capacity at this, which is better in many cases than the Active
Duty.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Secretary, I have a question for you that I
believe it has the narrowness of--which is going to be helpful
for all of us so I would appreciate if you would let me finish
the entire question so we can get to the narrowness part that I
think will give you comfort.
I understand the rules with respect to classified material
and I also understand that things that haven't happened are not
classified.
Mr. Secretary, during your time as Secretary, have you ever
received an intelligence briefing where it stated that Russia
had offered bounties for the killing of American soldiers, and
if you had wouldn't you think that was important enough to
bring to the attention of the President?
And I am focusing here on the narrowness of the word
``bounties'' and I want you to know also that the people in
this room know the answer to the question. We are not able to
give the answer because of the rules.
But you are, and I think with the narrowness of this
question we would greatly appreciate your answering it.
Have you received an intel briefing that stated--that
included the word ``bounty'' with respect to Russians and
killing of American men and women in uniform?
Secretary Esper. Congressman, to the best of my
recollection, I have not received a briefing that included the
word ``bounty.''
Mr. Turner. Mr. Secretary, I really appreciate you saying
that. Now, my next question then is and if you had wouldn't
that have risen to the level of importance enough for you to
bring it to the President's attention?
That would be an action item, wouldn't it? I mean, it would
be so outrageous that you would bring that up the chain of
command.
Secretary Esper. If it was a credible report--that is
important--a credible corroborated report that had--that used
those words, certainly, it would have been brought to my
attention by the chain of command, by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs and others for action.
It would have been--and we would have taken upon that
action in an interagency effort to make sure that we got--we
addressed it.
But, look, at all times we take force protection very
seriously and take all those actions regardless of the
credibility of a report. We take all that seriously.
Mr. Turner. I understand.
Turning back to this issue, Mr. Secretary, the mayor of DC
has a police chief. Governors have access to other resources
with respect to the Guard.
Could you compare and contrast those with us? Because it is
important for people to understand when people talk about the
mayor of DC being consulted versus a Governor being consulted
what their structures are.
Secretary Esper. So, first of all, I want to commend the
police chief of Metro Police Department. He worked very well
and was very helpful to the Secretary of the Army during those
difficult days. So I want to commend him.
But as I understand it, he is the police force for
Washington, DC. Washington, DC, does not have a State police
force like many other States have that they can call upon if
they will and, of course, the DC Guard does not report to the
mayor.
The DC Guard--the commander is the Commander in Chief, the
President, who can delegate that authority to me and then I can
further delegate it down.
So the capabilities of the DC to handle civil unrest is
limited as best I know it to just the Metro Police Department.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the
opportunity to ask a few questions.
First off, for Secretary Esper, and this has to do with the
after-action report and the coordination question. Would you
see National Guard leadership in response to the DC protest,
the DC National Guard leadership as the only agency that runs
through the chain of command and up to you? Is that correct?
Secretary Esper. Yes. The DC chain of command, National
Guard chain of command, runs from the commanding general, Major
General Walker, to the Secretary of the Army, to me, and then
to the President of the United States.
Mr. Larsen. And that was the only agency unit involved that
ran through the chain of command of the Department. Is that
right?
Secretary Esper. I am sorry. Can you repeat that? I didn't
pick up the second word that you said.
Mr. Larsen. I am sorry. That is the only--that is the only
agency that ran up through the DOD chain of command in response
to the DC protest. Is that right?
Secretary Esper. Yes, that would be outside of any Active
Duty, that is correct, with regard to title 32. Otherwise, all
other National Guard forces either in their home States or that
eventually deployed to Washington, DC, remained under the
command of the State's Governors.
And General Walker's role was----
Mr. Larsen. Okay. That is fine.
Secretary Esper [continuing]. Tactical control on the
ground.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. So there is video of nonuniformed Federal
Government folks who were deployed to Washington, DC,
presumably from the Bureau of Prisons and presumably at the
request of the attorney general.
You mentioned that you were doing an after-action report
and that after-action report will apply only at this point to
the Department of Defense and the DC National Guard.
Is that where it stands right now?
Secretary Esper. Yes, Congressman. The note I sent to the
Secretary of the Army was to look at the National Guard writ
large.
It directed him to focus also on the events in DC and then,
of course, related issues that arose like the use of
helicopters and he is to look at training, equipping,
organization, all those issues that might be--his findings that
might include refining some lessons learned for future--for
future employment of the National Guard.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Do you know at this time whether or not the head of the DC
National Guard was aware of the deployment of these
nonuniformed presumably Federal law enforcement folks that
created a perimeter around the White House I think on June 3d?
Was that coordinated? Have you concluded that that was
coordinated yet with the DC National Guard?
Secretary Esper. Well, again, I am not sure I understand
your question. Let me answer it this way.
The Chairman and I spoke to Major General Walker yesterday.
He had--he had an understanding of who was on the ground in
Lafayette Park. He was there. He knew that the DC National
Guard were in a supporting role to the Park Police. I----
Mr. Larsen. Okay. Can I stop there--can I stop you there?
You are talking about Lafayette Park and that is fine. But
there were other law enforcement deployed who were apparently
non-local non-DC.
They were Federal law enforcement also deployed to take
actions within DC, within the boundaries of the District of
Columbia. I am asking if that--those--do you know yet whether
or not those actions were coordinated with the DC National
Guard or not?
Secretary Esper. My understanding is because I was with the
Secretary of the Army McCarthy, the Chairman, we were down at
the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] Joint Operations
Center on Monday evening with representatives from a number of
agencies.
I can't list them all, the Federal--as you describe them.
So I know it was fairly well coordinated. Secretary McCarthy
did an outstanding job with regard to working that out on the
spot and Major General Walker was by his side most of the time.
I will turn to Chairman Milley to see if he has anything to
add on that.
Mr. Larsen. I have got about 30 seconds.
General Milley. So, Congressman, I would--I can't confirm
or deny that all of those Federal law enforcement agencies were
tied into the DC National Guard. Personally, you know, for
Walker I would have to go talk to Walker specifically about
that.
But all of the Federal agencies came underneath the
Department of Justice except for the Park Police, who are under
the Department of Interior, and the Metro Police remained under
the command and control of the mayor.
The Chairman. Thank you.
General Milley. So I don't know if that helps clarify or
not but----
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. A little bit.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, that does help. That is a major question
that we have.
Mr. Rogers is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and Mr. Secretary, Mr.
Chairman, thank you both for being here and for your service to
our country.
Mr. Secretary, in early June you requested members of the
National Guard under section 502(f) of title 32. You made some
reference to this, but can you give us a more full picture of
what the command and control structure under that authority is
and kind of give us an organizational structure?
Secretary Esper. Are you speaking, I assume, within
Washington, DC?
Mr. Rogers. Within Washington, DC. Yes, sir. I am sorry.
Secretary Esper. So you are right. On the afternoon of 1
June, the--we knew we would have available throughout that
evening up to 1,200 DC National Guard. As we just described,
they work for Major General Walker, who was reporting to
Secretary of the Army McCarthy, who was reporting to me.
We estimated that we needed 3,800 additional National Guard
to support the efforts in DC. So what we did was through a
combination of myself and General Lengyel had reached out to a
number of States to seek the permission from the Governor to
deploy elements of their Guard to DC to support the law
enforcement effort.
Eleven States, if my number is correct, provided that and
it got us to a little bit over 5,000 on the ground. It took a
period of days to do that. But that gave us the numbers we
needed at all times.
The outside--the Guard units coming in from outside of DC,
non-DC National Guard, were under 502(f) authorities provided--
funded by the Federal Government. Their role is to protect
Federal functions, property, and personnel and at all times
they remained under the control of their Governors.
Mr. Rogers. I want to shift a little bit.
Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks you made reference to
the fact that 60,000 service members have been employed dealing
with a variety of issues, mostly COVID but some other law
enforcement and I know it is mostly National Guard.
And this is kind of a follow-up to Mr. Thornberry's
questions. How are they holding up? With all this variety of
missions that has been foisted at--47,000 of those are National
Guardsmen that have been working in COVID.
What is the state of the National Guard right now, given
the way they are being spread out? And then as a follow-up to
that, the economic impact to your budgets and what we are going
to need to backfill.
General Milley. So the numbers--you got the numbers about
right. For the National Guard globally, about 120,000 are on
duty--on Active Duty. About 45,000, I think, if I remember this
right from my briefing with Joe Lengyel, about 45,000 are
dedicated to COVID.
At the peak--not right this minute but at the peak there
were around 40,000 to 43,000 on the civil unrest under Governor
control, and then there is about 30,000 doing title 10 missions
around the world or in the United States.
So about 120,000 total, which is significant. That is a big
chunk of the U.S. National Guard, both Army and Air.
The reports to me are morale is good. They feel good about
their contribution and they joined the Guard to make sure that
they make a contribution to the Nation. So I am not
particularly aware of any particular issues. But they are going
pretty fast at a high OPTEMPO [operations tempo], probably
faster than they have in the past except during the surge
periods of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Rogers. What about the economic impact to your budgets
of having these individuals deployed in these various missions
that were unplanned?
General Milley. There is an economic impact. I don't know
that it is--it is not going to--I don't think it is going to
break the DOD back on the economic impact because of the
numbers. But there is an impact, absolutely.
Mr. Rogers. So you don't expect to be asking the Congress
for additional money to replace that or backfill that money in
a supplemental later this year?
General Milley. I will leave that up to the Secretary.
Secretary Esper. We have been keeping careful accounting of
the dollars through the comptroller. That is, obviously,
something we need to come back to and to make sure we
understand what those numbers are and how material they are to
the budget.
Mr. Rogers. And finally, Mr. Secretary, do you believe that
the Insurrection Act needs any legislative modification by this
Congress?
Secretary Esper. Well, the Insurrection Act is an
extraordinary piece of legislation, as we know, has endured
well over the past couple hundred years and it is under the
exclusive authority of the President.
So it would not be appropriate for me to opine in terms of
material changes to the act. I would reserve that to the
President.
My view is there is nothing that has happened that strikes
me as compelling to change it at this point in time.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you both for being here.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Courtney is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Adam, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today. Particularly, I want to
recognize both of you made very strong comments expressing, you
know, your--upholding your oath in terms of supporting the
First Amendment and people's right to protest peacefully.
Of course, another part of the First Amendment is freedom
of the press, and freedom of the press did not have a very good
day on June 1st a couple days ago over at the Natural Resources
Committee. A reporter from Australia, Amelia Brace, who was a
TV news reporter, was at Lafayette Park with her cameraman, Tim
Myers, when the U.S. Park Police, two of the officers, just
completely assaulted them on live television.
She was actually broadcasting into The Morning Show in
Australia. It is kind of the equivalent of the Today Show, and
I don't know if it is still coming through here but in any
case, her testimony described, again, the riot shield of the
Park Police being rammed into the chest and stomach of the
cameraman and on camera you could see her getting hit with a
truncheon. She was shot with rubber bullets and both of them
were hospitalized.
But, again, I just wanted to maybe give you both an
opportunity to just go on the record to say that, you know, we,
obviously, as part of recognizing the First Amendment,
recognize that the media has a role to play that is protected
by the Constitution. In fact, the curfew order that the mayor
issued exempted the media from the curfew that was in place on
June 1st.
And I just wanted--again, would ask both of you to comment
on that because, frankly, this was on live television in
Australia, who is probably one of our closest allies.
Secretary Esper. Congressman, I will go first.
You are right, Australia is one of our most important
allies. I spent the other night, as the chairman knows,
speaking with my counterpart in Australia.
Let me say this. We have said it numerous times. I swore an
oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
and I do that not just because I swore an oath but because I
believe deeply in that document and all that it guarantees, our
rights and democracy.
And you have talked about the First Amendment. That
includes the big five and one of which is the freedom of the
press, and I think a free and open press is critical to the
functioning--the efficient functioning, you know, of our
democracy.
And so I think that is something that we need--we cherish.
That is one of the reasons why, you know, the National Guard,
when it gets used in defense of support of civil authorities is
out there is to give Americans the right to peacefully
assemble, to express their views and for the press to cover it,
hopefully, as accurately as possible so that the American
people can--have an understanding of what is happening in the
country.
General Milley. And, Congressman, I am not familiar with
the particular incident that you are referring to. But I am
deeply committed to a free press.
Like I said, I will die for the Constitution. It is an
idea, and part of that is the free media, and a free media is
fundamentally essential to a free people as fundamental to our
democracy.
So, absolutely, I am committed to that.
Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you both again. This was front
page news in Australia and I would just say that it was the
Park Police. It was not National Guardsmen who were involved in
that violence that took place there.
But the fact is, as the Secretary's testimony indicates,
the DC National Guard was acting in support of local police
authorities, including the Park Police.
And I think, frankly, whatever after-action report goes
out, the fact that media are present in situations where they
have a legal duty--not just a right but a duty to be there,
which was recognized by the District of Columbia, that really
there has got to be some training to make sure that people
recognize that it is off limits to treat them in any way that
is inappropriate, which is exactly what happened.
And I would encourage you to watch the testimony which took
place from Ms. Brace. It is actually quite shocking and,
frankly, particularly the fact that it happened to an ally of
ours it will make you heartsick to watch it.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Conaway is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will yield my time to
the next Republican on the list.
The Chairman. Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn, are you with us?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
gentlemen, for your service.
I wanted to focus on an issue of importance to constituents
in my district. I have had the privilege of hosting both of
you, Secretary Esper, in your capacity when you were Secretary
of the Army, as well as General Milley. I have spent time with
you at Fort Drum.
And given some of the recent press reports regarding
Afghanistan, as you know, I represent military families and
10th Mountain Division soldiers who are currently deployed in
Afghanistan.
And I wanted to get your comments, General Milley, on your
commitment and the Department's commitment to force protection
at all costs.
That is one of my top priorities, whether it is rebuilding
military readiness, investing in training, investing in
equipment, and having the most exquisite exceptional
intelligence that is verified out there.
But I think it is important for families to know the
lengths to which the Department goes to ensure that we are
protecting the safety and well being of our service members
deployed.
I will start with you, General Milley.
General Milley. You have a 1,000 percent commitment. I have
got three tours in Afghanistan and multiple tours in a lot of
other places, and I have buried a lot of people in Arlington
National Cemetery.
So I am committed to the nth degree to protect our force
and we will ensure that they have all the right equipment,
training, alerts, warnings, intel, et cetera.
I know what you are referring to specifically with the
Russians, and I will tell you that we are at the highest levels
of force protection. Units and people are and were informed and
will remain informed.
We are going to get to the bottom of all that but I can
assure the families that the force protection of our force, not
only for me but for every commander all the way down the line.
That's the number one priority for every one of us, absolutely.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you.
Secretary Esper.
Secretary Esper. I 1,000 percent agree as well. I say it
again as a former soldier myself with one combat tour under my
belt.
This is something we talk with--I talk about with the
commanders all the time, with General Miller and General
McKenzie on multiple occasions. We make adjustments all the
time across the theater and other theaters. But force
protection is number one to take care of our soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and Marines. They are our most vital resource, our most
trusted asset, and we will do everything and anything it takes
to protect them.
Ms. Stefanik. My next question, and just so you know, I sit
on the House Intelligence Committee so I have received the
classified briefings, understanding we are in an unclassified
setting right now.
I also think it is important to talk about how we know,
going years back, that Russia has meddled in Afghanistan as
well as other countries have also involved themselves in
Afghanistan counter to our commitments and our strategic goals
in the region, whether that is Iran, whether that is China,
using economic tools.
So I wanted to get your comment on that because I think it
is important to consider that long-term impact rather than just
this one illegal leak that has been covered in the media.
General Milley. Well, on the--specific to the Russians,
yes, we have known for years that the Russians have been
involved for their own national security interests and in
Afghanistan, and the Russians are not our friends and their
involvement is worrisome and we monitor it closely and we take
the appropriate actions.
The Chinese are involved. The Pakistanis are involved. The
Iranians are. There are a lot of countries involved in
Afghanistan, and many of them have malfeasance aforethought
against the U.S. and U.S. forces, et cetera.
We are aware of a lot of that. Not perhaps every single
thing, but we are aware of a lot of it and we take the
appropriate measures. And with respect to the issue and was
previously asked by one of the other Congressmen, we are aware
of the variety of intelligence that you were briefed on this
morning, and we are pursuing that.
Ms. Stefanik. Secretary Esper, any comments on that?
Secretary Esper. I share the same views as the Chairman.
The Russians have been involved, and many, many other countries
and many other players--you know, nonstate players--in
Afghanistan for a long time, and we take all that into account,
and I can tell you on other occasions we have adapted force
posture.
We have adapted authorities, equipment, you name it, rules
of engagement to make sure that our forces were well protected
and able to accomplish their mission.
Ms. Stefanik. And then my last question, can you discuss
the damage that illegal leaks have on our ability to collect
intelligence, on our force protection measures? Because I am
very concerned the damage that illegal leaks have in general
when it comes to our national security.
Secretary Esper. I am conscious of the clock. The illegal
leaks are terrible. They are happening across the government,
particularly in the Defense Department.
I am pushing for it on the new effort to remind people of
OPSEC [operations security] whether it is predecisional,
unclassified items or even classified items, it hurts our
national security. It jeopardizes our troops, and it is just
damaging to our government and our relationships with our
allies and partners.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Garamendi is recognized for 5
minutes. Mr. Garamendi, are you with us? Make sure you unmute
yourself.
[No response.]
The Chairman. I don't see him actually. So we will move on
to Mr. Norcross. Mr. Norcross, are you with us?
Mr. Norcross. Yes, I am. Thank you, Chairman. Secretary
Esper, in your opening remarks you mentioned that the National
Guard did not play an active role or advancing on the crowd,
did not use rubber bullets, paraphrasing that, and used the
term ``static role.''
I would like to focus on that and the events of June 1st
involving the Army National Guard helicopter.
How would you refer to that as a static role? And I have a
follow-up when we're finished.
Secretary Esper. Congressman, I was referring to the static
role with regard to the actions of the National Guard in
Lafayette Park on June 1st. The helicopter issues in question
that you are raising happened later that evening, I think maybe
around 11:00 p.m. or so. I don't recall the times.
So obviously that was different. That was not a static
role. I was talking about the forces on the ground in Lafayette
Park.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you for clarifying that. When Secretary
McCarthy was with us earlier this month, he mentioned that the
report on the investigation was going to be very soon. We
understand that you might be finished now. When is that going
to be released to us and to the public?
Secretary Esper. So Congressman, I spoke to Secretary
McCarthy about this. As you know, I launched this investigation
within 2 hours of finding out about it, I think on June 2nd, if
memory serves me.
The investigation was conducted. It is completed. It is
being reviewed by Secretary McCarthy. I think if--I am looking
at Chairman Milley--DOD IG [Inspector General] may take a look
at it. But it should be available next week to the committee.
That is my--the latest report I got from the Secretary of the
Army. Chairman, is that correct?
General Milley. That is correct. The IG--DOD IG has to do
their review. So I would expect it pretty shortly, like, within
days, perhaps early next week.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, and I yield the balance of my time
to Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey.
The Chairman. Yes, that gets awkward. Pause the clock for a
second. Mikie, do you wish to take the time? If you do, you got
to come forward. Beg your pardon? Oh, she's here.
Michelle, you are recognized for the remainder of the time,
a few minutes and 40 seconds.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Ms. Sherrill. Secretary Esper and General Milley, I echo
the chairman's concern about politicizing our military, and
given the attempts at politicizing our military in the
unorthodox way the President attempted to control troops in our
Nation's capital, I want to discuss some of the legal
underpinnings of civilian control.
Because I have such a short period of time, I am looking
for a yes or no. If you don't know the answer, please just let
me know you will take it for action. Secretary Esper and
General Milley, you both testified that you have taken oaths to
the Constitution of the United States. Is that correct?
Secretary Esper. Yes.
Ms. Sherrill. And that oath includes an oath to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and
allegiance to the same, correct?
General Milley. Yes.
Secretary Esper. Yes.
Ms. Sherrill. And are you both aware that Article 2 of the
Constitution states that the executive power shall be vested in
a President--in other words, one or a single President?
General Milley. Yes.
Secretary Esper. Yes.
Ms. Sherrill. And are you both aware that Article 2 of our
Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the
Army and Navy of the United States?
General Milley. Yes.
Secretary Esper. Yes.
Ms. Sherrill. And Secretary Esper, are you aware that the
President's power to remove from office Cabinet officials from
key national security positions, including the Secretary of
Defense, is undisputed?
Secretary Esper. I am sorry. Can you repeat that?
Ms. Sherrill. Certainly. Are you aware that the President's
power to remove from office key Cabinet officials, especially
in national security positions including the Secretary of
Defense, is undisputed?
Secretary Esper. Yes.
Ms. Sherrill. And General Milley, are you aware that the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies to all
uniformed officers, criminalizes mutiny and sedition and
soliciting or advising on the commission of mutiny or sedition?
General Milley. Absolutely. Yes.
Ms. Sherrill. And Secretary Esper, are you aware of the
fundamental proposition that the Secretary of Defense is
selected by the legitimate President?
Secretary Esper. Yes, and confirmed by the Senate.
Ms. Sherrill. And that the legitimate Commander in Chief is
the one who oversees the chain of command, correct?
General Milley. Yes.
Secretary Esper. Yes.
Ms. Sherrill. So finally, the Insurrection Act states that
whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions,
combinations, or assemblages or rebellion against the authority
of the United States makes it impracticable to enforce the laws
of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of
the militia of any State and use such of the Armed Forces as he
considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress
rebellion, yes?
General Milley. Yes.
The Chairman. And unfortunately, the gentlelady is out of
time. Mr. DesJarlais, I do not see you on the screen. You are
next.
Okay. We will go on to Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Gaetz, you are
recognized for 5 minutes if you are, in fact, with us.
[No response.]
The Chairman. Mr. Bacon, you are usually pretty good at
this. Mr. Bacon, are you on the stand?
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate both our
Secretary of Defense and our Chairman for your leadership and
have the utmost respect for you all.
I wanted to just ask, if you can say it, the report on the
bounties, did it originate from an intelligence agency within
the military, like the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], or is
this from outside of the military?
Secretary Esper. I am sorry, Congressman. I didn't hear the
question. Did you ask if----
Mr. Bacon. The intelligence report that talks about the
Russian bounties in Afghanistan, did that come from outside of
the DOD, like CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] or NSA
[National Security Agency], or was this like DIA or did it come
from a military intelligence agency?
Secretary Esper. It was not produced by a DOD intelligence
agency.
Mr. Bacon. Okay. I thank you for that. I just--because I go
back to what Ms. Stefanik said. These leaks I think undermine
our intelligence communities, and it just undermines the
confidence of the citizens either of the President in this case
or depending on what side of the aisle you're on or where you
stand to our intelligence organizations themselves.
And how active are you in pursuing similar type leaks
within DOD? Because I think it is imperative that we start
holding people accountable to the maximum extent the law
allows. So I would be just curious for your insights on this.
Thank you.
Secretary Esper. Congressman, we are aggressively pursuing
leaks within the Defense Department. We had some I would
characterize as bad leaks last fall. So when I--when we turned
the corner of the new year, I made--emphasized on day one of
the new year of 2020 that OPSEC was going to be a key thing for
us to focus on. Leaks continued.
I have launched an investigation that is underway to go
after leaks, whether it is of classified information or
unclassified information that is sensitive, and also, you know,
unauthorized discussions with the media.
All those things, again, hurt our Nation's security. They
undermine our troops, their safety. They affect our relations
with other countries. They undermine our national policy.
It is bad, and it is happening all over the government--
executive branch, legislative branch to some degree. So it is
something we need to get control of, and this is not new to
this administration.
Previous administrations, Republican and Democrat alike,
have had to deal with this and it is just--it is bad and it is
unlawful and it needs to stop.
Mr. Bacon. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your comments there.
I also liked your comments a couple days ago. I appreciated
your transparency, I should say, on the report itself. You said
that it was not corroborated, that you didn't have the level of
confidence perhaps that the President would get the briefing.
Is that still your opinion?
Secretary Esper. It is the opinion of a number of
intelligence entities, agencies, that could not corroborate the
report.
Mr. Bacon. Okay. Thank you. I am going switch subjects or
topics on you, briefly. Could you just go through--maybe this
is more for the Chairman--what kind of training the Guard gets
when it comes to supporting law enforcement. Is it universal to
all the Guard members, or is it to certain specialties? How
does that work? Thank you.
General Milley. Great question. The National Guard, as the
Secretary said up front, you know, really, we are talking about
Air Force, police, and the Army National Guard. It is part of
their mission essential task list.
Most of the ground units will be trained explicitly in
civil disturbance in support of law enforcement. Those would be
infantry units, but primarily military police, and the DC Guard
explicitly is trained in that. In addition to that, you get
refresher training throughout the year and throughout their
weekend drills, et cetera.
So they are trained. Not every single guardsman, not every
single unit, but the ground force units that are most likely to
work in the civil disturbance area or in support of law
enforcement are trained.
Mr. Bacon. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just close
with just a comment. I appreciate the teamwork that the Guard
gave the DC authorities and also the other 30-some-odd cities
that they were a part of.
And what I heard from our local constituencies, how
appalled they are that, you know, that church was burnt, you
know, firebombed, and the AFL-CIO [American Federation of
Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations] was torched. Many
of the memorials were defaced, and it was--action was needed to
be taken, and restoring law and order.
So I just--I appreciate what the Guard did to support law
enforcement, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Gallego is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you. Secretary Esper or General Milley,
can you explain to us the actual command structure that--how it
was set up? You know, we had the National Guard working with
local police as well as Park Police.
So how did that happen? Where were--how was the
communications between all parties involved and who was
actually in actual command and control of that area, of
Lafayette Square, let's say?
Secretary Esper. Yes, it is a very good question,
Congressman. It is a very--it is not clear. You understand
change of command----
Mr. Gallego. Yes. Yes.
Secretary Esper [continuing]. From your service. So it
defies that in many ways. So I will just speak to National
Guard under title 32 for DC.
I already explained, the President, to me, to the Secretary
of the Army, to the head of--Major General Walker in support of
law enforcement, and law enforcement was both the Department of
Justice agencies, entities, and Department of Interior,
specifically Park Police.
Mr. Gallego. Okay.
Secretary Esper. That relationship is more of a cooperative
one. It is not something that you and I and others who serve
would understand as OPCON [operational control] or tactical
control. It is more of a cooperative relationship where law
enforcement would say look, you would help us if you were here,
here, and here----
Mr. Gallego. Right.
Secretary Esper [continuing]. And then we would agree or
not agree to do that. But it was a very good relationship that
made that work out.
Mr. Gallego. Okay. And----
Secretary Esper [continuing]. And of course, any Guard
units coming into the city----
Mr. Gallego. Right.
Secretary Esper [continuing]. Remained under the control of
the Governors, but also reported to General Walker but more,
again, on a cooperative--I will call it ``cooperative con''----
Mr. Gallego. Right.
Secretary Esper [continuing]. Than a traditional military
relationship.
Mr. Gallego. So that being said, the deployment of the
National Guard in front of Lafayette Square the day of the
incident on June 1st there was an agreement between--Chairman
Milley, maybe you could answer this--at some point there was a
discussion that the National Guard should stay here in a static
position and on this day. So there was a conversation. Who was
that conversation between?
General Milley. I am not sure specifically who, but I think
it was probably Secretary McCarthy and General Walker, and the
Department of Justice, perhaps Attorney General Barr or----
Mr. Gallego. Okay.
Chairman Milley [continuing]. Representatives--or the
representatives of the Department of Interior and the Park
Police, perhaps Park Police captain. I am not sure of the
specific individuals. I can find that out though and get back
to you.
Mr. Gallego. Yes, I would appreciate it. And then how--what
was the method of communication? Because we are dealing across
agencies. Were they talking over cell phones to each other?
You know, how do we actually communicate across all these
agencies, especially, you know, considering the tense situation
that everyone was dealing with? As you--go ahead.
General Milley. Well I was going to say there was a command
post set up, a combined command post with all the different
agencies, 11--you know, you had the Metropolitan Police
represented there, the Park Police with the Department of
Interior, the Secret Service, FBI, DEA [Drug Enforcement
Administration], ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives], Capitol Police, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals,
and various counties from around Arlington, or various police
forces from around Arlington County, plus the DC Guard. They
are all located in the FBI building.
So they did the larger coordination there, and then on the
very--at the various monuments, for example, that is the
Department of Interior, and that is Park Police with the DC
Guard.
Mr. Gallego. Just specific to Lafayette Square.
General Milley. They would communicate with cell phone.
Mr. Gallego. Cell phone.
General Milley. And/or they would be co-located face to
face, and one guy would have a radio for his particular agency,
and the other guy would have a radio for his.
Mr. Gallego. And the National Guards were largely--when we
were communicating to the National Guard that was done over
radio?
General Milley. I think it is a combination.
Mr. Gallego. Combination?
General Milley. Yeah, I think it would be a combination.
Mr. Gallego. Could we--could we also figure that out too,
what was the method of communication?
General Milley. Sure. Yeah. Yeah.
Mr. Gallego. And lastly, if----
General Milley. That is air-ground communication and there
is--you know, there is----
Mr. Gallego [continuing]. And especially if there--and if
there was any communication over radio through the National
Guard, the National Guard--that the National Guard used, I am
assuming that we have a transcript of the conversations that
were happening?
General Milley. That I am not so sure. I don't know if
there is actual----
Mr. Gallego. Could you check on that also?
General Milley. If it is a military communication, I doubt
there is a transcript. Just if it is a radio. I may be wrong,
but I doubt it.
Mr. Gallego. Gentlemen, can you check to see if there is
any recordings----
General Milley. Sure. Yes, I will----
Mr. Gallego [continuing]. Specific to the date of June
1st----
General Milley. Yes.
Mr. Gallego [continuing]. Or any other--or any other
recordings that--see if you have it.
General Milley. Police forces normally do that. I am not so
sure about the--we can find out. We can get it. Yes.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, and I do have one follow-up
question. Do either of you know who specifically gave the order
to clear the protestors out of Lafayette Square ahead of the
President's visit to the church on June 1st?
You said the Guard was in support. Who gave the order and
to whom I guess, to clear the protestors out of that square?
Secretary Esper. We have had that discussion a few times.
We had it the other day with Secretary McCarthy and Major
General Walker, and it is still unclear to me who gave the
direction to clear the park at that moment in time.
The Chairman. See, I find that hard to believe. I am sorry,
but it is like a pretty big decision. A lot of people there.
Everyone is there, and it just sort of happened?
Secretary Esper. No, I am not saying that. I am just saying
I don't know. I have never inquired. I have never pursued it
with anybody because you get caught up in other things more
relevant to----
The Chairman. Well how did you know to have the Guard hold
back? Because I think there was a lot of testimony that says
the Guard did not participate in clearing the square.
Secretary Esper. Yes, I----
The Chairman. Why did they not participate?
Secretary Esper. I think, Congressman, that is the--we
could actually get something from General Walker. I want to
say--I don't want to quote him. I don't want to get it wrong.
But I want to say that he was on the ground with the Park
Police, and what they had asked him to do was to stay static,
not move, and that was what he was operating from.
I don't know----
The Chairman. Okay.
Secretary Esper [continuing]. That moment when he decided
to move forward. But he was on the ground. I know he told me
that yesterday or the day before, and was clear on that piece.
But beyond that, maybe we get something from him to share with
you.
The Chairman. Chairman Milley, do you have anything to add?
General Milley. Yes. I mean I think--I don't know with
certainty but I am pretty sure that there was a planning
session down at the FBI building in either late morning, around
noon-ish, or early afternoon where they divided up who was
going to do what to whom.
Major General Walker is there. Secretary McCarthy is there
and there are some others there, and I think that is where the
agreement was as to where they would be.
As to who gave the order, I don't know. I know Attorney
General Barr has spoke to that publicly, and I know that it has
been mentioned the Park Police captain, et cetera.
I do not have personal knowledge as to who gave that actual
order to clear the park.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wittman, you are up next
for 5 minutes. Sorry, didn't mean to surprise you there.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
our witnesses for joining us today.
General Milley, I would like to go into a little more
depth. You answered the question about the training that our
National Guardsmen have in responding to situations like we
have seen here recently.
As we know, most Americans associate National Guard with
response to natural disasters and that sort of role. They are
not used to seeing guardsmen in the role that we have seen them
recently.
You talked about some units being trained for that direct
contact. But are there instances where a Guard unit may be
called up that doesn't have that particular training, or do
they--do they get the training across the full scope of what
they may face?
I understand how to organize, how to tactically address the
situation. But there are other things, too. You know, the
element of controlling emotions, all those sorts of things
which are, you know, I call it the depth of training. It is not
just the immediate tactical, but it is the depth of training to
understand, hey, if you get in this situation--we see police go
through that training all the time--to be able to deal with the
adrenaline and the emotions of the situation.
Give us a little idea, a little more in-depth. I know you
talked about that because it is----
General Milley. Yes. I mean your first National Guard unit
of choice for civil unrest is police, and remember, a lot of
these guardsmen are also cops in their civilian life.
So but they will get very specific training on the rules on
the use of force. They are not cops at the moment in time, so
they are not going to conduct arrests, but they can do
temporary detention.
They are tasked with things like rules of conduct, crowd
control, de-escalation procedures, how to make an appearance,
don't react to verbal--don't react to verbal provocations, et
cetera.
So there is a wide variety of training they go through. A
lot of it is vignette training and scenario training and STX
[situational training exercise] type training. They do that
during the course of the year.
And then in this particular case they got quick refresher
training as well, and they are trained on their equipment, and
so on and so forth. And in this particular case, you are
looking at batons and shields, and then their personal
protective gear. None of them have any weapons downtown or
right there at the Lafayette Square.
So but they are trained on all of that stuff, and they are
the force--the military force that we would first call for
civil unrest would be National Guard, military police, and then
you go from there with other types of units.
Mr. Wittman. Okay. Very good. Secretary Esper, I want to
ask you a little bit about the 1033 program. It obviously
through time to time gets a lot of attention with the equipment
that is formally used by the military that would be available
to civilian law enforcement, and the question is, you know,
does that militarize the police force?
The questions always surround the central point of: do
civilian police forces need that, and what connection is there
to the military being requested for that equipment and the
determination they make as to whether or not it is applicable
for that to be sent to a civilian police force?
Can you give us a little more laydown about what happens
with the 1033 program? And does it just include the big
equipment we hear about, or is it things like protective
equipment like vests and those sorts of pieces of equipment?
Secretary Esper. Yes, Congressman. As you know, it is a
congressional program, and it is not something I have studied
in much detail, and I don't think I could speak to what law
enforcement deems as its requirements.
It is something that I spoke with General Lengyel about the
other day, and it is something that I hope will be--that may
come up as part of the after-action review to get their
assessment, if not internal but with law enforcement.
But there is a wide range of items that are covered under
that program. I can't pass judgment on some of the things. I
would say I think we could all generally agree that if we have
body armor, that would be helpful to the police to protect
them.
But beyond that, I would like to wait and see how our
review comes out, or if you have specific questions I could
take back and maybe see if the Guard wants to take a look at it
or somebody like that.
Mr. Wittman. General Milley, any comments?
General Milley. Yes, I would--I would say that, like, in
the case of DC with all of those different forces, uniforms--
just simple uniforms as opposed to other types of equipment,
that became an issue and it was brought up a little earlier
with the Bureau of Prisons.
Our guys are wearing, you know, camouflage uniforms, et
cetera. Some of these police are in blue uniforms, other in
camouflage, other in solid green, et cetera. That became--in
terms of the lessons learned, that would be something I would
put in there as far as distinguishing character because you
want a clear definition between that which is military and that
which is police, in my view.
Mr. Wittman. Yes.
General Milley. And consistently you want police, local
police, State police, Federal police, dealing with law
enforcement stuff, and if necessary, National Guard under
Governor control.
But you want a clear distinction that which is police--a
visual distinction of that which is police and that which is
military, because when you start introducing military, you're
talking a different level of effort there.
The Chairman. I am sorry. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Esper was waving at me. Do you have a quick there?
Secretary Esper. Just real quick. One of the things that we
discussed the other day that I want to address is in terms of
equipment.
At one point, the National Guard, for example, cross-
leveled its riot shields and lent them to the law enforcement.
So if you saw police out there using a military police shield,
it is because we cross-leveled it and that is a lesson learned.
But if you are going to do that, then we have got to figure
out a way to mask the name Military Police so we don't confuse
who is actually doing the crowd control.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Moulton is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Mr. Chairman, I learned very early in my
Marine training that there are two types of courage: physical
and moral. Usually the toughest challenges that I faced in Iraq
required moral courage.
Mr. Chairman, your apology for the events of June 1st at
St. John's Church was an act not just of contrition, and
rightly so, but also an act of moral courage, and I want to
commend you for that. It is certainly unusual in this
administration.
Mr. Chairman, you, clearly, recognize the value of unity,
not just in our military but in our country. Do you believe
that other countries, our various adversaries around the world,
are interested in taking advantage of divisions and unrest in
our country?
General Milley. I not only believe that they would, I know
they are.
Mr. Moulton. Mr. Chairman, are you willing to elaborate on
that in any detail?
General Milley. It would be best to do that in a classified
session.
Mr. Moulton. Very well.
General Milley. I have no doubt in my mind that foreign
adversarial countries are trying to take advantage of civil
unrest in the United States.
Mr. Moulton. Well I think it should go without saying that
in fulfilling your primary job description, to provide
forthright military advice to the President, I strongly advise
you to advise him to work to sew up these divisions rather than
exacerbate them as he likes to do, as Secretary Mattis and
others have described in intimate detail.
Mr. Secretary, turning to you, I don't think you get to
pick and choose which leaks you like, which leaks aren't
damaging versus what is an OPSEC problem. This White House
routinely uses leaks to their advantage, but suddenly it is a
problem for their apologists.
Now, you and I have both commanded troops in combat, been
responsible for their force protection. So I can assure you
that I also don't care about the mere semantics of an
intelligence report, and whether or not a particular word was
used or not used. That proves nothing. What matters is the
substance, and I have never seen in my time in combat when we
didn't take any threat to our troops seriously, regardless of
the confidence in the intelligence report, which is never 100
percent. Whether it was leaked or not, we take action.
So a very simple question. When were you made aware of
Russian material support of the Taliban, who we all know have
been killing American troops in Afghanistan for years, and what
action did you take?
Secretary Esper. Congressman, let me say on the first part
though of your statement, you talked about the credibility of
threats and all that. As you have heard us say that the reports
were not--have not been corroborated, nonetheless----
Mr. Moulton. My understanding is that some intelligence
agencies believe that. There is not general consensus on that.
Secretary Esper. The--all the----
Mr. Moulton. But the bottom line is----
Secretary Esper [continuing]. All the defense intelligence
agencies have been unable to corroborate that report. To your--
one of the points you made, let me say this. You may have seen
my written statement that was put out on my behalf.
What I said was regardless, we do, I do, he does, the
commanders take all reports seriously, regardless of the degree
of credibility or confidence and I think that is the point you
were trying to make, and I want to----
Mr. Moulton. Absolutely.
Secretary Esper [continuing]. I want to reassure you of
that. So I--we have been in discussions with the commanders
about this. I know General Miller and General McKenzie, going
back as early as January were looking into this, pulling the
threads, taking appropriate force protection measures.
Our troops are already at the highest force protection
level. But nonetheless, it is something that when I talk to
them, I talk to them all the time about how do we--how can we
do better--how can we do more?
Mr. Moulton. So Mr. Secretary, you mentioned January.
Secretary Esper. Right.
Mr. Moulton. What action did you take to counter Russia,
not to improve force protection of our troops, but to directly
counter this threat from Russia?
Secretary Esper. Yes. So I didn't see the first report
until February when it came out in an intelligence piece of
paper. I think General McKenzie and General Miller--the
Chairman will help me here--got some initial reporting on the
ground that they began pursuing.
Neither thought the reports were credible as they dug into
them, and in the time we have I see General Miller was--General
Milley might be able to kind of add some more color to that.
General Milley. Yes. I don't want to go too deep into the
actual intel, but I've got multiple tours in Afghanistan, as
you know, Congressman, and I have been aware of Russian
meddling for years----
Mr. Moulton. I understand, but my question is----
Chairman Milley [continuing]. Going back to 2013 or so.
Mr. Moulton [continuing]. What action did you take?
General Milley. Well specifically at the tactical and
operational military action, there is no military action that
that intelligence specifically warranted, like conduct a raid
or go after----
The Chairman. And I understand. I apologize. I do
apologize. Sorry, but the gentleman's time has expired and that
is not a question that I think is going to be answered in the
next couple of seconds. So we will have to take that for the
record and get back to you.
General Milley. I will get you an answer. I'll get an
explicit answer.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 109.]
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Milley, I will
allow you to respond to Congressman Moulton specifically as it
relates to the depth, duration, and extent of the Russian
malign influence campaign in Afghanistan, and perhaps the
extent to which that well predates the current administration.
General Milley. Well, first I want to be clear. It is not
just Russia. There is many other countries that are influencing
various actors in Afghanistan, and they are influencing them
with training, money, weapons, propaganda, and international
support and a lot of other things.
And I am not going to go into sources and methods as to how
we know that, but we know that. With respect to Russia, Russia
is one of those countries that has been doing that for years,
and they are doing it for their own reasons.
The military action for us--and they are doing it through
the Taliban and Haqqani and other groups. So the military
action for us is the issue, first and foremost, is force
protection.
Regardless of who is providing weapons or who is providing
money, our force protection measures are at the highest levels,
and they are going to stay at the highest levels as long as we
have troops out there. So----
Mr. Gaetz. But just so that I could focus the question----
General Milley. But I want to go to what we are doing for
action. So at the tactical and operational level, there is no
particular military action that we are not doing that we should
be doing. The issue is higher than that. The issue is at the
strategic level. What should or could we be doing at the
strategic level?
Is there diplomatic and informational and economic? Are
there sanctions? Are there demarches? Are there phone calls?
Are there pressure? Those sorts of things.
And I can tell you that some of that is done. Are we doing
as much as we could or should? Perhaps not. Not only to the
Russians but to others. But a lot of it is being done. Some of
it is quiet. Some of it is not so quiet. But don't think that
we are not doing anything because that it not true.
Now I want to get to specifically to the bounties,
specifically to the bounties. That is a unique discrete piece
of information that is not corroborated. You have all been
briefed on it. I have, too, and I am--I, and the Secretary and
many others, are taking it serious. We are going to get to the
bottom of it. We are going to find out if in fact it is true,
and if it is true we will take action.
Mr. Gaetz. And I am glad you mentioned the other countries.
September 5th, 2010--this is from the Times of London--Iran
pays the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers. Then also, following up
on that, there is a December 2nd, 2015, report from Fox News, a
report ``Iran Paying Taliban to Kill U.S. Troops.''
Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to enter these in
the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information can be found in the Appendix beginning on
page 95.]
Mr. Gaetz. And General Milley, is it safe to say, given
these reports along with the testimony you just provided, that
the environment in Afghanistan, the very nature of the place
and the very nature of the entities involved, means that our
presence there does create these risks where our foreign
adversaries create incentives and resources and opportunities
for our service members to be harmed.
General Milley. Anytime you commit U.S. military forces
anywhere on earth, there is going to be risk. We went to
Afghanistan for a single purpose, to prevent Afghanistan from
ever being a platform to attack the United States of America
with terrorists, and we have been there ever since to do that.
We are drawing down forces in accordance with the agreement
that was signed with the Taliban last February. There hasn't
been significant Taliban or Haqqani attacks on U.S. forces
since that agreement was signed, and under further direction of
the President of the United States we are drawing down forces,
as you will see unfold, and you will be briefed on that in full
coming into the fall.
But there is always risk, Congressman, and I know you know
that. There is always risk. There is nothing risk free here.
Mr. Gaetz. It is a risk I know you both appreciate, given
your service to the country. It is a risk I know the President
appreciates. I have had the occasion to join him at Dover when
my constituents have come back for a dignified transfer, and
that risk being so ever present seems to accentuate the
importance of your mission to draw down troops, to create some
semblance of normalcy in Afghanistan to the extent to which
that is even possible. And I believe that it is an unrealistic
goal to say that we have to chase every terrorist into every
cave forever and stay there forever in order to protect the
homeland.
I think that we have proven that we can be more resilient
at home without being more extended abroad, and that after 19,
20 years in Afghanistan our Nation is growing very weary of
this.
We are growing weary of the dignified transfers. We are
growing weary of the cost in terms of blood and treasure, and
we grow weary of these circumstances where our adversaries--not
just Russia but Iran and others that are in the region--utilize
our continued presence. They utilize our, might I say, you
know, unfocused extension of this conflict to try to harm
Americans.
So I wish you godspeed in the mission that you are on to
draw down those forces, and I thank you for giving us the
briefing, and certainly for enlightening us to the fact that
this was not some further flare-up.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Carbajal is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Milley and
Secretary Esper, thank you for joining us today to cover these
very important issues.
Before I ask my questions, I wanted to take a moment to
mention Specialist Vanessa Guillen, who disappeared from Fort
Hood in April after confiding in her family that she had been
sexually harassed by a sergeant. Her remains were tragically
found a few days ago. I am sure you are both aware of her
story. I expect that you will do everything in your power to
ensure that a full and independent investigation is completed,
and continue to work to make our military welcoming and safe
for our female service members.
As for today's topics, both of you noted in your
testimonies our country is going through a period of anger and
self-reflection regarding how our society treats and includes
certain members of our Nation. While I appreciate your words,
actions speak louder.
Secretary Esper, what concrete steps have you already taken
and what other immediate actions do you plan on doing in the
coming months to ensure that diversity is substantially valued
and increased at all levels of our military, especially amongst
the officer ranks?
Secretary Esper. Congressman, thank you, and first of all,
you mentioned Specialist Guillen. What a terrible tragedy,
murder. It is just a horrible, tragic story, and I feel for the
family and they have my deepest sympathies and condolences. And
we will conduct a full and thorough investigation and get to
the bottom of all that happened, and hold those accountable as
appropriate.
With that, your question is spot on. Look, we recognize
that race is a problem in the military across the Nation.
Discrimination, prejudice, bias. I talked about my quick action
items. I have a list. I will probably put that out next week in
terms of immediate things we will do to start getting rid of
hidden bias in the military, such as removing photographs from
promotion boards.
But I have also had the privilege over the last 3 weeks to
hold over half a dozen listening sessions with soldiers,
sailors, airmen of all ranks across the country and simply
listen.
Beginning the conversation alone is something we have never
really done, and the chance to sit down with these young men
and women, I probably spent a total of 10 hours or so just
listening, having the--having discussion, understanding that we
don't even have the right terms and language and understandings
of the definitions to have such a tough conversation, and I sat
through many of them.
So that will be part of what we are going to begin. But I
think in terms of standing up the Defense Board, and ultimately
the Defense Advisory Committee that is mirrored on DACOWITS
[Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services], I want
to believe in some ways it is an historic step, a major step
forward, to really get at this underlying issue that has hung
around the neck of our country for well over 200 years, and to
address the fundamental problems of racism and discrimination,
prejudice and bias, both conscious and unconscious.
Because at the end of the day, the DOD is about having a
cohesive unified ready force, and we rely heavily on persons
from all backgrounds, creeds, races, ethnicities, genders, et
cetera, to make us the greatest fighting force in the world.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Secretary. I want to ask another
question. General Milley and Secretary Esper, I would like to
also take a moment to commend you regarding the statements you
made at Lafayette Square, being there in field fatigues. You
state that it was a mistake, and you learned from it.
I believe over the last month, there are many moments we
can all learn from. Regret is one thing, but what would you do
different in a similar situation? And while I understand we are
waiting on reports on specific instances, such as the low-
flying National Guard helicopters and reconnaissance planes,
what lessons has the Department learned about its response, and
how would you--how are you both working to make improvements?
Secretary Esper. You know, Congressman, one of the--go back
to June 1st, the evening of June 1st, it became apparent to me
late that evening.
I think Chairman Milley and I had spent a couple hours
walking around DC speaking to the soldiers. We were at the
World War II Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial, and it, you
know, became very clear that we needed to speak on this topic.
And if you recall, and I think I entered into the record,
Mr. Chairman, already, I put a statement out to the force
within 18 hours or so that said very clearly that we have an
oath to the Constitution, and that is our sworn oath to protect
and defend the American people, and to give the American people
the freedom to peaceably assemble and offer their speech, and
that we at all times must do our best to remain an apolitical
institution. That, I believe, is why we have the highest regard
and respect in the country and have maintained that for many
years.
The Chairman. Mr. Carbajal, your time has expired.
Mr. Carbajal. General Milley, what will you do different?
The Chairman. Mr. Carbajal, your time has expired. Mrs.
Hartzler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, gentlemen. First of all, I want to commend you for the
amazing professional job that you all have done, especially the
National Guardsmen, in very, very difficult situations.
Mr. Secretary, you just mentioned the oath to defend our
First Amendment rights, and just to review that, ``Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of the religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, [or] of the press; or of the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for redress of grievances.''
What I have seen and what this country has witnessed in the
last few weeks, I would argue, has not been peaceable many
times and the National Guardsmen, these brave men and women who
have volunteered and left their home to protect their country,
they have faced with only batons and shields, they have been
yelled at, called names that are unbelievable.
They have had bricks thrown at them. They have been shoved.
They have had frozen water bottles thrown at them. I have seen
on TV fireworks being shot at them, and they have stood there.
They have professionally taken it. They have defended our
monuments and our treasures, and I just want to commend them.
At the same time I want to denounce these actions of some
Americans. This is violence. This is not peaceably assembling,
and it should be treated as such.
And we have had questions about training, and Mr.
Secretary, I know you were just at Fort Leonard Wood a couple
weeks ago, and our community was so thrilled to host you and I
know that you have seen our missions there, including being
home of the Army's Military Police School, and hopefully you
have seen that we have room to expand, and we have heard a
little bit about the training.
I am wondering if you think it would be helpful to have
centralized training to ensure consistency across all of the
Armed Forces in military police actions, civil unrest
behaviors.
Secretary Esper. It is a good question, Congresswoman. I
would like to take that back. Certainly, for the National Guard
and how they train, you know, it is very important,
particularly for the Guard that has this as a mission essential
task to make sure that we have a solid baseline. But I would
like to be deliberate and thoughtful on these things and get
back to you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 109.]
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you. We would----
General Milley. Typically, Congresswoman, it is not going
to be possible to do centralized training, given the scale of
the military in terms of the numbers.
So what is typically done is training is centrally planned,
the task, conditions, and standards. Training and doctrine
commands of each of the services lay out all the requirements,
and then it is distributed for execution by unit commanders.
That is for the forces that are in the operational force.
All of the units in all of the different services go through
the training schoolhouse. So having one central location for
all things civil disturbance, that can be okay for doctrine,
for task, condition, standards, to lay that out and that is
typically what everyone does.
But then the execution of the actual training, that needs
to be more decentralized and distributed.
Mrs. Hartzler. Right. Thank you. The Insurrection Act has
been mentioned as well, and you were asked a lot of questions
where you're supposed to ask yes or no.
So I will carry on that for just one more question. Do you
realize that the Insurrection Act was not acted on in this
recent--in the recent days?
General Milley. Yes.
Secretary Esper. Yes.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Now that we have that clear, could
there be scenarios in the future for a President where perhaps
an Insurrection Act might be utilized and could be helpful?
Secretary Esper. Congresswoman, let me answer it this way.
Rather than speculating, let me offer history. The Insurrection
Act was used in 1957 by President Eisenhower to federalize the
Guard in Arkansas and to also call up the 101st Airborne
Division in order to protect nine African-American students,
known as the Little Rock Nine, so they can go to school.
It was called up in 1962 by President Kennedy to federalize
the Mississippi National Guard to secure the University of
Mississippi, Oxford, in order to ensure James Meredith, an
African-American Air Force veteran, to go to school. The
military police remained there for over a year.
In 1965, President Johnson deployed Active Duty forces to
protect peaceful protest marchers in Alabama to ensure that
they could protest peacefully opposing I believe segregation
and confirming their First Amendment rights.
So if you look at history, you can see where the
Insurrection Act was used to advance civil rights, and in a
very positive way that our history accounts fairly well.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Brown is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions. I
will ask them quickly and I hope that you can answer them
briefly.
The first for you, General Milley. I know that you are a
student of history, the history of warriors and warfare of the
United States and our Armed Forces, and that you use that
knowledge and understanding of our history to guide your
decisions and thinking. You not only understand but you embody
the values that we live by and that we die by as soldiers.
Can you comment on the naming of Army installations after
Confederate soldiers? Does it reflect the values that we
instill in soldiers? Are these Confederate officers held up as
role models in today's military?
Does it help or hurt the morale or the unit cohesion of
service members, particularly that of the black and brown
service members who live and serve on these installations
today?
General Milley. Congressman, we have had a lot of
discussions in the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs
amongst the senior leaders on that very topic. I will give you
a couple things to think about. I, personally, think that the
original decisions to name those bases after Confederate
generals--the 10 bases you are talking about in the Army--those
were political decisions back in the 1910s and 1920s and 1930s
and World War I, World War II timeframe--100 years ago. And
they are going to be political decisions today.
The military equity here is divisiveness, and as you
mentioned cohesion. Forty-three percent of the United States
military are minorities and in the Army, for example, in these
Army bases you are talking about, we are up to 20-plus percent
African American, and in some units you will see 30 percent,
and for those young soldiers that go onto a base, a Fort Ord or
a Fort Bragg or a Fort wherever named after a Confederate
general, they can be reminded that that general fought for an
institution of slavery that may have enslaved one of their--one
of their ancestors.
I had a staff sergeant when I was a young officer who
actually told me that at Fort Bragg, and he said he went to
work every day on a base that represented a guy who enslaved
his grandparents. So the symbols of it, it is not just--you
know, we have to improve the substance of promotions, et
cetera, in the military. But we have also got to take a hard
look at the symbology, the symbols. Things like Confederate
flags and statues and bases and all that kind of stuff.
The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it
was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason at the time
against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the
U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on
their oath.
Now some have a different view of that. Some think it is
heritage. Others think it is hate. The way we should do it
matters as much as that we should do it. So we need to have--I
have recommended a commission of folks to take a hard look at
the bases, the statues, the names, all of this stuff, to see if
we can have a rational clear discussion.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, General Milley. I appreciate it. I do
want to get to Secretary Esper.
General Milley. Okay. I got it.
Mr. Brown. I want to take a moment to thank you, Secretary,
for clarifying your position on the use of force in deployment
of our military against civilians exercising their
constitutional rights to assemble to petition our government
and peacefully protest.
Mr. Secretary, as you stated in your June 17th statement,
we strive to create an environment of diversity and inclusion
in the military. You specifically stated removing bias and
prejudice in all its forms and ensuring equal opportunity and
respect for all will make us stronger, more capable, and more
ready as a joint force.
Last month, both the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy
announced plans to ban the Confederate flag and associated
imagery on bases and installations around the world. This
symbol honors those who fought, as General Milley mentioned, to
maintain oppression and slavery.
Furthermore, the Confederate flag is used albeit not by
everyone, but is used by white supremacists and other
organizations to continue to spread hate and racism.
In the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] we include
a provision to ban its display on all Department property. But
I believe that immediate action should be taken. What is your
plan regarding a Department-wide ban of this symbol?
Secretary Esper. Thanks, Congressman. First of all, let me
again, you know, echo what you said about the National Guard,
and I am reminded this is a use-of-force card that was handed
out to the DC Guard, and here prominently in bold says,
remember to preserve the peace and allow fellow Americans to
peacefully assemble and exercise their First Amendment rights.
That is what our Guard was trained on when they were operating
in DC.
Look, I have a process underway by which to look at a
number of issues, both substantive and symbolic. It will be a
combination of the Defense Board and the Advisory Committee. We
want to take a look at all those things. There is a process
underway by which we affirm----
The Chairman. And I am sorry, Mr. Secretary, if you could
wrap up quickly. The gentleman's time has expired.
Secretary Esper [continuing]. Which we affirm what types of
flags are authorized on U.S. military bases. I want to make
sure that we have an approach that is enduring, that can
withstand legal challenge, but that unites us, and most
importantly helps build cohesion and readiness. And again, that
process is underway and----
The Chairman. Thank you. I think that----
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Waltz, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General Milley, I do want to commend the
Guard.
[Inaudible.]
The Chairman. I am sorry, Mr. Waltz. You are--you are deep
in the water here. We cannot understand you. Can you give it
one more quick try? Or we may have to move on.
Mr. Waltz. Okay. How are we doing now?
The Chairman. Much better. Go.
Mr. Waltz. I just want to commend the Guard. My
understanding is we have over 70,000--you know, that is,
roughly, six divisions--currently deployed for the homeland and
overseas. That is for COVID; that is for civil unrest; that is
for ongoing overseas missions. And they haven't even gotten
into hurricane season in Florida or wildfires or others.
Mr. Secretary, the Guard's defense strategy points to
demographic and economic trends that are critical to where we
have the force structure around the country and says that it
must be prepared to reposition Guard force structure in light
of those shifting trends, particularly shifting populations,
which as we know shifted fairly drastically over the last
several decades.
Yet the force structure hasn't followed. In fact, in
Florida, Florida right now ranks 53 out of 54 States and
territories in terms of the size of the Guard per capita of its
population. I think we all know with every hurricane bearing
down every season, wildfires, and others, how much it is used.
Can you come back to me for the record [inaudible]----
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 109.]
The Chairman. I am sorry, Mr. Waltz. Once again, we--Mr.
Waltz, we can't understand you. I think the first part of your
question was reasonably clear. Mr. Esper, if you wanted to take
a stab at the Guard situation in Florida and answer that, if
you can, and take a shot at it.
Secretary Esper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Waltz,
thank you. I think from what I caught--I will follow up with
you offline. I think you were talking about the disposition or
maybe the composition of Guard forces in Florida and how it has
changed over time, or not, with demographics.
So maybe I will just follow up with you offline, and I
think you asked that we have a conversation with General
Lengyel. That is what I took from that.
Mr. Waltz. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If you could hear me, just a
slight tweak there. It is nationwide. It is how the Guard is
shifting to reflect population flows.
Particularly we are looking at the per capita. You know,
Florida's population has doubled since 1980, yet its Guard
remains stagnant. So that would be one piece, and then--can you
hear me?
The Chairman. Yes. No, you are breaking up. I apologize. We
are going to have to move on. We have got a limited amount of
time. We will get that back to him. But we cannot hear you
properly. So we are going to move on to Mr. Keating. He is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, Mr.
Chairman, thank you for your straightforward way you are
addressing the Lafayette Square issue and civil law
enforcement. I appreciate that.
I want to circle back before we are done, because I know
how a video clip can work. Secretary Esper, you were asked I
believe by Mr. Turner about bounties, and I want to be clear.
The question was asked, was the word ``bounties'' used in
reports that you might have reviewed regarding attacks on our
troops.
So let me be clear. You can acknowledge that to your
knowledge there was no bounties. Yet, indeed, there were
reports that mentioned payments. Is that correct?
Secretary Esper. Congressman, that is correct. I was
responding to the specific question of do I recall use of the
word bounties, and I think what I said is I do not recall the
use of that word.
Mr. Keating. No, I think you answered it correctly. But I
didn't want a sound bite at the end of this hearing coming out
that said that you said that you never saw a report on
bounties. So that is clear.
Secretary Esper. Congressman, I always--I always try to
avoid politics, Congressman.
Mr. Keating. I know. In any case, I didn't want you to be
drawn into it unnecessarily. How is that?
In any case, Director Haspel--CIA Director Haspel--just in
the last few days has said how important it is for force
protection that the dissemination of information occurs and is
shared to all national security community members, obviously to
all of you, in an ongoing effort to secure our troops.
So she also--it was underscored clearly that the immediate
versus delayed dissemination of that information of
intelligence reports is critical. Are you satisfied that you
are getting immediate transfer of this intelligence from our
other agencies so if it is actionable you can act on that? Can
you state that for the record, that there is--you don't
perceive any delays, that this is really live-time
dissemination to you?
Secretary Esper. Congressman, I get a lot of reports every
day, an inch thick of material I try and get through and read
through. I know the Hill--this committee gets reports as well,
and I think you saw the same reports that I saw on this topic.
It is hard for me to gauge the timeliness because I don't
know when they start or when they get it. But you know,
clearly, there is a process part of this, an analysis part,
that once they get information converting it into intelligence,
all that happens, I just don't have a sense of the timing,
but----
Mr. Keating. I don't mean to interrupt, but----
Secretary Esper [continuing]. I will follow up with her. I
can follow up with her on that offline.
Mr. Keating. Please do, because it is essential that you
get that information. I also want to know independently, you
know, some of these unsourced reports do a lot for family
members. I come from a family where we lost a family member in
action, and particularly, you know, reports around 2019, the
casualties that were there, the soldiers we lost.
Could you tell us: independently are you looking into those
as well, given the intelligence you have, particularly the
April 2019 suicide bombing outside of Bagram Air Base that
killed three of our U.S. Marines, are you looking at this
independently, based on the intelligence you have?
Secretary Esper. Congressman, first of all, I share the
concern and condolences still to the family of those Marines I
believe who were lost. Let me say this much, and I will ask
Chairman Milley to jump in here.
General McKenzie is looking back over time. I think he
stated publicly as well is he doesn't see causality with that
one, and I believe that I got a separate report from one of my
intelligence agencies saying that they cannot find any
corroborating evidence with regard to that alleged program with
regard to that attack on those three Marines. But Chairman?
General Milley. Congressman, as of today, right now, we
don't have cause and effect linkages to a Russian bounty
program causing U.S. military casualties. However, we are still
looking. We are not done. We are going to run this thing to
ground.
Mr. Keating. Yes. Thank you. And just as clarification from
an intelligence standpoint without being wonky, I mean
cooperation usually isn't a term that is used by--it is usually
remote, you know, improbable, even odds, probable, highly
probable. Those are the kind of--or certain. Those are the kind
of intelligence terms that are done, linking things together.
I will yield back. I am actually yielding back some time,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Vela, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Vela. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Esper and Chairman Milley, I have got two questions and
whatever time is left I would like to yield to Ms. Slotkin so
that she can get ready for that.
But my first question refers to Vanessa Guillen that Mr.
Carbajal brought up, and what I would like to do is--I am sure
you are both as disturbed as we all are by the events leading
to her death, and what I would like to do is give you an
opportunity.
She has family members in my district, and we would like to
give the opportunity to tell that family what we are going to
do to make sure that those sorts of things don't happen again.
Secretary Esper. Congressman, let me first go first and
speak to you, but more importantly, the family and just express
our sincere condolences with regard to what happened to
Specialist Guillen.
It is tragic. It is horrible. I watched this over the
preceding couple months in terms of how it unfolded. And I
can't imagine the despair of the parents, not knowing what
their--the fate of their daughter, and it is just a terrible
incident.
I spoke yesterday or the day before with Secretary
McCarthy. They are on top of that. As you know, they have a
couple suspects I think have been arrested, and they are
digging deeply into the investigation. I think we need to
continue to pursue that and take a hard look at that.
And then, you know, we got to continue to work at the--at
what is believed to be an underlying issue--the underlying
issue--and that was she was sexually harassed, if not
assaulted, by the soldier in question. That is something that
continues to be a stain on the profession. We have made a lot
of progress over 10 years, but nowhere near where we need to
be.
We need to get to zero tolerance of sexual harassment and
sexual assault, and we need to make sure that everybody in our
ranks knows where they can go to--for help, where they can find
help, and we've got to continue to emphasize that.
We've got to continue to empower the chain of command to
make sure we do everything possible to make sure that we never
have another incident like what happened to Specialist Guillen.
And so that is my commitment and I know it is the Chairman's
commitment as well. Chairman.
General Milley. Yes, I would echo everything the Secretary
said. As a father of a daughter, that is just a nightmare. I
mean it is a--my heart bleeds for that family, and I can't even
begin to imagine what they are going through. But I want them
to know that we are going to do everything in our power to make
sure that that doesn't happen again.
I don't know all the details. A full investigation will
come out by Secretary McCarthy. I suspect, although I don't
know, that there were probably some missed signals, and one of
the key lessons that we have learned in other situations is
when we do get early warning it is to take action, and take
action swiftly and appropriately.
So I think that will--my guess is that will probably come
out in this space, and that will be one of the things we need
to implement for the future to make sure it doesn't happen
again.
Mr. Vela. Well thanks to both of you. My other question is
for you, Secretary Esper. You recently extended the deployment
of 4,000 troops to the southern border, and what I am wondering
is--and just today in the Rio Grande Valley, the hospitals were
forced to set up tents to serve as ICU [intensive care] units,
and I am wondering if there is any consideration being given to
using those troops to help support local efforts to confront
the coronavirus pandemic.
Secretary Esper. Congressman, I will answer your question
two ways. First of all, you are right, we did extend--reduced
it but extended the deployment.
We are there, as you know, in support of the Department of
Homeland Security, and as they give us mission statements we
try and be responsive and supportive of what they do. In this
case, if they need additional medical support, that is clearly
something that we could provide if needed.
I think beyond that, unless I misunderstood your question,
we are now reacting to incoming requests from FEMA. I spoke to
Director Gaynor the other night with regard to COVID spikes in
Texas. Throughout Texas, as you may or may not know, we have
already deployed a team of medical personnel to assist in
Texas, and we are on the alert and looking for outbreaks in
other States such as Arizona, Florida, California, to make sure
that we are responsive to the American people in terms of
dealing with any outbreaks that may happen around the country.
The Chairman. And the gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Kim
is recognized.
Mr. Kim. Thank you so much for coming down here and talking
to us today. As you have referred earlier, many of us members
were briefed here in this room earlier today about the
intelligence, and about what we know about possible Russian
payments to the Taliban or militants to kill American soldiers
and service members in Afghanistan.
I have to tell you, leaving aside the discussions about
whether or not there is sufficient evidence regarding possible
bounties or payments, whatever we want to call it, I have to
say that the intelligence and what we know about Russian
efforts in Afghanistan writ large targeting our personnel is
deeply concerning to me.
And General Milley, you made reference to this, saying that
this is something that we have known for quite some time and
quite a number of years.
I just wanted to ask this question. I couldn't help but,
while I'm in this room getting this briefing, think about a
previous time that we have been in this exact room together at
the beginning of this year talking about Iran, and at that time
Secretary Esper and others were talking about how there was a
threat to our personnel with regards to our personnel in Iraq
and the region due to Iranians and Iranian-backed militias.
So I want to just hear from you. Both of these instances of
what we know--what we do know about Russia's involvement in
Afghanistan, both of them involve another nation arming and
directing militants to kill American service members or target
American service members abroad.
Yet I see two very different reactions to this coming from
you, from the administration. So I wanted to ask for your
explanation of what is the difference in the posture there
between our conversations in January as what we are having
today? Secretary Esper.
Secretar Esper. So, Congressman, I think they are very
two--two very different situations. So with regard to Iran, you
had a case of the head of the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps], which is designated by the United States as a foreign
terrorist organization. He was the foreign terrorist leader of
that foreign terrorist organization.
He had the blood of hundreds of Americans, going back many,
many years, on his hands. He had orchestrated the rocket
attacks that had preceded--that had occurred in that December,
and we had clear credible information that he was planning
additional attacks on American personnel in the region.
So a very different circumstance between what we saw, the
evidence we had, our understanding of the threat in Iraq that
was--on that battlefield that was being orchestrated by
Soleimani, and it was the clear consensus of the President's
national security team that he was a legitimate target. Again,
very different from information we are picking up with regard
to Russia, et cetera. But Chairman, I don't know if you want to
add anything to that.
General Milley. Yes, I want to key in on something you
said, Congressman. We have been aware for some time of Russian
involvement or Iranian involvement, or Pakistani or Chinese
involvement in other countries. But there is a big distinction
between arming and directing. We know about arms. We know about
weapons. We know about support and things like that. We don't
have--in the case of the Russians, we do not have concrete
corroborating evidence, intelligence, to show directing, and
that is a big difference.
And if we did, there would be a different response, too. So
but that is what I am saying. We are not done looking. We are
going to dig into this. We are going to get to the bottom of
it, this bounty thing. If in fact there is bounties, I am an
outraged general, just like every one of us in uniform is. If
in fact there is bounties directed by the government of Russia
or any other institutions to kill American soldiers, that is a
big deal. That is a real big deal.
Mr. Kim. Yes.
General Milley. We don't have that level of fidelity yet.
We are still looking.
Mr. Kim. Well we will continue to go through the
intelligence with you. Regardless of whether the payments were
made, I felt that there was significant information there about
directing. But again, we will continue that conversation going
forward.
Secretary Esper. Congressman, just curious, were you able
to get the briefing today?
Mr. Kim. I did. That is right.
Secretary Esper. Okay. Good. Good.
Mr. Kim. Just one last question. When we talk about the
National Guard being utilized, you were talking, General
Milley, about the training that they often get.
Yet when we looked at it, out of the 5,100 guardsmen and
women who were here in DC last month, only 154 from the DC
National Guard were military police, 26 security forces from
other States. Only 83 were military police, and 4 were security
forces. That is 5 percent out of the 5,100.
Secretary Esper, when you sent out your notice of emergency
deployment, you focused on Active Duty military police units.
Why was that not done the same for our guardsmen in terms of
prioritizing military police personnel?
The Chairman. And this will have to conclude. I understand
the Secretary has to go. We are over time. So up to you how
long you wish to answer that question, and then we are--we will
be done. Go ahead.
Secretary Esper. Probably the Chairman may be better
situated. But you know, every soldier undergoes a certain level
of training, and of course we would not ask them to perform a
mission if they weren't briefed on the rules of engagement and
had a basic level of training.
But your point is a fair one. As we try and prioritize, as
the Chairman noted earlier, the best for these situations would
be military police units. But you also have to go with what you
have available at the time to do that, and that is why I am so
proud of our guardsmen who were, in many cases, performing
missions that weren't core missions, but were a core mission as
a soldier or an airman.
The Chairman. Thank you. I will say there were a lot of
members who did not have an opportunity to question. I
understand the Secretary does have to go. We would like to have
the opportunity to submit those questions for the record and
get answers as quickly as possible. And with that, we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
July 9, 2020
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 9, 2020
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 9, 2020
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
July 9, 2020
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MOULTON
General Milley. The Department of Defense takes all threats to our
forces very seriously. Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan
vigorously exercised and continue to exercise their duty to protect our
men and women in uniform by continuously updating force protection
measures based on all reliable intelligence. As I stated in my
testimony before the committee on July 9, the specific intelligence
that Russian financial incentives to the Taliban led to the deaths of
U.S. personnel have not been fully corroborated. I have examined the
available intelligence in depth and continue to do so. I have discussed
this issue at length with the Secretary of Defense, intelligence
community and senior U.S. political leadership. Additionally, I have
discussed this with my Russian counterpart on several occasions. If any
additional information comes to light that links Russian financial
incentives to the attacks on U.S. forces, we will evaluate that
information, and I will provide my best military advice to the
Secretary of Defense and the President. [See page 32.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER
Secretary Esper. Since 2007, U.S. Northern Command and the National
Guard Bureau (NGB) have operated the Joint Training Continuum, a
portfolio of Defense Support of Civil Authorities joint training
courses and exercise programs established with approval from officials
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The curricula and
exercise constructs are centrally planned and designed, and they
include instruction on relevant tasks, conditions, and standards. State
and territorial Joint Forces Headquarters Staffs, Joint Task Force
Commanders, Dual Status Commanders, National Guard Reaction Forces, and
other National Guard personnel are trained through the Joint Training
Continuum on matters of domestic defense support of civil authorities.
Approximately 10,000 personnel are trained per year through the Joint
Training Continuum. [See page 37.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
Secretary Esper. In general, the Air and the Army National Guard
participate in the stationing processes of their parent Services. For
the Air National Guard, stationing of units is based upon the scoring
criteria as defined by the Major Command, or MAJCOM, that is
responsible for that unit. The scoring criteria changes for each
stationing action, but generally does consider the capacity of the
location to host the unit. For the Army National Guard, state
demographics is one of several factors that is considered when
balancing capabilities across the states and territories. Florida did
receive additional force structure in fiscal year 2018 for the Florida
Army National Guard with the arrival of the second and third battalions
of the 54th Security Force Assistance Brigade, and is also scheduled to
receive an additional 167 force structure authorizations for a Light-
Medium Truck Company. [See page 40.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
July 9, 2020
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CISNEROS
Mr. Cisneros. SPC Guillen had told her family that she had been
sexually harassed, that the person harassing her had been accused by
others, yet nothing was done. Fort Hood's sexual harassment policies is
under investigation but sexual harassment throughout the military is on
the rise. Do you believe that existing DOD policy regarding sexual
harassment needs to be revisited and reformed?
Secretary Esper. The Department of Defense (DOD) consistently
reviews its policies to assess their effectiveness and looks for ways
to improve our approaches to prevent and respond to harassment.
Harassment of any kind is unacceptable, degrades our readiness, and
undermines our ability to meet our nation's defense requirements.
Although more work remains, there has been progress in recent years.
In 2018, the Department released its first-ever comprehensive
military harassment policy, DOD Instruction 1020.03, ``Harassment
Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces.'' This policy brought
together--and enhanced--the Department's more disparate harassment
policies, including those addressing sexual harassment, across DOD
Components and expanded the definition of harassment beyond traditional
Equal Opportunity discriminatory harassment. The policy also identified
the proper process for addressing sexual harassment allegations, and
identified training and education requirements. In accordance with the
policy, Secretaries of the Military Departments establish military
harassment prevention and response programs to ensure assistance and
support for harassment complainants. Subsequently, the Department
established the Defense Equal Opportunity Reform Group (DEORG) to
develop an overarching harassment policy applicable to DOD civilian
employees. The DEORG helps facilitate senior leader engagement on these
issues, specifically to identify and address any policy gaps, ensure
leadership accountability at all levels, and review education and
training requirements for equal opportunity professionals.
In 2020, DOD published a new policy, DOD Instruction 1020.04,
``Harassment Prevention and Response for DOD Civilian Employees.'' The
new DOD civilian employee anti-harassment policy provides procedures
for training, education, and response to all forms of harassment,
including sexual harassment. While the 2018 policy covered Service
members, the Department recognized the importance of publishing a
corresponding, comprehensive policy for our civilian workforce, too.
Publication of these policies is a positive step forward, but our
efforts are ongoing. The Department continues to track data to evaluate
the effectiveness of current policies and processes, and to make
recommendations for the future. DOD is working to incorporate insights
from prevention subject matter experts with experience in developing
evidence-based prevention methods.
DOD is fully committed to empowering and supporting Service members
and civilian employees who experience harassment and to encourage
reporting of this unacceptable behavior. Military commanders are
ultimately responsible for establishing climates consistent with core
values--climates that discourage misconduct and self-destructive acts,
unnecessary risk activities, and other readiness impacting behaviors.
Mr. Cisneros. SPC Guillen had told her family that she had been
sexually harassed, that the person harassing her had been accused by
others, yet nothing was done. Fort Hood's sexual harassment policies is
under investigation but sexual harassment throughout the military is on
the rise. Do you believe that existing DOD policy regarding sexual
harassment needs to be revisited and reformed?
General Milley. I have gone on record stating that sexual assault
is an unconscionable act, it is a crime, and it is an act of fratricide
within the Joint Force. It is a cancer within an organization and we
have got to crush it. I do believe we need to take a harder look at the
overall DOD policy regarding sexual assault and harassment and make
recommendations to Congress on potential updates and reforms. It is
obvious that we as a Joint Force still have a long way to go. I, along
with my fellow Joint Chiefs and Combatant Commanders are committed to
working with Congress on getting this right.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. TRAHAN
Mrs. Trahan. Secretary Esper, culture plays a central role in the
flow of information to the Oval Office and how confident Administration
officials feel in offering honest, real-time feedback and counsel.
I'm worried that President Trump has fostered a culture of
``acquiescence''--where subordinates are fearful, reluctant or anxious
about challenging the President on issues that might upset him or go
against his view of the world. There are a number of examples from this
Administration where the President thinks he has unlimited authority;
and there doesn't seem to be advisors around him who challenge his
judgment and decision making in real time. A culture that doesn't
permit questions, pushback, or alternative opinions in the moment is
*beyond* worrisome.
I hope that you have the courage to challenge the President even
when it's contrary to what he wants to hear, but is necessary for the
protection of our service members. We don't ever want to be in a
situation where it is too late to walk something back.
Do you believe you have the ability and willingness to challenge
the President? Is there an example you can point to?
Let me say how concerned I was to hear your rhetoric on how we
needed to ``dominate the battlespace.'' Your rhetoric sets the tone for
all who serve in our military. We cannot, and should not, be creating
an environment that would lead our troops to believe they should view
protestors as an ``enemy or adversary'' who should be ``dominated.
But as you've mentioned, the President did not invoke the
Insurrection Act, can you please describe the conversations that led to
that decision to stage out-of-state Active Duty troops outside of DC?
Do you believe there should be more checks with Congress when any
President invokes this last resort approach? Should there be at least a
formal notification process to Congress?
Secretary Esper. I have always tried to provide the President with
my best advice and I remain committed to doing so. However, it would be
inappropriate for me to discuss the specific advice I have provided to
the President. As I said in my statement for the record, the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Attorney General and I participated
in an Oval Office meeting with the President to discuss how best to
protect the District of Columbia. The discussion included using
National Guard personnel to protect Federal functions, personnel, and
property. Consistent with principles of military preparedness, and to
provide the President with options to respond quickly in case the
crisis escalated, we did issue ``be prepared to deploy'' orders to just
over 1,700 active-duty military personnel, and staged them at military
bases outside of the District of Columbia beginning on June 2, 2020.
However, these forces never entered the District, and they began
redeployment back to their home stations two days later. They all
returned to their home stations by June 6, 2020. It was my assessment
that District of Columbia authorities had sufficient capabilities from
local and Federal law enforcement, supported by National Guard
personnel, and did not require the assistance of active-duty military
personnel.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRINDISI
Mr. Brindisi. Secretary Esper, in your written testimony you
explain that the National Guard members deployed to Federal Government
properties were authorized to take ``reasonable measures'' to ensure
the protection of property and the safety of Federal personnel. Can you
explain, specifically, what these reasonable methods are?
Were the Guard members trained to carry out these specific
``reasonable methods? If yes, can you specify regarding the exact
training they received in order to be prepared for these situations?
In your view, were all actions taken by the Guard ``reasonable''?
Secretary Esper. By reasonable measures, I mean exercising
restraint in using force to ensure any such use is reasonable in
intensity, duration, and magnitude, and exercised with due regard for
the safety of innocent bystanders. Yes, the National Guard members were
properly trained. The Adjutant General of each State, Territory, and
the Commanding General of the District of Columbia are responsible for
manning, training, equipping and employing their National Guard
Reaction Forces. The States are required to conduct training annually,
at least. Training for the reaction forces include: providing facility
security; point/site and area security; emergency responder training;
protection, public safety support, and crowd control support; standing
rules for the use of force; de-escalation; training on non-lethal
force; maintaining coordination with civil authorities; providing quick
reaction support and rapid reaction forces. National Guard personnel
were outfitted with standard riot gear, including a face mask, shield,
baton, shin guards, and pro mask. The District of Columbia National
Guard routinely trains on, and performs, this mission set. National
Guard personnel deployed into the District of Columbia were trained and
briefed on civil disturbance, civil disturbance incident awareness and
assessment, the District of Columbia National Guard's civil disturbance
rules for the use of force, operational procedures, policies, and
limitations on interactions with civilians and civilian law enforcement
officials. In general, actions taken by the National Guard in the
District of Columbia were reasonable. I have directed an investigation
of all complaints.
Mr. Brindisi. Secretary Esper, given the nature of the protests as
you understand them, do you think the use of the National Guard against
protesters was appropriate? Would you make the same decision again
under the same circumstances to call in the National Guard in response
to civil protests?
Secretary Esper. The National Guard was not used against protesters
or other people exercising their right to assemble peaceably. At the
height of the civil unrest, more than 43,000 Army and Air National
Guard personnel in 33 States and the District of Columbia were called
upon to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in
restoring and maintaining order, protecting their communities, and
defending the rights of all Americans to protest safely and peacefully.
In the District of Columbia, District of Columbia National Guard
personnel supported the U.S. Park Police, the U.S. Marshals Service,
and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. The DC
National Guard personnel provided point security and access control;
assisted civilian law enforcement authorities with crowd management;
and provided medical and transportation support. National Guard
personnel also deployed from 11 States to protect Federal functions,
property, and personnel.
Mr. Brindisi. Secretary Esper, I think it is safe to say that this
situation could have been handled much better, and that responsibility
falls on you as senior leaders at the Pentagon. Could you walk me
through exactly what you would do differently if a situation like this
arose again in the future under your leadership?
Secretary Esper. As I did in June, I will do my best to provide the
President with options that I consider appropriate to the specific
circumstances. At all times, recommended courses of action will comply
with applicable law.
Mr. Brindisi. Secretary Esper, what training do National Guard
personnel receive that prepares them to support civil disturbances?
What exactly was their assigned mission, and in your view, did the
National Guard members who responded to the protests they have the
proper training and equipment for that mission? If no, why would we
ever put our guard members in a position they have not been trained
for? Are there other situations where they would be summoned to conduct
law enforcement operations?
Secretary Esper. National Guard training on non-lethal weapons and
crowd control is carried out as part of each State's civil disturbance
contingency planning and training. Adjutants General direct the
formation and training of their State's National Guard Reaction Force
for civil disturbance contingencies. These forces conduct annual
training, including on the use of non-lethal weapons, crowd control,
and rules for the use of force, focused on de-escalating the situation
in support of law enforcement. National Guard personnel, at many
locations across the United States, supported law enforcement agencies
to ensure the protection of property and the safety of personnel.
National Guard Bureau policy requires National Guard personnel to
complete civil disturbance training prior to directly participating in
any civil disturbance operations.
Mr. Brindisi. General Milley, given the nature of the protests as
you understand them, do you think the use of the National Guard against
protesters was appropriate? Would you make the same decision again
under the same circumstances to call in the National Guard in response
to civil protests?
General Milley. The President, Secretary of Defense, and the
Governors of several states determined that the employment of the
National Guard was lawful and appropriate to preserve public safety in
late May and early June. Overall the use of the National Guard was
appropriate. The civil unrest related to George Floyd's death did
require support from the National Guard to protect facilities,
officials, and support law enforcement. The National Guard remains
ready and legally available to assist civil authorities with
maintaining public safety.
Mr. Brindisi. General Milley, I think it is safe to say that this
situation could have been handled much better, and that responsibility
falls on you as senior leaders at the Pentagon. Could you walk me
through exactly what you would do differently if a situation like this
arose again in the future under your leadership?
General Milley. My statutory responsibilities are to serve as the
principal military advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense,
National Security Council, and Homeland Security Council. By law, I am
not, and never was during this crisis, in control of any forces. I
provided military advice on the use of U.S. Military Forces.
With respect to how the military could have operated differently
during this crisis, the Joint Staff is collecting lessons learned as
part of a formal after-action review (AAR) on the Department of
Defense's response to civil unrest. I expect multiple lessons to arise
related to the intricacies and complexity of the command and control
structure in Washington, D.C., and how federal and local law
enforcement and National Guard forces worked together to respond to
civil unrest in the District. The lessons we learn from this process
will allow us to examine how we plan, train, equip, and operate for
military response to civil unrest in support of civil authorities. Once
I have completed my review of the AAR, I would be happy to discuss
further details with the committee and share those lessons.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED JOINTLY BY MS. SLOTKIN AND MS. SHERRILL
Ms. Slotkin and Ms. Sherrill. Part I: Over the past 3 years, we
have seen time and again the politicization of the U.S. military. The
list is long: sending active duty troops to the southern border, taking
nearly $10B from the Department of Defense budget for the border wall,
withdrawing troops from northern Syria in advance of a Turkish
incursion and redeploying them to guard Syrian oil fields, downplaying
the threats of COVID-19 for service members, threatening to deploy
Active Duty troops to American cities against Governors' wishes,
deploying the National Guard to Lafayette Square and moving unarmed
protestors for the President's photo op at the St. John's Church on
June 1.
These events, particularly those in the past few months, seem to
reinforce the idea that the President sees the military not as a
constitutionally established instrument of government, but as an armed
force that exists to serve him personally, for his own personal and
political gains.
This pains us, one of us a proud Army wife, stepmom to a new Army
officer, and former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense, and the
other a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, former Navy helicopter pilot, and
former Federal prosecutor. We believe, and hope that you agree, that
the American people need and want our military to adhere strictly to
its tradition of remaining apolitical. This is especially important
given the significant authority of the Department of Defense. Given
these events, we feel compelled to look ahead to decisions that you, as
the most senior defense officials, may be called upon to make in the
next 6 months. These decisions will fall squarely into the
constitutional roles that you both swore to uphold and we know you both
respect. We are relying on you both to preserve the system that our
founding fathers designed.
Secretary Esper. Throughout our nation's history, the U.S. military
has been a force for good. The Department of Defense's enduring mission
is to provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter war,
defend our nation, and protect the security of our nation. The
Department of Defense remains committed to carrying out this mission,
consistent with the Constitution and the law.
Ms. Slotkin and Ms. Sherrill. Part II: First, on conducting
military operations outside the United States ahead of an election: Do
you agree that the U.S. military powers should be used only to advance
the national security of the United States, and not for any one
President's political gain? If the President proposes military action
in the next few months that was meant to distract the American public
instead of protect American security, would you refuse such an order?
Second, on the use of military forces in our national elections: As
you are aware, there is almost no precedent for deploying uniformed
military members to the polls on election day. Are there any
circumstances in the 2020 elections when you would deem it necessary to
send the U.S. military to be present at polling places? Do you believe
that the military should be involved in administering or tallying
results of an election? If you were ordered to send Active Duty
military to be present at the polls during election day, would you
refuse such an order?
Third, on the military's role in supporting a peaceful transition
of Presidential power: Are you aware that the U.S. Congress certifies
the results of the electoral college? Do you commit to facilitating a
peaceful transition of power that reflects the certification of
Congress? Are you both committed to the principle that there can only
be one President at a time? Do you both recognize that your oaths to
the Constitution and the chain of command itself require you to act on
the orders of the legitimate President, and only the legitimate
President, once he or she is sworn in on January 20, 2021?
Secretary Esper. The U.S. military has acted, and will continue to
act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
Ms. Slotkin and Ms. Sherrill. Part III: Finally, you both affirmed
to the Armed Services Committee on July 9, 2020, that you are aware
that, under the Constitution, the duly elected President is the sole
Commander in Chief of the United States. You both further affirmed that
you are aware that the chain of command runs from the duly elected
President as Commander in Chief to the Secretary of Defense, and from
the Secretary of Defense to the commanders of the combatant commands.
Secretary Esper, you confirmed that you are aware that Secretaries of
Defense serve at the pleasure of the President, subject to the advice
and consent of the Senate, and can be removed by the President at his
or her legal discretion. General Milley, you confirmed that you are
aware that the Uniformed Code of Military Justice criminalizes mutiny
and sedition and attempted mutiny and sedition and applies to every
uniformed member of the Armed Services, including yourself.
You both affirmed your oaths to the Constitution, and affirmed that
your oath requires you to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and bear true
faith and allegiance to the same.
Finally, you both confirmed your understanding of the Insurrection
Act, which provides, ``Whenever the President considers that unlawful
obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the
authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the
laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the
militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers
necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.''
Secretary Esper. The U.S. military has acted, and will continue to
act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
Ms. Slotkin and Ms. Sherrill. Part IV: A legitimate President,
therefore, might well have a factual basis to deem an illegitimate
President claiming power to be acting in ``rebellion against the
authority of the United States,'' and in turn to consider utilizing
Insurrection Act authorities should it otherwise be ``impracticable to
enforce the laws of the United States.'' Anyone in the chain of command
would, in turn, be legally compelled to obey the legitimate President's
orders--and not any orders of the illegitimate President. Is that
correct? If somebody other than the legitimate President as certified
by Congress ordered you to use the military to prevent the peaceful
transition of power from one President to another, would you refuse
such an order?
Secretary Esper. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
Ms. Slotkin and Ms. Sherrill. Part I: Over the past 3 years, we
have seen time and again the politicization of the U.S. military. The
list is long: sending active duty troops to the southern border, taking
nearly $10B from the Department of Defense budget for the border wall,
withdrawing troops from northern Syria in advance of a Turkish
incursion and redeploying them to guard Syrian oil fields, downplaying
the threats of COVID-19 for service members, threatening to deploy
Active Duty troops to American cities against Governors' wishes,
deploying the National Guard to Lafayette Square and moving unarmed
protestors for the President's photo op at the St. John's Church on
June 1.
These events, particularly those in the past few months, seem to
reinforce the idea that the President sees the military not as a
constitutionally established instrument of government, but as an armed
force that exists to serve him personally, for his own personal and
political gains.
This pains us, one of us a proud Army wife, stepmom to a new Army
officer, and former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense, and the
other a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, former Navy helicopter pilot, and
former Federal prosecutor. We believe, and hope that you agree, that
the American people need and want our military to adhere strictly to
its tradition of remaining apolitical. This is especially important
given the significant authority of the Department of Defense. Given
these events, we feel compelled to look ahead to decisions that you, as
the most senior defense officials, may be called upon to make in the
next 6 months. These decisions will fall squarely into the
constitutional roles that you both swore to uphold and we know you both
respect. We are relying on you both to preserve the system that our
founding fathers designed.
General Milley. The Constitution and laws of the U.S. and the
States establish procedures for carrying out elections, and for
resolving disputes over the outcomes of elections. State and Federal
governments have qualified officials who oversee these processes
according to those laws. We are a nation of laws. We follow the rule of
law and have done so with regard to past elections, and will continue
to do so in the future. I do not see the U.S. Military as part of this
process; this is the responsibility of Congress, the Supreme Court, and
components of the Executive Branch.
Ms. Slotkin and Ms. Sherrill. Part II: First, on conducting
military operations outside the United States ahead of an election: Do
you agree that the U.S. military powers should be used only to advance
the national security of the United States, and not for any one
President's political gain? If the President proposes military action
in the next few months that was meant to distract the American public
instead of protect American security, would you refuse such an order?
Second, on the use of military forces in our national elections: As
you are aware, there is almost no precedent for deploying uniformed
military members to the polls on election day. Are there any
circumstances in the 2020 elections when you would deem it necessary to
send the U.S. military to be present at polling places? Do you believe
that the military should be involved in administering or tallying
results of an election? If you were ordered to send Active Duty
military to be present at the polls during election day, would you
refuse such an order?
Third, on the military's role in supporting a peaceful transition
of Presidential power: Are you aware that the U.S. Congress certifies
the results of the electoral college? Do you commit to facilitating a
peaceful transition of power that reflects the certification of
Congress? Are you both committed to the principle that there can only
be one President at a time? Do you both recognize that your oaths to
the Constitution and the chain of command itself require you to act on
the orders of the legitimate President, and only the legitimate
President, once he or she is sworn in on January 20, 2021?
General Milley. I am aware of Congress' role in certifying the
results of the Electoral College, codified in Title 3 of the U.S. Code.
In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law
U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes,
not the U.S. Military. I foresee no role for the U.S. Armed Forces in
this process. I and every member of the Armed Forces take an oath to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to follow
the lawful orders of the chain of command. We will not turn our backs
on the Constitution of the United States.
Ms. Slotkin and Ms. Sherrill. Part III: Finally, you both affirmed
to the Armed Services Committee on July 9, 2020, that you are aware
that, under the Constitution, the duly elected President is the sole
Commander in Chief of the United States. You both further affirmed that
you are aware that the chain of command runs from the duly elected
President as Commander in Chief to the Secretary of Defense, and from
the Secretary of Defense to the commanders of the combatant commands.
Secretary Esper, you confirmed that you are aware that Secretaries of
Defense serve at the pleasure of the President, subject to the advice
and consent of the Senate, and can be removed by the President at his
or her legal discretion. General Milley, you confirmed that you are
aware that the Uniformed Code of Military Justice criminalizes mutiny
and sedition and attempted mutiny and sedition and applies to every
uniformed member of the Armed Services, including yourself.
You both affirmed your oaths to the Constitution, and affirmed that
your oath requires you to support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and bear true
faith and allegiance to the same.
Finally, you both confirmed your understanding of the Insurrection
Act, which provides, ``Whenever the President considers that unlawful
obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the
authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the
laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the
militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers
necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.''
General Milley. I recognize that there is only one legitimate
President of the United States at a time in accordance with U.S. law. I
along with the entire U.S. military will follow the lawful orders of
the legitimate President of the United States as determined by law.
[all]