[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 12, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=budget
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-772 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman
TOM PRICE, Georgia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland,
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
JOHN CAMPBELL, California ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TOM COLE, Oklahoma BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
TOM McCLINTOCK, California TIM RYAN, Ohio
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee KATHY CASTOR, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
BILL FLORES, Texas BARBARA LEE, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ROB WOODALL, Georgia HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia JARED HUFFMAN, California
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri TONY CARDENAS, California
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
LUKE MESSER, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
TOM RICE, South Carolina
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin
Professional Staff
Austin Smythe, Staff Director
Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC, June 12, 2013.................... 1
Hon. Paul Ryan, Chairman, Committee on the Budget............ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Questions submitted for the record....................... 49
Hon. Chris Van Hollen, ranking member, Committee on the
Budget..................................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Hon. Chuck Hagel, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense...... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 52
GEN Martin E. Dempsey, USA, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 61
Questions submitted for the record from:
Hon. James Lankford, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Oklahoma.................................. 49
Hon. Bill Flores, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas......................................... 49
Hon. Luke Messer, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana....................................... 51
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND
THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Paul Ryan, [Chairman of
the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Ryan, Price, Calvert, McClintock,
Lankford, Ribble, Rokita, Woodall, Blackburn, Nunnelee, Rigell,
Hartzler, Walorski, Messer, Williams, Van Hollen, Schwartz,
Yarmuth, Pascrell, Ryan of Ohio, Castor, McDermott, Lee,
Cicilline, Jeffries, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, Huffman, Blumenauer,
Schrader
Chairman Ryan. The Committee will come to order. Welcome,
everybody. I want to start on time, or as close to on time as
we can because we have a busy day. Number one, we have got
votes that are going to hit about 2:30, 2:45. The Secretary and
the General have to be down at the White House by 3:00, so I am
going to, with consultation from the Ranking Member, knock our
question time for each member, including ourselves, down to
three minutes each so that everybody gets a chance to ask a
question, and we can get this done in time for the pending
votes on the floor and in time for their meeting at the White
House.
With that, I want to start by thanking our distinguished
witnesses: Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, and Secretary
Hale. Each of you served our country, both in military and
government, and we thank you for your service. The first duty
of government is to keep us safe, and to keep us safe, our
strategy ought to drive our budget. But under this
Administration, our fear is that the budget is driving the
strategies. It is the opposite.
Last year, Secretary Panetta made a budget request, he came
here to testify on it, that he said was the minimum necessary
to execute the president's strategy. He said that there was,
quote, ``little room for cuts if we wanted our troops to
fulfill our mission.'' This year's budget request covers the
same mission, but over the next 10 years, it is about $120
billion lower than last year's request. So far, there has been
no explanation for this number. Have we changed our strategy?
Now, the Department of Defense is not immune to waste.
There is room for improvement, clearly. Every agency must use
taxpayer dollars wisely, especially the Department of Defense
because it has a very large budget.
Secretary Hagel announced the strategic choices that
management reviewed to develop a new strategy for a smaller
budget, but a cheaper strategy is not necessarily a better one.
The Defense Business Board has suggested a number of ways to
improve the Department, and I want to commend their hard work.
I think it is excellent work, and I encourage you to act on
their recommendations.
That said, national security is our nation's top security,
it is our top priority. Defense has born have the burden of
deficit reduction, and the president wants to cut even more.
This year, the House budget provides the same amount of Defense
spending that the president requested last year, yet the
president seems to be opposing our proposal. The president is
holding Defense hostage for higher taxes and more spending, in
our opinion.
These days, every part of government needs to be more
efficient, but even as we try to cut the fat, we have to make
sure that we do not cut the bone. We must make sure our troops
overseas have what they need to complete their mission. We owe
a debt of gratitude to our military and their families who
continue to make sacrifices for our country for the freedoms
that we cherish. They are there fighting for us right now while
we speak, so we have to get this right. I look forward to
hearing your thoughts on the challenges we face and the
resources that we need to meet them.
With that, I would like to yield to the Ranking Member, Mr.
Van Hollen.
[The prepared statement of Paul Ryan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Ryan, Chairman, Committee on the Budget
Welcome, everybody. I want to start by thanking our distinguished
witnesses: Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, and Secretary Hale. Each
of you has served our country--both in the military and in government.
And we thank you for your service.
The first duty of government is to keep us safe. And to keep us
safe, our strategy should drive our budget. But under this
administration, the budget is driving the strategy.
Last year, Secretary Panetta made a budget request he said was the
minimum necessary to execute the President's strategy. He said there
was ``little room'' for cuts if we wanted our troops to fulfill their
mission.
This year's budget request covers the same mission. But over the
next ten years, it's about $120 billion lower than last year's request.
And so far, there's been no explanation. Have we changed our strategy?
Now, the Defense department isn't immune to waste. There's room for
improvement. Every agency must use taxpayer dollars wisely--especially
the Defense department.
Secretary Hagel has announced the Strategic Choices and Management
Review to develop a new strategy for a smaller budget. But a cheaper
strategy isn't necessarily a better one. The Defense Business Board has
suggested a number of ways to improve the department. I want to commend
their hard work--and encourage you to act on their recommendations.
That said, national security is a priority. Defense has borne half
the burden of deficit reduction. And the President wants to cut even
more. This year, the House budget provides the same amount of defense
funding the President requested last year. Yet the President opposes
our proposal. The President is holding the defense budget hostage for
higher taxes and more spending.
These days, every part of government needs to be more efficient.
But even as we try to cut the fat, we have to be sure not to cut bone.
We must make sure our troops overseas have what they need to complete
their mission. We all owe a debt of gratitude to our military and their
families, who continue to make sacrifices for our country and the
freedoms we cherish.
So I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the challenges we
face--and the resources we need to meet them.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join
Chairman Ryan in welcoming all our witnesses. Secretary Hagel,
General Dempsey, Secretary Hale, thank you for your dedicated
service to our nation. I also want to convey our gratitude to
the men and women in the Armed Forces for the sacrifices they
make every day for our country.
This week, the House of Representatives will be debating
and voting on the National Defense Authorization Act. That will
provide an opportunity to provide the resources we need for our
Armed Forces. It will also be a chance to address some of the
other significant challenges that must be confronted, like the
mechanisms for confronting cases of sexual abuse in the
military.
Here in the Budget Committee, we can help honor the
sacrifices of the men and women in the Armed Forces by
allocating the top-line resources they need to accomplish their
mission, and by making sure we have a budget plan that ensures
that America remains economically strong and the land of
opportunity for their children and grandchildren. The choices
we make in our federal budget should reflect those goals. We
should make choices that ensure that our military remains
second to none, and make investments in education, scientific
research, and the infrastructure necessary to help power our
economy, sharpen our competitive edge, and create new
opportunities. The very deep and very rapid cuts imposed by the
sequester place all of these objectives at risk.
You have both spoken very plainly about the negative impact
on military readiness. There are obviously other major negative
impacts on the Defense side of the equation. The nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, which serves as the independent
referee here, has said that deep immediate cuts from the
sequester will also reduce our economic growth this year by a
full one-third, which translates into 750,000 fewer American
jobs this year. I have a letter from a major biotech company in
my district that talks about the hiring freeze they imposed
because of the cuts to NIH grants. These are self-inflicted
wounds to our military, to our kids' education, to our economy.
Now, the president and House and Senate Democrats have
proposed budgets that would replace that sequester overall.
Unfortunately, here in the House, we have not even had an
opportunity to vote on that proposal. The good news is the
House Republican budget on Defense provides the same level of
funding, approximately, as the president's budget and the House
and Senate Democrats. The bad news is the way they make up for
that is by absolutely gutting the other parts of discretionary
spending. So, for example, the part of the budget that funds
our education and research at NIH would be cut by approximately
20 percent below 2013 sequester levels. The president has been
absolutely right to make it clear that he will not support
appropriations bills that have those lopsided priorities.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would say, given the large
differences between the House and Senate budgets, you would
think our Republican colleagues would want to get together now
to resolve those differences by going to conference. We heard
for three years about the fact the Senate did not have a
budget. They have now had a budget for 81 days. We are now 58
days past the statutory deadline for a conference committee
being met.
Speaker Boehner unfortunately continues to block the
creation of a budget conference. I do not know what happened to
``No Budget, No Pay,'' but I hope that this hearing and the
testimony that is given will provide motivation for us to get
going and doing our job now, go to conference, remove the
uncertainty, and deal with these issues in a transparent way
where we actually make the compromises necessary to move our
country forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Chris Van Hollen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member,
Committee on the Budget
I want to join Chairman Ryan in welcoming our witnesses. Secretary
Hagel, General Dempsey, and Under Secretary Hale, thank you for your
dedicated service to our nation. I also want to convey our gratitude to
the men and women in the Armed Forces for the sacrifices they make for
the rest of us and for our country.
This week the House will be debating and voting on the National
Defense Authorization Act. That will provide an opportunity to provide
the resources we need for our Armed Forces. It will also be a chance to
address some of the significant challenges that must be confronted--
like the mechanisms for confronting cases of sexual abuse in the
military. And it will provide a chance to examine the huge growth in
the number of contractors used by the Defense Department and other
security related federal agencies--a fact that has been highlighted by
the recent leaks by a contractor to the National Security Agency.
Here in the Budget Committee we can help honor the sacrifices of
the men and women in the Armed Forces by allocating the top-line
resources they need to accomplish their mission, and by making sure we
have a budget plan that ensures that America remains economically
strong and the land of opportunity for their children and
grandchildren.
The choices we make in our federal budget should reflect those
goals. We should make budget choices that ensure that our military
remains second to none, and make the investments in education,
scientific research, and infrastructure necessary to help power our
economy, sharpen our competitive edge, and create new opportunities.
The very deep and very rapid cuts imposed by the sequester place
these objectives at risk. You have both spoken plainly about the
corrosive effects these cuts have on our military readiness. I also
find it shameful that, in this great country of ours, the children of
our service men and women stationed on military bases like Fort Bragg
will lose five days of school this fall while their teachers are
furloughed because this Congress cannot get its act together.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which serves as
the independent referee around here, has said that the deep, immediate
cuts from the sequester will also reduce economic growth this year by
one-third--which translates into 750,000 fewer jobs in this calendar
year alone. I have a letter from a major bio-tech firm that provides
one small example of that drag on the economy--they have imposed a
hiring freeze because of the cuts in medical research at the National
Institutes of Health.
These are self-inflicted wounds to our military, to our kids'
education, to our economy. The President, and the House and Senate
Democrats, have all proposed budgets that would replace these deep,
immediate cuts with a balanced approach that makes the necessary
investments in our military and our economic growth, while reducing our
long-term deficit with targeted cuts to spending and tax expenditures
over a period of time. Here in the House, on seven occasions I have
asked for a vote on a specific plan to replace the sequester through
such a balanced approach. Unfortunately, we have not even been allowed
a single vote on that plan in the people's House.
Our Republican colleagues continue to reject that approach because
they oppose any plan to replace the sequester, or to reduce the
deficit, that includes any new revenue from closing tax breaks for the
wealthy. Even though, I would point out, the CBO recently issued a
report showing that 17 percent of the biggest tax breaks go to those
with the top 1 percent of income.
The good news in the House Republican budget is that--like the
Democratic proposals--it would eliminate the very steep and immediate
cuts to defense in FY 2014. The bad news is that they do it by cutting
even more deeply into vital investments in our kids' education and in
the investments in innovation and technology that help grow our
economy. In fact, the Republican budgets would cut the part of the
budget that funds education and vital medical research by 19 percent
below the sequester. And despite claims to want to strengthen our
embassy security in the aftermath of tragedies like Benghazi, the
Republican budget slashes State Department operations by over 15
percent below sequester. The White House has rightly stated that the
President would veto any such lopsided approach.
Given the big differences between the House and Senate budgets, you
would think that our Republican colleagues would be eager to go to a
budget conference to work out the differences in a transparent manner.
After all, for years they displayed charts showing how many days it had
been since the Senate had passed a budget. Well, the Senate passed a
budget 81 days ago. It has now been 58 days since the statutory
deadline for Congress to reach a budget conference. Yet Speaker Boehner
refuses to appoint budget conferees, while the Senate Democrats have
been blocked 12 times from getting Republicans to go to a budget
conference. Whatever happened to `no budget, no pay'? Even Senator
McCain has said that Republican refusal to go to a budget conference is
`insane' and `incomprehensible.' He is not alone.
Meanwhile, the sequester continues to eat away at our military
readiness, at critical investments, and at economic growth. I hope
today's hearing will inspire our colleagues to get serious about
starting to tackle these big issues now. I don't know what we are
waiting for.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Thank you. And I expected similar
comments like that, and I will say our goal is to get a budget
agreement at the end of the day, and the decisions we are
making are to try and maximize the likelihood of an outcome
that is successful.
Mr. Van Hollen. Well, today, for the 13th time, Senate
Democrats asked to go to conference, and they have been blocked
by Republican Senators.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. All right. Remember, 3:00.
Secretary Hagel, the microphone is yours, then will be followed
by General Dempsey.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES T. HAGEL, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Secretary Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Ranking
Member Van Hollen, thank you, and to the distinguished members
of this committee, thank you. I note that my friend and
predecessor, the former chairman of this body, hangs proudly on
your wall and is carefully monitoring my testimony, so I shall
do all I can not to embarrass him, and I would say, as you all
know, and some served with Leon Panetta, he continues to
contribute a remarkable public servant. So thank you for this
opportunity.
As you have both noted, we are here today to talk about the
president's 2014 budget, and I would begin with first thanking
this committee and each of you for your support of our men and
women in uniform, their families, and our civilian workforce,
all who are associated with the Department of Defense and our
national security. Thank you.
The president has requested $526.6 billion for the
Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2014 base budget, and 79.4
billion for overseas contingency operations. Mr. Chairman, my
written statement, as you have probably noted, contains
significant details on both budget requests. But this
afternoon, allow me to very briefly focus on three general
areas before I take your questions. First, the continued budget
challenges facing the Department in Fiscal Year 2013 as a
result of sequestration; second, the Department's Fiscal Year
2014 budget request; and third, how the Department is preparing
for future budget uncertainty and the prospects of further
reduced resources.
As you all know, the Department has been forced to
implement deep, steep, and abrupt cuts in the current fiscal
year because of sequestration. According to the latest guidance
from the Office of Management and Budget, the Department must
cut $37 billion in spending through the remainder of this
fiscal year. With our internal decision to shift the impact of
sequestration away from those serving in harm's way and our
force readiness, the cuts now fall heavily on DoD's accounts
that train and equip those who will deploy in the future. The
Department is also experiencing higher wartime costs than
expected. As a result of these factors, the Department is
facing a shortfall of more than $30 billion in our operation
and maintenance budget for Fiscal Year 2013.
To deal with this shortfall, the Department has cut back
sharply on facilities maintenance, instituted hiring freezes,
cut overhead spending, reduced important but lower priority
programs, directed furloughs of nearly 700,000 civilian
employees, and submitted a $9.6 billion reprogramming request
to Congress. Given the scale of this shortfall, the
reprogramming and other steps we have taken to cut nonessential
spending are not enough. While we have protected spending to
sustain the war effort and defend America's vital strategic
interests, the Department's day-to-day activities will be
significantly disrupted for the remainder of this fiscal year.
Each of the military services has begun to significantly
reduce training and maintenance of non-deployed operating
forces. For example, the Army has stopped rotations at its key
combat training centers for all but deploying units. More than
a dozen combat-coded Air Force squadrons either already have or
will soon stop flying, and the Navy has curtailed all
deployments.
To avoid even more significant reductions to military
readiness, I directed furloughs of up to 11 days for most of
the Department's 800,000 civilian personnel. I made this
decision very reluctantly. I made it very reluctantly because I
recognize the significant hardship this places on our civilian
personnel and their families. But the current budget
environment is requiring difficult decisions and difficult
options to deal with.
The president's Fiscal Year 2014 budget continues to
implement the $487 billion in spending reductions over 10
years, agreed to, as this body knows, in the Budget Control Act
of 2011. If the sequester-related provisions of the Budget
Control Act are not changed, the Fiscal Year 2014 funding for
national defense programs will be subject to an additional $52
billion reduction in DoD funding, and, if there are no changes,
continued sequestration will result in roughly $500 billion in
additional reductions to Defense spending over the next 10
years.
The president's Fiscal Year 2014 budget replaces
sequestration, and gives the Department the time and
flexibility to plan and to implement spending reductions wisely
and responsively. In particular, this budget enables the
Department to support troops still at war in Afghanistan as we
transition out of Afghanistan, protect readiness, modernize the
military's aging weapons inventory in keeping with the
president's Strategic Guidance, and sustain the high quality of
the all-volunteer force. This budget also continues the
Department's approach over the last couple of years of
targeting growing costs in areas of support, overhead
acquisition, and pay and benefits.
Over the next five years, DoD has identified $34 billion in
new savings across these categories. This includes weapons
programs, restructuring and terminations that achieve $8.2
billion in savings, slowdowns in military construction, and
reductions in other low-priority programs. Our military
compensation package preserves DoD's world-class pay and
benefits while putting our military on a more sustainable path
for the future. It includes changes to the TRICARE program to
bring the beneficiaries' cost share closer to the levels
envisioned when the program was implemented.
The Department of Defense also must be able to eliminate
excess infrastructure. The president's Fiscal Year 2014 budget
requests authorization for one round of base realignment
closure. BRAC, as we all know, is an imperfect process, and
there are upfront costs, but in the long term, there are
significant savings. The previous rounds of BRAC are saving $12
billion annually. We cannot justify funding unnecessary
infrastructure when we are reducing our forestructure.
Since 2003, DoD has divested more than 100 foreign bases
and operations, and we are on schedule to close or consolidate
over 20 more overseas operations. Although there are clearly
opportunities to achieve significant savings by improving
efficiency, consolidations, and reducing overhead, the scale of
the current spending reductions will also require cuts and
changes to military operations. The fiscal 2014 budget request
seeks to further align budget programs with the president's
Defense Strategic Guidance while continuing to reduce the size
of the ground forces and retire aging aircraft and ships. This
budget invests in key elements of our defense strategy
including implementing a rebalance to the Asia Pacific region,
maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile,
increasing investment in cyber capabilities, and sustaining the
growth of Special Operations forces. Finally, this budget seeks
to preserve a combat-ready force, and sustain the high quality
all-voluntary force.
Now, let me just very briefly note what the chairman had
mentioned in his opening remarks about a strategic choices
management review that I directed three months ago. The Fiscal
Year 2014 budget reflects DoD's best efforts to match ends,
ways, and means, and this is during a period of intense fiscal
uncertainty. It is obvious that significant changes to the
Department's top-line spending would require changes to this
budget plan.
Consequently, I directed a strategic choices management
review in order to assess the potential impact of further
reductions, and plan for those continued reductions. I have
received the initial internal results of the review, and I am
now reviewing all the documents. This Defense Department will
continue to find new ways to operate more affordably,
efficiently, and effectively. However, as I have stated,
continued cuts on the scale and the timeline of sequestration
will require significant reductions in core military
capabilities and the scope of our activities around the world.
The president's Fiscal Year 2014 budget sustains our military
strength in an environment of constrained resources, giving DoD
the time and the flexibility to make the necessary reductions
and adjustments over a 10-year timeframe.
Hard choices will have to be made over the next few years.
In the past, many modest reforms to personnel and benefits,
along with efforts to reduce infrastructure and restructure
acquisition programs, were met with fierce political
resistance, and they were never implemented. As you all know,
we are now in a different fiscal environment. New realities are
forcing us to more fully confront these tough and painful
choices, and to make the reforms necessary to put this
Department on a path to sustain our military strength for the
21st century and meet new complicated threats; we must do
better.
This will require the continued partnership and assistance
of this Committee and the Congress. Before I take questions, I
would ask if it is okay, Mr. Chairman, if General Dempsey
present his statement as well.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Hagel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Hagel, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Defense
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's Fiscal Year
2014 budget request for the Department of Defense.
Allow me to express my appreciation to this committee for its
continued support of our men and women in uniform and our civilian
workforce. They are doing tremendous work and making great sacrifices,
along with their families, as they have for the more than 11 years our
nation has been at war. Whether fighting in Afghanistan, patrolling the
world's sea lanes, standing vigilant on the Korean peninsula, supplying
our troops around the world, or supporting civil authorities when
natural disasters strike, they are advancing America's interests at
home and abroad. Their dedication and professionalism are the
foundation of our military strength.
As we discuss numbers, budgets, and strategic priorities, we will
not lose sight of these men and women serving across the globe. As you
all know, their well-being depends on the decisions we make here in
Washington.
fiscal and strategic context
Today, the Department of Defense faces the significant challenge of
conducting long-term planning and budgeting at a time of considerable
uncertainty both in terms of the security challenges we face around the
world and the levels of defense spending we can expect here at home.
Even as the military emerges--and recovers--from more than a decade
of sustained conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, it confronts an array of
complex threats of varying vintage and degrees of risk to the United
States, to include:
the persistence of violent extremism throughout weak
states and ungoverned spaces in the Middle East and North Africa;
the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials;
the rise of new powers competing for influence;
the risk of regional conflicts which could draw in the
United States;
faceless, nameless, silent and destructive cyberattacks.
Meanwhile, the frenetic pace of technological change and the spread
of advanced military technology to state and non-state actors pose an
increasing challenge to America's military.
This is the strategic environment facing the Department of Defense
as it enters a third year of flat or declining budgets. The onset of
these resource constraints has already led to significant and ongoing
belt-tightening in military modernization, force structure, personnel
costs, and overhead expenditures. It has also given us an opportunity
to reshape the military and reform defense institutions to better
reflect 21st century realities, as I outlined in a speech in April at
the National Defense University.
The process began under the leadership of Secretary Gates, who
canceled or curtailed more than 30 modernization programs and trimmed
overhead costs within the military services and across the defense
enterprise. These efforts reduced the Department's topline by $78
billion over a five year period, as detailed in the Department's FY
2012 budget plan.
The realignment continued under Secretary Panetta, who worked
closely with the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to craft new
defense strategic guidance and a FY 2013 defense budget plan which
reduced the Department's topline by $487 billion over the course of a
decade. Even while restructuring the force to become smaller and leaner
and once again targeting overhead savings, this budget made important
investments in the new strategy--including rebalancing to Asia and
increasing funding for critical capabilities such as cyber, special
operations, global mobility, and unmanned systems.
The President's request of $526.6 billion for the Department of
Defense's base budget for FY 2014 continues to implement the
President's Defense Strategic Guidance and enhances the Department's
efforts at institutional reform. Most critically, it sustains the
quality of the all-volunteer force and the care we provide our service
members and their families, which underpins everything we do as an
organization. The accompanying OCO request for $79.4 billion provides
the resources to continue the responsible drawdown in Afghanistan and
restore equipment damaged or worn out by more than a decade of war.
DoD's base-budget request for FY 2014 does not reflect the effects
of sequester cuts that would occur if the Budget Control Act (BCA) is
not changed. However, the President's Budget includes balanced deficit
reduction proposals that are more than sufficient to allow Congress to
meet BCA goals and then repeal sequester-related reductions.
challenges in fy 2013
Before discussing the particulars of this budget request, however,
allow me to address the profound budget problems facing the Department
in FY 2013 and beyond as a result of sequester--because they have
significantly disrupted operations for the current fiscal year and
greatly complicated efforts to plan for the future. The Congress and
the Department of Defense have a responsibility to find answers to
these problems together--because we have a shared responsibility to
protect our national security. DoD is going to need the help of
Congress to manage through this uncertainty.
The FY 2013 DoD Appropriations bill enacted by the Congress in
March addressed many urgent problems by allocating DoD funding more
closely in line with the President's budget request, giving the
Department authorities to start new programs, and allowing us to
proceed with important military construction projects. Nonetheless, the
bill still left in place the deep and abrupt cuts associated with
sequester--some $37 billion in spending reductions. With military pay
and benefits exempt from the sequester, and our internal decision to
shift the impact of sequestration away from those serving in harm's
way, the cuts fall heavily on DoD's operations, maintenance and
modernization accounts that we use to train and equip those who will
deploy in the future.
Furthermore, the military is experiencing higher wartime operating
tempos, and higher transportation costs than expected when the budget
request was formulated more than a year ago. As a result of all these
factors, the Department is now facing a shortfall of more than $30
billion in our operation and maintenance (O&M) budget for FY 2013.
The Department has been doing everything possible to reduce this
shortfall while ensuring we can defend the nation, sustain wartime
operations, and preserve DoD's most critical asset--our world-class
civilian and military personnel. To that end, we have cut back sharply
on facilities maintenance, instituted a hiring freeze, cut overhead and
all non-essential spending, reduced many other important but lower-
priority programs, and worked to shift funds from investment to O&M
accounts.
Still, these steps have not been enough to close the shortfall.
While we have protected spending to sustain the war effort and defend
America's vital strategic interests, the Department's day-to-day
activities will be significantly disrupted for the remainder of the
fiscal year. Each of the military services has begun to significantly
reduce training and maintenance of non-deployed operating forces--steps
that are having effects on military readiness.
Specifically:
The Army has stopped rotations at its key combat training
centers for all but deploying units. By the end of the year, this and
other training cutbacks will leave most non-deployed Army units at
unacceptable readiness levels.
The Air Force has or will soon stop all flying at more
than a dozen combat coded squadrons. These units will soon no longer be
ready to fight on short notice.
The Navy has curtailed deployments, including the decision
not to send a second carrier strike group to the Gulf.
We have also recently submitted a $9.6 billion reprogramming
request to Congress. Most of this reprogramming seeks permission to
move unneeded military personnel funding, and non-executable or lower
priority investment funding, into our O&M accounts that are
experiencing the largest budget shortfalls.
To avoid even more significant reductions to military readiness,
and after extensive review of all options with the DoD's senior
military and civilian leadership on how we address this budget crisis,
I have decided to direct furloughs of up to 11 days for nearly 700,000
of the Department's civilian personnel. I have made this decision very
reluctantly, because I know that the furloughs will adversely impact
DoD operations. I also recognize the significant hardship this places
on our civilian personnel across the country and their families. But
the current budget is requiring difficult decisions and options.
After required notifications, we will begin the furlough period on
July 8 at the rate of one furlough day per week for most personnel. We
plan to continue these furloughs through the end of the current fiscal
year. If our budgetary situation permits us to end furloughs early, I
would strongly prefer to do so. That is a decision I will make later in
the year.
fy 2014 budget request
Let me turn now to FY 2014. If the sequester-related provisions of
the Budget Control Act of 2011 are not changed, FY 2014 funding for
national defense programs will be subject to a steeply reduced cap,
which would cut DoD funding by roughly $52 billion further. And, if
there is no action by the Congress, roughly $500 billion in reductions
to defense spending would be required over the next ten years covered
by the BCA.
As an alternative, the President's budget proposes some $150
billion in additional defense savings (measured in terms of budget
authority) over the next decade when compared with the budget plan
submitted last year. These cuts are part of a balanced package of
deficit reduction. Unlike sequester, these cuts largely occur in the
years beyond FY 2018--which gives the Department time to plan and
implement the reductions wisely, and responsibly, anchored by the
President's defense strategic guidance.
The President's FY 2014 request reflects these changes. It
continues to balance the compelling demands of supporting troops still
at war in Afghanistan, protecting readiness, modernizing the military's
aging weapons inventory in keeping with the president's strategic
guidance, and sustaining the quality of the all-volunteer force.
The requested funding of $79.4 billion for FY 2014 OCO provides
funds to continue the responsible drawdown in Afghanistan and is lower
than the roughly $89 billion enacted for FY 2013. The top-line budget
request of $526.6 billion for base-budget funding FY 2014 is
essentially flat compared to the President's request for FY 2013, and
roughly in line with what both the House and Senate have passed in
their FY 2014 budget resolutions.
The following are the major components of the $526.6 billion base
budget request for FY 2014:
Military pay and benefits (including TRICARE and
retirement costs)--$170.2 billion (32% of the total base budget);
Operating costs (including $77.3 billion for civilian
pay)--$180.1 billion (34%);
Acquisitions and other investments (Procurement, research,
development, test and evaluation, and new facilities construction)--
$176.3 billion (33%)
The base budget presented today, at its most basic level, consists
of a series of choices that reinforce each of the following
complementary goals:
making more disciplined use of defense resources;
implementing the President's defense strategic guidance;
seeking to sustain the readiness and quality of the all-
volunteer force;
supporting troops deployed and fighting in Afghanistan.
As I discuss each of these goals, I must note that, unfortunately,
many of the reductions we are being forced to make in FY 2013 as a
result of sequester run directly counter to the FY 2014 goals.
1. making more disciplined use of defense resources
In developing the FY 2014 budget, the Department identified about
$34 billion in savings over the current Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP), which covers FY 2014 to FY 2018. These savings were used to
help pay the costs of implementing the new defense strategy and to
accommodate budget reductions.
These efforts continue the Department's approach of the last
several years to first target growing costs in areas of support,
overhead, acquisition, and pay and benefits, before cutting military
capabilities and force structure.
Reducing Support Costs
In order to maintain balance and readiness, the Department of
Defense must be able to eliminate excess infrastructure. Therefore, the
President's FY 2014 budget requests authorization for one round of Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) in 2015. While the commission would meet
in 2015, the actual closing of any bases would involve a multiyear
process that would not begin until 2016.
BRAC is a comprehensive and fair tool that allows communities a
role in re-use decisions for the property and provides redevelopment
assistance. BRAC is an imperfect process, and there are up-front costs
for BRAC, and this FYDP adds $2.4 billion to pay them, but in the long-
term there are significant savings. The previous five rounds of BRAC
are now saving a total of $12 billion annually.
We cannot justify funding unnecessary infrastructure when we are
reducing force structure. Since 2003, DoD has divested more than 100
foreign bases and operations and we are on schedule to close or
consolidate over 20 more overseas operations.
We are also taking other important steps to cut back on support
costs. We have begun a study of our Military Treatment Facilities,
including many hospitals and clinics that are currently underutilized.
By the end of this year we will have a plan in place that suggests how
to reduce that underutilization while still providing high-quality
medical care. This restructuring, coupled with a BRAC round and other
changes, would permit us to plan on a cut in our civilian workforce
that will comply with Congressional direction.
We are also continuing our successful efforts to hold down military
health system costs. Due primarily to changes in payments to health
care providers, our projected costs for FY 2014 are about four percent
lower than those costs in FY 2012, a significant turnaround compared to
health care trends over the past decade. But costs will soon start to
grow again. Therefore, we continue efforts to slow the growth of
medical care costs through actions such as re-phasing military
construction, making full use of past changes in provider costs, taking
advantage of the slowing of growth in medical costs in the private
sector, and modest changes in user fees and co-pays.
Another important initiative is our effort to improve the
Department's financial management and achieve auditable financial
statements. We need auditable statements, both to improve the quality
of our financial information and to reassure the public, and the
Congress, that we are good stewards of public funds. We have a focused
plan and are making progress. Our next goal is audit-ready budget
statements by September 2014. We are working hard to achieve this goal,
though the current budget turmoil is hampering our efforts
significantly. I strongly support this initiative and will do
everything I can to fulfill this commitment.
These and many other changes led to total savings of about $34
billion in FY 2014-2018, including $5.5 billion in FY 2014. However, we
are concerned that these savings from more disciplined use of resources
could be eroded by sequester, as we are forced to make inefficient
choices that drive up costs. Today, for example, we are being forced to
engage in shorter and less efficient contracts and cuts in unit buy
sizes that will increase the unit costs of weapons.
Restructuring and Terminations of Weapons Programs
In this budget, the Department has shifted priorities within its
modernization portfolios and achieved $8.2 billion in savings from
weapons program terminations and restructuring. For example, by
revising the acquisition strategy for the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle
(GCV) program, the Department will save over $2 billion in development
costs. In other cases the Department proposes evolutionary approaches
to develop new capabilities instead of relying on leap-ahead gains in
technology.
For example, the Department:
Realigned investment funding and restructured the SM-3 IIB
interceptor--a high-risk, high-cost system--to improve the capabilities
of existing missile defense systems, resulting in savings of about $2.1
billion during the Future Year Defense Program (FYDP);
Cancelled the Precision Tracking Space Satellite system--
another high-risk project--saving $1.9 billion during the FYDP; the
Department invested a portion of these savings in technology upgrades
to existing ground-based radars and sensors.
To lessen the potential impact on local communities from the
reductions in defense procurement, the Department is requesting an
additional $36 million in support of the Defense Industry Adjustment
program.
The Department is continuing to take steps to tighten the contract
terms and reduce risk in our largest acquisition program, the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter. The FY 2014 budget request includes $8.4 billion
for the Joint Strike Fighter.
Military Pay and Benefits
The costs of military pay and benefits are another significant
driver of spending growth that must be addressed in the current fiscal
environment. In this budget, the Department is submitting a new package
of military compensation proposals that take into consideration
Congressional concerns associated with those from FY 2013. These
changes save about $1.4 billion in FY 2014 and a total of $12.8 billion
in FY 2014-2018
This package includes a modest slowing of the growth of military
pay by implementing a one percent pay raise for service members in
2014. The Department is also seeking additional changes to the TRICARE
program in the FY 2014 budget to bring the beneficiary's cost share
closer to the levels envisioned when the program was implemented--
particularly for working age retirees. Today military retirees
contribute less than 11 percent of their total health care costs,
compared to an average of 27 percent when TRICARE was first fully
implemented in 1996.
The proposed TRICARE changes include:
For retirees, increases in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees,
instituting an enrollment fee for TRICARE Standard/Extra, and
increasing Standard/Extra deductibles.
Implementation of an enrollment fee for new TRICARE-for-
Life beneficiaries, while grandfathering in those who are Medicare-
eligible at enactment.
Increases in pharmacy co-pays and, where appropriate,
mandatory use of mail order delivery of pharmaceuticals.
Indexing of fees, deductibles, co-pays and the
catastrophic cap to the growth in the annual retiree cost-of-living
adjustment.
Survivors of military members who died on active duty or medically
retired members would be excluded from all TRICARE increases. Even
after the proposed changes in fees, TRICARE will remain a generous
benefit--as it should be.
These adjustments to pay and benefits were among the most carefully
considered and difficult choices in the budget. They were made with the
strong support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Senior Enlisted
Leadership, in recognition that in order to sustain these benefits over
the long term without dramatically reducing the size or readiness of
the force, these rising costs need to be brought under control.
2. implementing and deepening our commitment to the president's defense
strategic guidance
Spending reductions on the scale of the current drawdown cannot be
implemented through improving efficiency and reducing overhead alone.
Cuts and changes to capabilities--force structure and modernization
programs--will also be required. The strategic guidance issued in
January 2012 set the priorities and parameters that informed those
choices, and the FY 2014 budget submission further implements and
deepens program alignment to this strategic guidance.
The new strategy calls for a smaller and leaner force. Last year we
proposed reductions of about 100,000 in military end strength between
FY 2012 and FY 2017. Most of those reductions occur in the ground
forces and are consistent with a decision not to size U.S. ground
forces to accomplish prolonged stability operations, while maintaining
adequate capability should such activities again be required. By the
end of FY 2014 we will have completed almost two thirds of the drawdown
of our ground forces, and the drawdown should be fully complete by FY
2017.
Last year DoD submitted proposals for changes in Air Force and Navy
force structure; some were rejected by Congress. We continue to
believe, however, that these reductions are consistent with our defense
strategy and the need to hold down costs. Therefore, DoD is
resubmitting several proposals from its FY 2013 budget submission that
were not supported by Congress, including the retirement of seven Aegis
cruisers and two amphibious ships at the end of FY 2014 when funds
appropriated for their operation run out. Despite the growing
importance of the Asia-Pacific--a mostly maritime theater--the high
costs of maintaining these older ships relative to their capabilities
argues strongly for their retirement.
The FY 2014 budget continues implementation of the Air Force total
force proposal included in the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization
Act. In response to state and congressional concerns about proposed
reductions to the Air National Guard that DoD made in the original FY
2013 budget, the Department added back 44 aircraft to the Guard, 30
aircraft to the Air Force Reserve, and is taking away 31 aircraft from
the active Air Force.
These shifts were forced primarily by political realities, not
strategy or analysis. While this active-reserve compromise allows the
Air Force to move forward with prior year retirements and transfers,
and approved mission changes for many reserve units, it does require
the Department to retain excess aircraft capacity. The Department's
position continues to be that retaining excess air capacity in the
reserve component is an unnecessary expenditure of government funds
that detracts from more pressing military priorities outlined in the
defense strategic guidance.
Increased emphasis on the Asia-Pacific and Middle East represents
another key tenet of the new defense strategic guidance. This budget
continues to put a premium on rapidly deployable, self-sustaining
forces--such as submarines, long-range bombers, and carrier strike
groups--that can project power over great distance and carry out a
variety of missions.
This new strategy not only recognizes the changing character of the
conflicts in which the U.S. must prevail, but also leverages new
concepts of operation enabled by advances in space, cyberspace, special
operations, global mobility, precision-strike, missile defense, and
other capabilities.
3. seeking to sustain the readiness and quality of the all-volunteer
force
The high-quality of our all-volunteer force continues to be the
foundation of our military strength. This budget seeks to ensure that
our troops receive the training and equipment they need for military
readiness, and the world-class support programs they and their families
have earned. However, as in other areas of the budget, the steep and
abrupt cuts caused by the FY 2013 sequester has harmed these programs.
The remainder of this discussion outlines the goals of the FY 2014
budget, but they would be significantly impacted if sequester-level
cuts persist.
Readiness Investments
Even in the face of flat and declining defense toplines, this
budget seeks to press ahead with the transition from a
counterinsurgency-focused force to a force ready and capable of
operating across a full range of operations across the globe. The
service budgets all fund initiatives that seek to return to full-
spectrum training and preparation for missions beyond current
operations in Afghanistan.
The Department continues its work to understand and quantify
readiness activities as we seek to maximize our preparedness for real-
world missions. We do not yet know the costs of fixing the readiness of
the force following the six months of sequester cuts to training in
this fiscal year. Therefore these costs are not included in the FY 2014
budget.
Family Support Programs
The Department's budget submission makes clear that people are
central to everything we do. While sequester cuts would unfortunately
counter many of these initiatives, especially for our civilian
workforce, the initiatives remain important statements of the intent in
this budget.
The Department continues to support key programs in FY 2014 that
support service members and their families, spending $8.5 billion on
initiatives that include:
Transition Assistance and Veteran's Employment Assurance--
the Department continues to support the Transition Assistance Program
(TAP) to ensure every service member receives training, education, and
credentials needed to successfully transition to the civilian
workforce.
Family Readiness--the Department continues to ensure that
family support is a high priority by redesigning and boosting family
support in a number of ways.
The Department is also providing support to our people with a
number of other important initiatives, including:
Behavioral Health--the Department maintains funding for
psychological health programs and expands those programs that are most
effective, such as Embedded Behavioral Health, to provide improved
access to care, improved continuity of care, and enhanced behavioral
health provider communication.
Suicide Prevention--the Department continues to implement
recommendations from the Suicide Prevention Task Force and act on other
findings from think tanks, the National Action Alliance's National
Suicide Prevention Strategy, and DoD and Department of Veteran's
Affairs (VA) Integrated Mental Health Strategy (IMHS).
Another area of focus has been Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response. I have no tolerance for sexual assault in the military. This
is a terrible scourge in our military and it must end. It will end. We
will fix it. I have directed a number of initiatives to advance DoD's
efforts to prevent and respond to the crime of sexual assault, along
five lines of effort:
Accountability
I directed DoD's Acting General Counsel to propose to the
Congress changes to Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) that would eliminate the ability of a convening authority to
change findings in courts-martial, except for certain minor offenses.
These changes would also require the convening authority to explain in
writing any changes made to court-martial sentences, as well as any
changes to findings involving minor offenses. These changes, if
enacted, would help ensure that our military justice system works
fairly, ensures due process, and is accountable.
I have also directed the Service Chiefs to develop methods
to evaluate military commanders' performance in establishing command
climates of dignity and respect and in incorporating sexual assault
prevention and victim care principles in their commands. This includes
providing commanders the results of their subordinate's annual command
climate surveys in order to enhance accountability and improve insight
in command climate at every level of the chain of command.
I have named a set of highly respected and experienced
experts to serve on a panel called for in the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY 2013. The panel will conduct an independent
review and assessment of DOD's systems used to investigate, prosecute
and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault and related
offenses. It will convene its first meeting no later than July 1st. I
have spoken to the panel and asked it to accelerate its work and
provide a final recommendation within 12 months.
Prevention
I have directed the complete and thorough review of
credentials and qualifications for DoD's sexual assault victim
advocates, coordinators, and recruiters.
I have directed DoD to improve the effectiveness of Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) programs in recruiting
organizations.
I have directed DoD component heads to direct
comprehensive and regular visual inspections of all DoD workplaces to
include military academies to ensure that our facilities promote an
environment of dignity and respect for all members and are free from
materials that create a degrading or offensive work environment.
Investigation
Consistent with the FY 2012 and FY 2013 National Defense
Authorization Acts, DoD has established new policies to retain
restricted and unrestricted reports for 50 years, and is developing
policy for Special Victim Capability, which includes standards and
training for prosecutors and investigators.
Advocacy
DoD has implemented a sexual assault crisis intervention
line, the DoD Safe Helpline, to give victims 24/7 global access to
crisis support staff, implemented an expedited transfer policy for
victims requesting transfer to a new unit, and expanded emergency care
and services to DoD civilians stationed abroad.
I have directed the Service Secretaries to implement
methods to improve victim treatment by their peers, coworkers, and
chains of command. Direct victim input will also be incorporated into
these methods.
Assessment
DoD has added sexual assault questions to DoD Command
Climate Surveys and implemented policy to conduct assessments within
120 days for new commanders and annually thereafter, consistent with
the FY 13 NDAA.
I have begun holding a weekly review and progress meeting
on DoD's various sexual assault directives to ensure that they are
bringing about real change.
I receive weekly updates on the Department's prevention efforts in
regularly scheduled weekly meetings. I also have an individual on my
personal staff that I have tasked to oversee all of these directives
and Department-wide efforts.
Everyone in this department at every level of command will continue
to work together every day to establish an environment of dignity and
respect, where sexual assault is not tolerated, condoned or ignored,
where there is clear accountability placed on all leaders at every
level. The leadership of this department has no higher priority than
the safety and welfare of our men and women in uniform, and that
includes ensuring they are free from the threat of sexual harassment
and sexual assault. I will continue as Secretary of Defense to
prioritize the Department's efforts to turn this problem around.
4. supporting troops deployed and fighting overseas
The amendment to the FY 2014 President's budget includes $79.4
billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Military operations
in Afghanistan comprise a significant portion of the OCO request. Over
the course of the year, American forces in Afghanistan are moving into
a support role as Afghan forces take the lead. By February 2014, half
of our troops there will have returned home, and by December 2014,
United States' combat operations in Afghanistan will have ended. Still,
the United States will maintain a commitment to Afghanistan's
sovereignty and security, and we will continue to equip, train, advise,
and assist the Afghan National Forces; support economic development and
governance efforts; and pursue al Qaeda and its affiliated groups.
Of the total OCO request, $78.1 billion is for activities in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and $1.3 billion is for
finalizing transition activities in Iraq.
the way ahead: strategic choices and management review
The FY 2014 budget is a reflection of DoD's best efforts to match
ends, ways, and means during a period of intense fiscal uncertainty. It
is a balanced plan that would address some of the Department's
structural costs and internal budget imbalances while implementing the
President's defense strategic guidance and keeping faith with our men
and women in uniform and their families.
It is obvious that significant changes to the Department's top-line
spending would require changes to this budget plan. The Department must
be prepared for any additional reductions to the defense budget that
might result from Congress and the Administration agreeing on a deficit
reduction plan, and it must be prepared in the event that sequester-
level cuts persist for another year or over the long-term.
Consequently, earlier this year I directed a Strategic Choices and
Management Review (SCMR) in order to assess the potential impact of
further reductions up to the level of full sequester. The purpose of
the SCMR is to re-assess the basic assumptions that drive the
Department's investment and force structure decisions and to search for
additional management efficiencies.
It is designed to help understand the challenges, articulate the
risks, and look for opportunities for reform and efficiencies presented
by resource constraints. Everything is on the table during this
review--roles and missions, planning, business practices, force
structure, personnel and compensation, acquisition and modernization
investments, how we operate, and how we measure and maintain readiness.
I have received the initial internal results of the SCMR and am
reviewing them now. The results will inform our planning for FY 2014 as
well as our FY 2015 budget request, and will they be the foundation for
the Quadrennial Defense Review due to Congress in February 2014.
It is already clear to me that achieving significant additional
budget savings without unacceptable risk to national security will
require not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and
practices but, if necessary, fashioning entirely new ones that better
reflect 21st century realities. And that will require the partnership
of Congress.
The FY 2014 budget and the ones before it have made hard choices.
In many cases, modest reforms to personnel and benefits, along with
efforts to reduce infrastructure and restructure acquisition programs,
met fierce political resistance and were not implemented.
We are now in a different fiscal environment dealing with new
realities that will force us to more fully confront these tough and
painful choices, and to make the reforms we need to put this Department
on a path to sustain our military strength for the 21st century. But in
order to do that we will need flexibility, time, and some budget
certainty.
We will also need to fund the military capabilities that are
necessary for the complex security threats of the 21st century. I
believe the President's budget does that. With the partnership of
Congress, the Defense Department can continue to find new ways to
operate more affordably, efficiently, and effectively. However,
multiple reviews and analyses show that additional major cuts--
especially those on the scale and timeline of sequestration--would
require dramatic reductions in core military capabilities or the scope
of our activities around the world.
As the executive and legislative branches of government, we have a
shared responsibility to ensure that we protect national security and
America's strategic interests. Doing so requires that we make every
decision on the basis of enduring national interests and make sure
every policy is worthy of the service and sacrifice of our service
members and their families.
Chairman Ryan. Absolutely. General Dempsey.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GEN MARTIN E. DEMPSEY, CHAIRMAN,
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
General Dempsey. Thank you, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member
Van Hollen, distinguished members of the Committee. Thanks for
the opportunity to come before you today and discuss the fiscal
year 2014 budget. This hearing comes at a time of extraordinary
uncertainty, as Secretary of Defense mentioned. Risks to our
nation's security are increasing, but the resources for and the
readiness of our force is decreasing. The will to win of our
service men and women remains undaunted, but the means to
prepare to win are more uncertain every day.
This budget was purpose-built to keep our nation immune
from coercion. It is a responsible investment in an unrivaled
joint force that is ready with options for that dangerous and
uncertain future. It supports our forward-deployed operations,
upholds funding for emerging capabilities such as cyber, and it
resources the conventional and nuclear forces that have proven
so essential and effective to our defense.
Most importantly, it protects our real decisive edge, which
is our people. It treats being the best-led, best-trained, and
best-equipped military as the non-negotiable imperative. It
also makes sure our wounded warriors and their families receive
world-class care, family and medical services that are worthy
of their service to the nation.
Now, there are some things that this budget does not do. It
does not reflect full sequestration. Rather, it imposes less
reduction and gives us more time to implement new reductions.
The consequences of full sequestration and its attended risks
to our national security will gain clarity in the weeks ahead
due to the Secretary of Defense's strategic choices management
review. As you know, the Senate has actually asked us--tasked
us to provide our assessment on the impact to the joint force
by 1 July.
Nor does this budget account for the costs of restoring
lost readiness. We do not yet know the full cost to recover
from the readiness shortfalls that we have imposed this year.
As expected, we continue to curtail or cancel training and
exercises across all services for units that are not about to
deploy, and as a result, we are less everyday for an unforeseen
crisis or for an unpredictable contingency operation. In
effect, we are foreclosing on options.
It is also more expensive to become ready than it is to
stay ready. This means that the cost to recover our lost
readiness will inevitably compete with the cost that we
anticipate in building the joint force we need in 2020. As our
military power potentially becomes less sustainable, it becomes
less credible. We risk breaking commitments and losing the
confidence of partners and allies of the defense industrial
base, and, more importantly, of our men and women in uniform
and their families.
Now, that outcome is not inevitable. Working together, we
can and must uphold the readiness and the health of the force
at an affordable cost. To do that, as we have discussed in the
past, we need three things. We need the certainty of a
predictable funding stream, that is to say, a reliable top-
line. We also need the time to implement tradeoffs, tradeoffs
in forestructure, modernization, compensation, and readiness,
and we need the full flexibility to keep the force in balance.
We simply cannot afford to postpone essential reforms to
compensation, health care, and to the institution at large.
These should be allowed to grow more gradually, and, in some
cases, to shrink. We should stop pouring money into excess
facilities and unwanted weapons systems, and real institutional
reform is the only way to avoid repeating the mistakes of past
drawdowns; and we do have experience in past drawdowns, and we
do know where the mistakes await us.
We have an opportunity and an obligation with this and any
future budget to restore confidence. We have it within
ourselves to stay strong as a global leader and a reliable
partner. Thank you to members of this Committee for all you
have done for our men and women in uniform in the past, and I
look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Dempsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of GEN Martin E. Dempsey, USA,
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
i. introduction
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and distinguished
Committee Members, it is my privilege to update you on the state of the
US Armed Forces and to comment on the President's budget proposal for
fiscal year (FY) 2014.
This year's posture testimony comes in the context of extraordinary
uncertainty. Our Nation is going through an historic fiscal correction
to restore the economic foundation of our power. As resources decline,
risks to our national security interests rise. A more competitive
security environment compounds these risks, increasing the probability
and consequences of aggression.
This context calls out for our leadership. We can and must find it
within ourselves to stay strong as a global leader and reliable
partner. We must restore lost readiness and continue to make
responsible investments in our Nation's defense.
ii. strategic direction to the joint force
A year ago, I established four priorities to help guide our Joint
Force through this period of uncertainty. Our way forward must be
rooted in a renewed commitment to the Profession of Arms. This means
preserving an uncommon profession that is without equal in both its
competence and its character. Along the way, we must keep faith with
our Military Family. This means honoring the commitments we have made
to our service members and their families. They deserve the future they
sacrificed so much to secure.
These two priorities serve as a source of strength for the Joint
Force as we achieve our national objectives in current conflicts. This
means achieving our campaign objectives in Afghanistan while
confronting aggression toward America and its allies in all its forms,
wherever and whenever it arises. It also means helping to secure the
flow of commerce in the global commons, building the capacity of our
partners, providing humanitarian assistance, and maintaining a credible
nuclear deterrent.
These three priorities enable us to understand and develop the
Joint Force of 2020. Our ability to build the force we will need
tomorrow depends on the decisions we make today. This is a defining
period in a defining year. Ensuring our future military is unrivaled
and sustainable requires the right mix between current capacity and new
capabilities. We must recapitalize current equipment where possible and
modernize capabilities that preserve our decisive advantages.
iii. joint force operations
One thing has been certain over the last year--the Joint Force
stood strong and responded to the Nation's call. After more than a
decade of continual deployments and tough fighting, I remain humbled by
the resilience and determination of our warriors.
In the past year, our service men and women have simultaneously
fought, transitioned, and redeployed from Afghanistan. Never before
have we retrograded so much combat power and equipment while continuing
combat operations. Our forces performed superbly, transitioning to
Afghan security lead in areas comprising over 85% of the population. In
the process, we redeployed over 30,000 US troops, closed over 600
bases, and preserved Coalition cohesion. We were challenged by
``insider attacks,'' but responded the way professional militaries do.
We assessed and adapted. We reaffirmed our partnerships and moved
forward jointly with more stringent force protection and vetting
procedures.
Transition continues. In the weeks ahead, the Afghanistan National
Security Forces will assume operational lead across all of Afghanistan.
This milestone represents an important achievement on the Lisbon
roadmap, reaffirmed at the Chicago Summit in 2012. At the same time,
the International Security Assistance Force will transition primarily
to training and advising. We are also working with NATO and the Afghan
government on options for an enduring presence beyond 2014 to reinforce
Afghan security and maintain pressure on transnational terrorists.
When I testified last year, the effects of the November 2011 border
incident with Pakistan were still fresh, and tensions were as high as
any time since the Osama bin Laden raid. Measured, but steady civilian-
military engagement with Pakistani leadership led to the reopening of
the Ground Lines of Communication in July 2012. We are gradually
rebuilding our relationship as reflected in the recent signing of a
tripartite border document to standardize complementary cross-border
operations--and will continue to do so with Pakistan's new leadership
following its historic election last month.
The Joint Force has been vigilant well beyond South Asia and around
the world. We continue to help deter aggression and counter the
increasingly bold provocations from North Korea and Iran. We are
supporting Syria's neighbors in their efforts to contain spillover
violence while providing assistance to help with refugees. And, we are
ready with options if military force is called for--and can be used
effectively--to secure US national interests in Syria without making
the situation worse.
Along with our interagency partners, we are also postured to
detect, deter, and defeat cyber-attacks against government and critical
infrastructure targets. We are part of interagency and multinational
efforts to counter transnational crime. And, we remain relentless in
our pursuit of al-Qa'ida and other violent extremist organizations,
directly and through our partners. This includes al-Qa'ida-Arabian
Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen and, working with French and African
partners, al-Qa'ida in the Islamic Magreb (AQIM).
Finally, in the context of a ``new normal''--where the diffusion of
power fuels insecurity and unrest--we continue to support reform across
the Middle East and North Africa through military-to-military
exercises, exchanges, and security assistance. We are also adjusting
global force posture to reflect these risks in the context of our
rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region.
iv. our joint force today
We have an experienced, combat-tested force. Never has our nation
sustained such a lengthy period of war solely through the service of an
All-Volunteer military, which proudly celebrates its 40-year
anniversary July 1st, 2013. Our warriors' will to win is undaunted, but
the means to prepare to win are becoming uncertain. Military readiness
is at risk due to the convergence of several budget factors. These same
factors compound risk to the wellness of the Joint Force and our
Military Family. As I testified in April, we need the help of our
elected leaders to gain budget certainty, time, and flexibility.
Few have borne more of war's burden than our Military Family. For
twelve relentless years, our service men and women have answered our
Nation's call with unsurpassed courage and skill. Many have fallen or
been grievously wounded in the service of our Country. We honor them
most by caring for their families and for those who have come home with
wounds seen and unseen.
We are unfailing in our praise for the sacrifices of our warriors
in battle.
But for so many of our veterans, returning home is a new type of
frontline in their struggle. We cannot cut corners on their healthcare.
We must continue to invest in world-class treatments for mental health
issues, traumatic brain injury, and combat stress. Stigma and barriers
to seeking mental health services must be reduced.
Suicide is a tragic consequence for far too many. As a Nation, we
have a shared responsibility to address this urgent issue with the same
devotion we have shown to protecting the lives of our forces while in
combat. The Department is working closely with our interagency partners
and the White House to increase our understanding of the factors
leading to suicide and how to best leverage care networks to keep our
Veterans alive.
The risks inherent to military service must not include the risk of
sexual assault. We cannot allow sexual assault to undermine the
cohesion, discipline, and trust that gives us strength. Therefore,
working closely with the Secretary of Defense and Congress, we are
examining the best ways to leverage additional education, training, and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We are exploring every option,
and we are open to every idea, that will help eliminate this crime from
our ranks. As I testified last week, we are acting swiftly and
deliberately to accelerate institutional change--to better protect
victims, to prevent and respond to predatory and high-risk behaviors,
and to ensure a professional work environment while at the same time
preserving the right of the accused. We will not shrink from our legal
and moral obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.
Future success relies on opening our ranks to all of America's
talent. The Joint Chiefs and I have supported the expansion of service
opportunities for women. This decision better aligns our policies with
our experience in war, and it serves to strengthen the Joint Force.
Consistent with the law, we also extended some benefits to the same-sex
domestic partners of service members. We are implementing both
initiatives deliberately across all Services to ensure we uphold
essential standards, guard against potential risks, and avoid creating
new inequities for other members of the Joint Force.
Keeping faith with our Military Family will take a mutual
commitment from fellow veterans and a grateful Nation. The next few
years will define how we, as a Nation, view the 9/11 generation of
veterans. America's future All-Volunteer force is watching.
They are also watching as we inflict risk on ourselves. With $487
billion in planned reductions already reflected in the Department's FY
2013 budget, sequestration's additional cuts jeopardize readiness not
only this year, but also for many years to come. We cannot fail to
resource the war we are still fighting. At the same time, we cannot
compromise on readiness in the face of an uncertain and dangerous
future. Our Joint Force must begin to reconnect with family while
resetting and refitting war-torn equipment. It must retrain on the
full-spectrum skills that have atrophied while developing new skills
required for emerging threats. There are no shortcuts to a strong
national defense.
When budget uncertainty is combined with the mechanism and
magnitude of sequestration, the consequences lead to a security gap--
vulnerability against future threats to our national security
interests. And, as our military power becomes less sustainable, it
becomes less credible. We risk breaking commitments to our partners and
allies, our defense industrial base, and our men and women in uniform
and their families.
This outcome is not inevitable. We can maintain the readiness and
health of the force at an affordable cost, although this gets
increasingly harder to do as uncertainty persists. But, we need help
from our elected leaders to keep the force in balance and avert the
strategic errors of past drawdowns. To this end, the Joint Chiefs and I
continue to request your support for certainty, time, and flexibility.
Most importantly, we need long-term budget certainty--a steady,
predictable funding stream. While the passage of the FY 2013
Appropriations Act provided relief from the Continuing Resolution,
uncertainty over the FY 2014 topline budget and the full effects of FY
2013 sequestration remains. Last month, we submitted an amendment to
the FY 2014 President's budget that includes $79.4 billion for overseas
contingency operations (OCO) to support Operation ENDURING FREEDOM--
mostly in Afghanistan--as well as finalizing the transition in Iraq. We
also submitted a reprogramming request designed to offset our most
critical FY 2013 shortfalls, especially in wartime funding. We
appreciate your expedited review and support of both requests, which
will bring important near-term budget certainty and help reduce our
most urgent OCO shortfalls.
Additionally, we need the time to deliberately evaluate trade-offs
in force structure, modernization, compensation, and readiness to keep
the Force in balance. We do not yet know the full FY 2013 impact in
these areas as we make key decisions about FY 2014 and beyond. Finally,
we continue to seek the full flexibility to keep the force in balance.
Budget reductions of this magnitude require more than just transfer
authority and follow-on reprogramming authority. Everything must be on
the table--military and civilian force reductions; basing and
facilities; pay and compensation; and the mix among active, Reserve,
and National Guard units.
There are no easy solutions, and no way to avoid sacrifices and
risks as we work together to make the hard choices. But, the FY 2014
budget proposal helps us rebalance and strengthen readiness through
these hard but necessary choices. It enables us to lower manpower
costs, reduce unneeded infrastructure, and shed ineffective acquisition
programs while maintaining support for the responsible drawdown of our
military presence in Afghanistan. It provides an equitable and
practical 2014 military pay raise of one-percent while protecting
important education, counseling, and wounded warrior programs. Proposed
infrastructure reductions include a request for BRAC authorization in
FY 2015, although any closures would take multiple years and not begin
until 2016. We simply cannot afford to keep infrastructure and weapons
we do not need without getting the reforms we do need.
v. a joint force for 2020
The budget decisions we are making now will indicate whether we
view our future Joint Force as an investment or an expense.
America is unmatched in its ability to employ power in defense of
national interests, but we have little margin for error. An unforeseen
crisis, or a contingency operation, could generate requirements that
exceed the capacity of our immediately available forces. We are able to
deter threats, assure partners, and defeat adversaries when we do so
from a position of strength.
We remain strong--and our Nation is secure--because we treat being
the best led, trained, and equipped force as a non-negotiable
imperative.
The secret to sustaining our strength with this or any future
budget is simple--preserve investment in readiness, prioritize
investment in people, and protect investment in decisive capabilities.
Now, several months since the Joint Chiefs expressed deep concern about
a readiness crisis, we continue to curtail or cancel training and
exercises across all Services for units not about to deploy. The costs
of recovering lost readiness are going up by the day. Inevitably,
recovery in the years to come will compete with the costs of building
Joint Force 2020.
It is our people that make us the most capable military in the
world. They are our best hedge against threats to our homeland and
interests abroad.
By 2020, we will require even greater technical talent in our
ranks. But, developing technological skill must occur in concert with
leader and character development. We must resist the temptation to
scale back on education, including languages and cultural knowledge.
Military service must continue to be our Nation's preeminent leadership
experience. It is more important than ever to get the most from the
potential and performance of every service member.
Investing in people is not just about their development and
readiness. It is also about the commitment we make to their families.
Unsustainable costs and smaller budgets mean we must examine every
warrior and family support program to make sure we are getting the best
return on our investment.
We need to reform pay and compensation to reduce costs while making
sure we recruit and retain the best America has to offer. We must also
balance our commitment to provide quality, accessible health care with
better management and essential reform to get escalating costs under
control. The FY 2014 budget would help control rising health care costs
by initiating a restructuring of medical facilities to make them more
efficient, without sacrificing quality or continuity of care, and by
proposing fee adjustments that exempt disabled retirees, survivors of
service members who died on active duty, and their family members. The
Department of Defense is also working with Veterans Affairs to find
efficiencies across health care systems.
As we work to get the people right, we must also sustain our
investment in decisive capabilities. The FY 2014 budget continues to
fund long-term capabilities that sustain our edge against resourceful
and innovative enemies, while maintaining critical investments in
science and technology, and research and development programs.
Emerging capabilities, once on the margins, must move to the
forefront and be fully integrated with our general purpose forces.
Special Operations Forces, for example, have played an increasingly
consequential role over the past ten years. We have expanded their
ranks considerably during this timeframe, and now we must continue to
improve the quality of their personnel and capabilities.
Closely linked are our intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capabilities--from sensors to analysts. We will continue
to rely on proven systems designed for the low threat environments of
Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, we must also develop and field
sensors designed to penetrate and survive in high-threat areas. They
will expand our ability to access and assess hard-to-reach targets.
This budget also sustains our investment in cyber, in part by
expanding the cyber forces led by the U.S. Cyber Command. Despite
significant investment and progress in the past year, the threat
continues to outpace us, placing the Nation at risk. The FY 2014 budget
increases funding for cyber security information sharing, but we need
legislation to allow the private sector and U.S. interagency to share
real-time cyber threat information--within a framework of privacy and
civil liberty safeguards. In parallel, we must establish and adopt
standards for protecting critical infrastructure.
The development and integration of these emerging capabilities will
by no means amount to all that is new in Joint Force 2020. They must be
integrated with our foundational and impressive conventional force
capabilities. The FY 2014 budget protects several areas where
reinvestment in existing systems--such as the C-130, F-16, and the
Army's Stryker combat vehicle--sustains our competitive advantage. All
are backed by our asymmetric advantages in long-range strike, global
mobility, logistics, space, and undersea warfare. And, they must be
connected with a secure, mobile, and collaborative command and control
network.
This combination of increasingly powerful network capabilities and
agile units at the tactical edge is a powerful complement to leadership
at every echelon. It provides the basis to project both discrete and
overwhelming power across multiple domains. It gives policymakers and
commanders alike a greater degree of flexibility in how they pursue
objectives.
As we set priorities and implement reductions, we must rely more
on--and invest more in--our other instruments of national power to help
underwrite global security. Fewer defense dollars only adds to the
importance of relationships among defense, diplomacy, and development.
When the political and economic foundations of our bilateral
relationships are under stress, our military-to-military ties can serve
as a model of professionalism and restraint for foreign militaries, and
often help provide a channel for continued dialogue. Advancing American
interests not only requires integration across all instruments of
national power, but it also requires that our international partners
accept a greater share of the risk and responsibility. Some are more
ready and willing to do that than others.
vi. conclusion
Although I am confident the Joint Force today can marshal resources
for any specific contingency, our goal is to be able to offer military
options that restore and maintain readiness while putting US national
security on a sustainable path to 2020 and beyond. To do this, we must
recruit and retain the most talented people. We must invest in their
competence and character so they can leverage emerging and existing
capabilities in our defense. It is an investment our predecessors made
in decades past. We must do the same.
Our consistent first line of defense has been and always will be
our people. They are our greatest strength. We will rely on our war-
tested leaders to think and innovate as we navigate the challenges and
opportunities that lie ahead. We need to seize the moment to think
differently and to be different. But, we cannot do it alone. We need
the help of our elected officials to give us the certainty, time, and
flexibility to make change. Otherwise, the cuts that have already
diminished our readiness will only get deeper, and the risks we will
have to accept in the years to come will only increase.
We can and must stay strong in the face of declining budgets and
rising risk. We must have the courage to make the difficult choices
about our investments, about our people, and about our way of war. The
Secretary's Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR) is helping
to identify options and opportunities as we move forward in partnership
with Congress.
We have been down this road before. We can lead through this
uncertainty and manage the transition to a more secure and prosperous
future. I know your Nation's military leaders are ready--as is every
single Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Coastguardsman--to give
their last breath to defend America and her allies.
Please accept my thanks to this Committee and Congress for all you
have done to support our men and women in uniform. Together, we serve
our Nation.
Chairman Ryan. Okay. Since we are keeping all of ourselves
at three minutes, I will try and be as quick as I can here.
Secretary Hagel, last week, the House passed the MILCON, the
Military Construction Appropriations bill, by a vote of 421 to
four. The Administration then released a statement of
administration policy saying that, quote, ``Unless this bill
passes the Congress in the context of an overall budget
framework, meaning one that supports the president's plan to
increase non-Defense discretionary spending, the president's
senior advisors would recommend a veto,'' unquote.
We are meeting the number that was requested by the
Administration. Are you among the senior advisors recommending
a veto on that bill? And then the second follow-up is, today,
the House is marking up the DoD appropriations bill again,
basically meeting the Administration's number. Are you going to
recommend a veto of that as well?
Secretary Hagel. First, Mr. Chairman, I have not been asked
for my opinion on whether the president should veto the bill or
not. My, as you know, responsibility is this department, and
that is where I stay focused. If I am asked for my thoughts on
the overall budget, then I will give them to him, but I have
not been asked for those.
Chairman Ryan. But if Congress passes appropriation bills
hitting the numbers you are asking for, it is a good idea that
they would be signed into law, would you not agree?
Secretary Hagel. Well, the numbers that we have been asked
for the Congress to give us, as you have noted, are our budget.
But the president has to make a decision on the entire
framework of the total budget.
Chairman Ryan. One more, or two more, actually. 1:22 left.
Okay, in April 2011, I recall the president putting out a
speech where he mentioned the number that he was going to hit,
487, for the Pentagon. Then in January 2012, Secretary Panetta
announced the strategy review to comport to that number. This
year, the budget says we are going to go $120 billion lower
than the number that General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta came
here and testified for, and now, you are engaging the strategic
choices and management review.
It seems to me that we have got here a budget-driven
strategy, not a strategy-driven budget. I do not know how one
can conclude other than that. That is point number one.
Point number two, do you have any reactions you can give us
with respect to any of the findings that you have had from this
review? What are the new things that you can do without
jeopardizing this mission to meet that 120 number you have put
out there that does not contradict what last year General
Dempsey and Secretary Panetta said was the bottom line, bargain
basement, lowest number we could get to?
Secretary Hagel. First, I have just testified, and have
been testifying to this fact the last two months, that I
support the president's Fiscal Year 2014 budget, as do all the
senior uniform military leaders in the Department of Defense.
We support that budget because we believe that the national
security interests of this country can be fulfilled with that
budget.
The strategic choices management review was not about the
2014 budget or reviewing that budget. That review was done
based on sequestration, the reality of the numbers that we are
dealing with as I have just noted and this committee knows; not
hope, not possibilities, not budgets, not theory but reality,
law, and what is the prospect, the possibility of sequestration
continuing. Of course, as I have said, that will affect our
strategic interests; that will affect operations. So what that
review was about, not questioning the president's budget, but
was to prepare, if we must, the Pentagon to deal with this new
reality of sequestration and these numbers.
Chairman Ryan. There is no justification of 120. It is a
review of what might come to pass if these things occur.
Secretary Hagel. That is right, because we cannot turn this
big ship around in a month or two, as you know.
Chairman Ryan. Well, since I am going to be enforcing the
time limits, I better live by them. I will probably follow up,
I have got some Afghanistan questions I wanted to ask you in
writing about metrics in violence, but, Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank all of you
for your testimonies. As a member of Congress who was one of
the 426 who voted for the Military Construction and Veterans
Appropriations bill, I fully support the president's or the
White House recommendation to veto a legislation if it is in
the context of adopting the House Republican budget because
this chart shows exactly what the House Republican budget would
do.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
If you see the green-shaded items, the top one is Defense,
the other are other security-related parts of the budget, they
would increase those parts of the budget relative to the middle
line, which is the 2013 sequester. How did they do that in
their budget? By cutting things dramatically in other parts of
the budget. So, that last bar, that is the funding for our
kids' education, research at National Institutes of Health;
they would cut that almost 20 percent below the sequester.
So what the president is saying is, ``I want a budget plan
and appropriation bills that meet all our needs.'' Yes, the
Defense Appropriations bill and the president's is actually a
little higher than the Defense bill coming out of the House.
But he also understands we need to meet other important parts
of our national requirements. And interestingly, the way to
resolve this issue, Mr. Secretary, is for us to go to
conference so we can resolve these, come to a negotiated
settlement, which is why even Senator McCain has said that the
refusal of our Republican colleagues to go to conference is,
quote, ``insane,'' and, quote, ``incomprehensible.'' And he is
not alone. I know a lot of our colleagues here wonder why,
after all these years of complaining the Senate did not have a
budget, that they refuse to go conference.
So if we went to conference, we could actually resolve some
of these issues, and then we could come together on a common
plan for the country that funds our security requirements and
funds our kids' education. And so I would suggest that we get
on with that right away. Let us go to conference.
I have a question about OCO because as I look at even the
fiscal year 2014 OCO request, I actually see some items in
there that I think are more associated with sort of peacetime
defense than wartime defense. For example, there is some
peacetime flying costs, as was testified to by the Chief of the
Air Force, General Welsh. So I understand how the desire, as we
reduce our footprint in Afghanistan, to try to provide
flexibility, but we should not be doing that by putting in the
OCO account things that really should be in the base account.
My question relates to the OCO request from all of you, and
from the president of the United States, the commander-in-
chief, and he has put forward a request in his budget; the
House Republican budget exceeds that president's request by $5
billion. And my question to you is, does the Administration's
request reflect what you believe is necessary for our overseas
wartime operations and for OCO account operations?
Secretary Hagel. Well, what I believe, in consultation with
our military leaders, that the budget that we presented, the
president's budget, $526 billion baseline, $79 billion OCO, is
the sufficient budget to carry out our strategic interests, and
that is the budget that we have been testifying to, we have
been explaining, we have been going into great detail as to why
we believe what we believe.
Mr. Van Hollen. General Dempsey, if I could just, on the
record, does the OCO request that was made, in your judgment,
satisfy our military requirements for OCO?
General Dempsey. Yes, it does, but this year's request
proved inadequate to the task. I mean, we have to have some
understanding of trying to predict the future two years out.
But yes.
Mr. Van Hollen. But just to, your 2014 request, in your
best judgment, reflects the needs?
General Dempsey. Yes.
Chairman Ryan. And as you know, the president's budget came
three months late, so we had to put our own number up with
their guidance. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Before that chart goes down, I would
just point out to the members that those bottom four bars, all
of them, all of them, are significantly higher domestic
discretionary spending than they were '06/'08 level, so we have
got a ways to go.
I got a lot of questions. Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome
and the General, and I hope I get to some numbers, but I want
to talk very briefly about the issue of Syria. I would suggest
to you that our whole strategy of leading from behind is not
working there. The Russians continue to support President
Assad, and Russia has reiterated its intent to provide an S-300
air defense system to Syria. What would the U.S. do if Russia
provides the S-300 to Syria?
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, the president has asked the
Department of Defense, be prepared for all options and
contingencies that he may choose.
Mr. Price. So what is our plan to mitigate that threat?
Secretary Hagel. Well, we have contingency plans and
options that I do not want to discuss in an open hearing, but
the efforts that are ongoing to try to stop the violence and
contain it from not allowing it to get into a regional
conflict, which it is already spilling over into the borders,
as you know, of Israel and Jordan and Iraq, and working with
the Russians, working with others, working with our allies. I
was in Belgium last week, met with NATO ministers of defense,
with the British, with the French, worked with our partners on
this.
Mr. Price. We just want to encourage you, Mr. Secretary, to
make certain that we are mitigating the threat to Israel
significantly, and I want to move on because I have got a short
amount of time.
Secretary Hagel. And we are, by the way.
Mr. Price. The Senate Democratic budget that has been
touted here, and we are interested in going to conference; we
need to set some parameters before we get there. Otherwise, it
is just a free-for-all that does not accomplish anything. But
the Senate Democratic budget provides no funding, no funding,
for OCO or GWAT after Fiscal Year 2015. Do you anticipate that
there are going to be any U.S. troops in Afghanistan after
2015?
Secretary Hagel. Well, the president has made it very clear
that we are transitioning out of a lead combat role in
Afghanistan to a post-2014 role. But we will have presence in
Afghanistan. He has said that. That is his policy.
Mr. Price. So the fact of the matter is the Senate
Democratic budget does not take into account the president's
own policy as it relates to Afghanistan.
Secretary Hagel. I do not speak for the Senate Democrats.
Mr. Price. But if they do not have any money, then there is
no money to support the troops that the president proposes to
be there.
Secretary Hagel. We have not submitted a budget request for
2015, we will, or any other years, we have not requested
funding.
Mr. Price. The GAO provided information that states that
the assessment by the Department of Defense on the appropriate
mix of military and civilian personnel has yet to be done
adequately. Are you planning on moving forward with that review
and recommendation?
Secretary Hagel. What review are you referring to?
Mr. Price. The GAO, Government Accountability Office.
Secretary Hagel. But I am not certain what you mean by the
adequate mix of civilians and military personnel.
Mr. Price. Their contention is that there has not been an
accurate assessment of the appropriate mix of military and
civilian personnel capabilities in your strategic workforce
plan. Is that going to be included?
Secretary Hagel. Well, we assess that all the time. The
review of mix and balance, and it is skills, it is people who
understand the jobs; there is always that factor that plays out
in everything we do to carry out all of our strategic interests
and our operations.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ryan. Mr. Yarmuth.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
General Dempsey, welcome. Thank you for your testimony. I think
many of us would agree that sequestration is a terrible policy,
and that we are all suffering, to a certain extent, the
consequences of that.
I would like to talk about briefly one thing that has come
to my attention very recently, which I am sure is of interest
to you. And I visited, a couple weeks ago, the Neural Science
Center at the University of Louisville, where they are doing
some incredible research into spinal injuries, and met a young
guy named Rob Summers who was paralyzed in a 2006 accident,
paralyzed from the neck down, could move one finger. Now, after
going through the program, that they have developed at the
University, he has full mobility above his waist; he can move
his toes, his ankles, his knees, his hips; has sensation
throughout his legs; and, actually, has taken steps by himself.
The researchers in charge of that project are very, very
concerned because of cuts at NIH due to sequestration; they
have already had to lay off some researchers. They have had to
cut back in certain areas. And they are very much concerned
about the impact on this program, which obviously could have
incredible benefits for our wounded warriors who have
sacrificed so much. So I am very concerned, also as the Ranking
Member, that we need to do more to create a balanced approach,
go to conference, and accommodate many of these priorities that
we have.
In my area, because of sequestration, more than 8,000
civilian Defense Department employees have received furlough
notices, 725 National Guard military technicians as well.
Obviously, a great impact on their families and on the regional
economy. Our civilian DoD and National Guard employees are
going to have to have to sacrifice even more if the sequester
is not replaced. Should they be preparing for nine more years
of furloughs?
Secretary Hagel. Two answers to your two questions. First,
on the facility, and the reference you made to traumatic brain
injuries and the research that is going on in the programs, our
budget for 2014 protects all of those programs, Wounded
Warriors. In fact, General Dempsey and I, this morning, both
spoke at a traumatic brain injury conference that is being
hosted at DoD. So we are fully committed to those programs and
the funding of those programs. We are committed because it is
the right thing to do, and we owe it to these men and women and
their families.
Second, we will continue to carry out all the programs and
efforts that you have just talked about.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you. I will yield the remaining 15
seconds to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, my colleague. If I could just
show you this chart in response to Mr. Price's statement. What
this shows: the green bars are the growth in non-security
discretionary spending since 2001. As you can see, much slower
than the red bars, which is the growth in security spending,
including Defense. And I would emphasize that the red bars do
not include the costs of the war. Those do not include OCO
accounts. So this gets back to the earlier conversation we were
having about making sure we meet all our priorities in this
country. I would also point out that this was the 13th day that
the Senate Democrats have tried to go to conference on the
budget, so----
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yarmuth. And it is a real dollar, not a nominal number.
Mr. Van Hollen [continuing]. These are, yeah, these are
real dollars. So these are constant dollars, real.
Chairman Ryan. Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. And gentlemen, thank you for being
here. I know, Secretary Hagel, in your testimony you mentioned
that a budgetary situation permits us to end the furloughs
early. You would strongly prefer to do so. Obviously, all of us
would as well. There are a lot of families that are affected
that had nothing to do with this, and I know you all are
working hard to be able to resolve some of this. What I want to
ask is, what are some of those factors that you are looking for
to be able to deal with the maximum of 11 days that are left
for civilians, to be able to resolve that? Have you made
additional requests? And what are we doing to try to resolve
that at this point?
Secretary Hagel. Well, we continue, and I may ask the
comptroller to respond here very briefly to any specific
programs, but let me answer your question this way: we continue
to look for ways, as I noted in my statement, as we cut
nonessential services, overheads, consolidations, continue to
try to find savings. These are big numbers, though, that we are
talking about.
Mr. Lankford. Have you looked at unobligated balances?
Secretary Hagel. We are looking at everything. That was
part of the strategic review, by the way. And we do not know
what is going to happen in the next three and a half months.
That is part of the uncertainty we are living with. So what the
comptroller has got to do is he has got to deal with, the only
reality we have right now is the sequestration is going to
continue to be the law of the land, and we are going to have to
comply with it. So if we can find ways, if that shifts in some
way, then we will obviously put the focus on pulling those
furloughs down, if we can.
Mr. Lankford. Will there be additional requests back to the
Appropriations Committee for reprogramming authority? In the
days ahead, would you expect that at this point?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I will give a general answer, and
then I will let comptroller. First, we really need your help on
getting this current $9.6 billion reprogramming accomplished
because it gives us some flexibility, and flexibility is key
here. Bob, do you want to add anything?
Secretary Hale. Yes, I anticipate that if we lose any
sources in this current reprogramming, we will, if we have
time, go back and ask for additional reprogramming. And just to
add briefly, one of the major items is just how much the war
costs in the next three months, and there is still some
uncertainty. If we can find a way to minimize those, I think we
will have a better chance of ending furloughs early, and I
certainly hope to.
Mr. Lankford. Terrific. I would also request of you, as
much as possible, and I know it is not all possible especially
with the speed of what is happening, allow local bases and
posts to be able to make decisions about how that is
implemented, rather than any top-down model that comes to them.
But a lot of those local leadership, and the people and the
civilians that are working there to find the efficiencies.
I want to ask one question as well. Last year, Secretary
Panetta, when he was here, we talked about the reductions plan.
Over the next five years, there is 120,000 uniformed personnel
reduction, but there was only a 15,000 reduction over the next
five years in the civilian workforce. I asked Secretary
Panetta, and actually Secretary Hale is the one who responded
to this one at that point, said, ``Why the discrepancy in the
two numbers?'' And the question was, ``There was not enough
time.'' And expected, by the time we got to this year, there
would be a response of what we are looking at as a
recommendation of reductions in civilian workforce over the
next five years. Where does that stand at this point?
Secretary Hagel. Well, obviously, I am going to let
Secretary Hale respond to what he said, but go back very
quickly to flexibility given to the managers and the people in
charge of the bases. We are giving them as much flexibility as
we can give them with some guidance from the top for the very
reasons you mentioned.
Secretary Hale. We have about a 5 percent reduction of
civilian employees built into this five-year plan. It is
heavily dependent on BRAC because that is where those civilians
work. And if we cannot close any of the bases, we will not be
able to make those reductions. But if you give us authority to
do it, then we will be able to achieve the reduction.
Mr. Pascrell. So the assumption would be that bases would
be closed within the next five years that would achieve that?
Secretary Hale. By the fifth year, fourth and fifth year
out, yes, we would have begun to achieve some of the civilian
reduction. The base might not be closed, but we would be
drawing down the civilians. And we are depending critically on
it in order to achieve those reductions.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you. Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service to
your country. Let us get to the crux of the issue that Mr.
Yarmuth has touched upon. Having been co-chair of the traumatic
brain injury caucus for the last 14 years, I am very, very
concerned about how DoD, before you got there, handled the
situation with one out of five veterans of Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom estimated to experience a
possible traumatic brain injury that Congress has done, I
believe, a yeoman's task in educating the DoD. We have
continued, on a bipartisan basis, to emphasize the importance
of this issue, and we have made funds available for the
identification and treatment of brain injuries in our soldiers.
In 2007, the Congress gave the Department of Defense $900
million to increase access, treatment, and research for
traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. In
2008, my colleagues and I put in place protections for the
troops in the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization
bill requiring cognitive screenings of soldiers pre-deployed
and post-deployed. We do that for football players going on the
field in high schools, and soccer players, and tennis players,
and we did not do it for our troops. We said we were going to
do it by an act of Congress.
Evidence seems to point to the fact that this law has yet
to be fulfilled, as members of the Armed Forces still have not
been consistently given a post-deployment cognitive screening
in order to identify any possible brain injury. What are you
doing to ensure that service members are receiving consistent
pre- and post-deployment cognitive screening as Congress has
required by law?
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, I can tell you I have been at
the DoD a little more than three months now, and this is as
high a priority as we have. We have a lot of high priorities:
getting this sexual assault scourge dealt with, an entire
inventory. This one, though, is as high up as we have. And I
have instructed all of our leaders, all of our people, all of
our programs to make this a priority. We are doing that, we are
committed to do it. I know we have not done it all. I know we
are behind. I know we need to do more. But you have my
assurance and my commitment that this will continue to be done.
General Dempsey. If I could add, Congressman, I have
deployed three times, and in the units under my command, there
has been a full accounting for that legislation, meaning we are
screening pre and post. Now I will go back and answer your
question more fully for the record, but we have done other
things with the money you have given us. We have hired 12,000
health care professionals. We have been directed to go back and
rescreen cases that were previously closed, and we are about,
on average, about 90 percent complete with that effort. So I
think we are doing better than you have just reported, but let
me prove it.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman Ryan. Mr. Ribble.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Hagel. I am over here. The requirement for the Defense
Department to produce auditable financial statements was
legislated over 20 years ago. We are now hearing we are not
going to get an audited statement until 2017. If you and the
Department cannot tell us how you are spending money, how do we
accurately budget and appropriate money?
Secretary Hagel. Your question is an absolutely legitimate
question. I am going to ask the comptroller to respond
specifically, but let me first say this. For the reasons you
just noted and others, the accountability of our spending, and
of our programs, and of our management is essential to
everything we do. It is essential to any institution. And we
are making progress on this. We are fulfilling the mandates of
Congress. We are not there yet. I am going to ask Hale to go
into more of the specifics on to what will be available in 2014
on statements, and then what is auditable by 2017.
Last point I would make on this, and I do not know if the
comptroller will say this, but this is another consequence, and
I do not blame sequestration for this, but the comptroller's
office and all our financial people inside of DoD, all across
the globe where we have facilities, are spending a huge amount
of their time on sequestration, on reprogramming, on going back
and reviewing everything. Now, this is not an excuse for not
having auditable statements.
Mr. Ribble. Now they had 19 years prior to that.
Secretary Hagel. No, I am saying it is not an excuse. But
the priority has not always been there. I know Secretary
Panetta put a priority on it; obviously he knows something
about these kinds of things. He was absolutely committed to it,
as I am. Now let me, if I can, Congressman ask the comptroller
to get a little more specific.
Secretary Hale. We do know where we are spending the money.
We do 150 million accounting transactions a year. If 1 percent
of them were wrong, a million and a half would be wrong. We
would have massive mispayments that just are not occurring.
What we cannot do is document it, and sometimes our business
practices are not tight enough to survive audit. We have got to
fix that, and we are doing it on an interim basis. We are not
waiting for 2017; by 2014, and I think we will make this, we
are going to have audit-ready statements for the budget, which
is the key part of most concern to you. So we have been
pressing hard. I have worked this personally, it is important
to me, we owe it to you, and we will do our darndest to get
there. But getting rid of sequestration would help a lot, and
so, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for that point.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you for that. General Dempsey, just one
quick question: Will you achieve your campaign objectives in
Afghanistan by the end of 2014?
General Dempsey. Yes.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Ryan. All right, Ms. Castor.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
gentleman. Thank you for your outstanding service to the
country. Let me start by saying the Defense Department and the
services are giving greater attention to the problem of sexual
assault in the military, and hopefully taking greater action to
address the problem, and I thank you for that. But after
decades of many assurances, and after a couple of years where
we have seen a 37 percent increase in the number of sexual
assaults, now 26,000 cases over the past two years, it is time
to change this status quo, and empower the prosecutors to do
some things, some innovative things, that are different than
the current change of command.
I will leave it at that because this is a hearing on the
impact of having no budget, and the sequester on our national
defense. And there has been a national dialogue, I think, on
the harm the sequester is causing to jobs and the economy,
medical research and innovation, Head Start, our ability to
invest in infrastructure in this country, but I do not think we
have had that same dialogue on the impact of the sequester on
our national security. I certainly hear it at home from the
folks at U.S. Central Command, and Special Operations Command,
and MacDill Air Force Base, and we do not like the fact that
civilians are going to be furloughed because of some arbitrary
budget policy. But there are some challenges here.
Now without a budget, our Republican friends who complained
for many years that the Senate would not pass the budget now
will not go to negotiate a budget. It has been 81 days since a
budget was passed, and they will not proceed to conference. And
that is going to cause great problem and angst over the coming
days, and months, and years.
The other problem is many of my Republican friends want the
sequester; they want the cuts across the board, and they have
rejected the Democratic replacements for the sequester. So this
is going to have serious consequences. I want you to now drill
down and be specific, and focus on Special Operations, in
particular, because the threats to our national security have
evolved over the past decades. We are not as involved in
conventional warfare; the threats are unconventional. In the
past, the former commander, Admiral Olson, said, ``We are
focused on quality in special ops.'' And now commander, Admiral
McRaven, said, ``We want to grow the force.'' And you have
said, General, ``We need to grow special operations, and
personnel, and our capabilities.'' But what is the sequester
going to do to our ability to invest in Special Operations
forces and confront the unconventional threats facing our
country?
General Dempsey. Yeah, I think could, first of all,
Congressman, thanks for the support you give to MacDill. I
spent two great years there myself commanding CENTCOM, and we
always felt very much at home in that community. So thanks for
that.
The effort we have got to look at the impact of
sequestration will present some very stark and uncomfortable
choices, some of which can be mitigated by flexibility. Meaning
if we can get about a third of what we need, however that much
turns out to be, whether it is full sequestration or something
less, if we can get about a third or 30 percent of it out of
institutional reform and compensation health care changes, then
we can have an impact on the force, the combat power of the
force; that is probably manageable. If we cannot, then it will
not be manageable. You will find that we will have to make some
choices that will put us at a disadvantage, and we have not
been at a disadvantage in a very long time as the United States
Armed Forces.
Special Forces is one of the three areas that in last
year's budget and in this year's budget, we have advantaged.
Advantaged, meaning we have not taken the reductions that we
have in other parts of the force, the conventional force. But
if we got to full sequestrations, if this becomes an annual
effort, at some point we will have to slow the growth of
Special Forces.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Mr. Rokita. Mr. Rokita, will you
yield me five seconds?
Mr. Rokita. I yield to the Chair.
Chairman Ryan. Let me remind the committee that this
Committee marked up and passed the Sequester Replacement Act.
It passed on the floor two times last year. Cuts in other areas
of government to prevent the sequester from taking place this
year. Our budget does the same. The sequester was requested by
the president in the Budget Control Act negotiations and is now
law. Mr. Rokita.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the Chair, I thank the Secretaries and
the General for being here today. A question about military
staff sizes to the General: By the end of March 2010, I have
that 1.4 million service members on active duty were being led
by 950 generals and flags. That is one for about every 1,500
troops. And from 2000 to 2010, the number of general flags,
officers, increased 8 percent, while active duty and strength
only grew 3 percent. Why the discrepancy? Why are your flags
and generals growing so much faster than your men?
General Dempsey. Well, two things. First of all, we grew
the number of flags in response to requirements. So when you
stand up an architecture of command and control interact in
Afghanistan, it was stood up external to, or in addition to,
the existing structure.
Mr. Rokita. So we could expect the number to go back down?
General Dempsey. Yeah. If you are asking me, do I think we
need to reduce the number of generals and flag officers, the
answer is yes.
Mr. Rokita. Okay, thank you. Also, I will go to the
Secretary please, Defense News, the magazine, recently said
that U.S. military commands grew by 15 percent from 2010 to
2012. And your predecessor said we need to reduce those
numbers. And, in fact, OSD and the Joint Staff, for example,
grew by 1,300 people in 2010 to 4,200 people in 2012, a 230
percent increase. Can you explain that, when your predecessor
said it should be going down?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I will ask the Chairman to respond,
as well. But my response is this: Those numbers are going to
come down. In fact, one of the things that we took a very hard
look at during the review in the last three months was this
issue. And so those numbers will come down in every category,
and that will be one of the products of the review that we have
just completed and we are looking at now.
Mr. Rokita. So when would you expect the decrease?
Secretary Hagel. Well, we will be making those decisions
here this year.
Chairman Ryan. General?
General Dempsey. Yeah, the Joint Staff grew because of the
disestablishment of joint forces command, then the absorption
of some of the manpower in Suffolk under the flag of the Joint
Staff. But the Secretary has given us some pretty clear
marching orders that if we are going to reduce the force, we
are going to start at the top.
Mr. Rokita. Okay. And by when?
General Dempsey. I will defer to the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. Rokita. Okay. And you said they were going to make a
decision soon.
General Dempsey. What I said was, ``We will be making those
decisions this year.''
Mr. Rokita. Okay.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Mr. McDermott.
Mr. McDermott. Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, I was a
Vietnam-era serviceman. I was a psychiatrist who dealt with
people coming back from the war. And I would ask the unanimous
that be entered into the record, an op-ed by General Eikenberry
and David Kennedy; they assert that the American public and the
military are drifting apart at this time.
Chairman Ryan. Without objection.
Mr. McDermott. And my concern is, you go down to my office,
you will see the faces of all the people who have died from the
state of Washington on the wall. You walk around these
buildings, there is only about four or five places where that
happens, because it is easy to forget who has been over there,
who is fighting since we went to the volunteer Army. And we
have, at the same time, had increases of suicides, and all
kinds of things on military bases and in the veteran community
afterward, with TBI and with PTSD. We did not see TBI in
Vietnam because nobody survived. If they went through something
like that, they died. But now we are able to keep them alive,
and we have a whole new cadre of problems.
And I wonder, as you look at the budget that you are
looking at now, how you think we could do a better job in not
only sending people prepared to go to war, but also to return.
I mean, people sent to Iraq did not where they were going. They
had no background whatsoever in the population they were going
into. They were just thrown in there, just like those recruits
were in the Vietnam War. And then when we bring them back into
our society, we have been very bad at getting them jobs and
housing, all the things that somebody would think if you had
served the country, the country would reward you with when you
came home. When they came home from the Second World War, we
handed them free college education. That is where the greatest
generation came from, was that class of 1949 had all been
educated because we said, ``Our vets are coming home; here is
an education.'' We do not do that anymore.
And what I am looking at is wondering about your own
thinking, both of you, in terms of the larger problem of
keeping the American public involved in the issue of going to
war.
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, thank you. This obviously, as
you have known, and over the years done, could take days and
days, and weeks and weeks to respond. But, in the interest of
time I will give you this response. So many pieces to what you
just noted. I think we have done a far, far better job as a
society, as a country, of being able to delineate the war from
the warrior as these young men and women come back, assimilate
back into society, all the things that are required in order
for that successful transition. Imperfect, front page of USA
Today is about, you may have seen it, the story of a young man
who cannot get a job. The country has failed him. He went and
served. I mean, we know those stories. We are not doing enough,
I get that. We will do more.
But compared to when I flew into Travis Air Force Base on
December 4, 1968, after a year in Vietnam in '68, 48 hours
later, you were out on the street. You had a Class A uniform.
You had travel money home and some expense money, and that was
it. That was it. So we have come a long way. One of the big
differences is, and I will stop here, and I used to give
speeches on the Senate floor about this during the peak of the
Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. The disconnect, which you
just said, 1 percent of our population in this society pays the
price. They make all the sacrifices, they bear all the burden,
they do all the dying. And I am a supporter of the all-
volunteer service, by the way. I do not think we could ever go
back, nor do we want to, for a lot of reasons. It is the most
professional Armed Forces ever. They are better trained, better
led, better equipped.
But here is the point: How do you integrate that in a
better way so there is more appreciation, more understanding? I
think the people of this country, though, do very much
appreciate the service of our men and women. We need to do
more.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Ms. Walorski.
Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good
to see you again. Thank you for your leadership role on this
issue with sexual abuse in the military, and for your support.
And also to you, General Dempsey, great to see you. So, you
know, I sit on the Armed Services Committee, which is where I
saw you folks last. And I have worked hard in my role on Armed
Services to provide a workable replacement to sequestration. We
have talked about it as a committee. We have proposed bills as
well. I am concerned that the president's 2014 budget seriously
underestimates and underfunds costs in certain areas, and then
makes trade-offs in other areas. For example, I do not believe
we should be shutting down bases, considering shutting down
bases, or paying for spending on the backs of our military
members.
But the question I have is, the DoD budget has already
sustained significant funding cuts, and faces potential
additional cuts in the future. So at what point do these cuts
endanger our national security? And it is a question to either
of you. And then my second question is, is there a particular
funding amount or percentage cut that you believe to be a red
line when it comes to this issue of national security? Thank
you.
General Dempsey. I will start, and then the Secretary will
take the bulk of the question. But in terms of, can we identify
a point at which we put the security strategy at risk? Yeah, I
think we will be. I think we will be able to identify that
point through the results of the SecDef's SCMR, Strategic
Choices Management Review.
One thing I would point out: when we did the future year
defense plan for 2014, when we did it three years ago, four
years ago, the top line was going to be $598 billion. This
year, $526 billion. If we go to full sequestration, it will be
$474 billion. This is not the deepest cut in our history. It is
the steepest by a wide margin, and that is what makes it so
difficult.
Secretary Hagel. I would add just a couple of things. One
of the points that the Chairman made to answer your question in
his opening statement, he said something to the effect that one
of the effects of sequestration and what we are going through,
and may well continue to go through for some years, I think he
said, ``It is going to be more costly to recover lost
readiness.'' Now that is a factor here that often gets lost or
never gets any attention. And that is a big part of, I think,
your question, the answer to your question, when you say,
``Well, at what point do we know?''
Mrs. Walorski. Do we, Mr. Secretary, do we have a funding
amount? Is there a red line for when we get to that point that
we, as congressional members here, and also the American people
that are vested in our military, is there a red line to say,
``When we get to this point, our national security is in
trouble?''
Secretary Hagel. Well, this is not just a numbers business,
as you know. Again, I go back to the review. I have asked, in
this review, all the different scenarios: at $150 billion over
the next 10 years, $250 billion reduction over the next 10
years, or the $500 billion over the next 10 years, which is now
law, as the Chairman reminded us. And sure, it is going to cut
into our readiness. Sure, it is going to cut into our
operations. I noted that in my testimony, as did the Chairman.
There is no question about it. It is doing it right now. When
you go through the inventory of things that we are having to do
now, the chiefs of all the services, cut training, essentially
eliminate training, deployments, stand down squadrons. Now,
what we are doing is we are putting everything forward to
protect our current readiness requirements, our strategic needs
now. But there is going to be a cost that is coming in right
behind that.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
General and Mr. Secretary, for being here, and, of course, for
your service to our country. I think the uncertainty of us not
having a budget adds to the difficulties that we are facing in
dealing with the very serious financial challenges in our
country. And I think the only way that we can ensure that we
meet our solemn obligation to our men and women in uniform, to
ensure that they have access to all the things they need, not
only to complete the mission, but all the things that they need
when they return is to be sure we have a budget. And the
priorities warrant a thoughtful and careful budget process, not
a budget process fraught with needless uncertainty and
partisanship.
And I hope your testimony today will inspire further
engagement in the Congress to develop a serious set of
solutions for our nation's fiscal challenges, and, most
importantly, motivate our Republican leaders to appoint
conferees so that we can really get to the work of completing
this budget process. For some reason, although there is been a
lot of clamor about the importance of a budget and adopting a
budget, there seems to be no interest, at least from the
Republican House leadership, to actually appoint conferees,
which is necessary to complete that process. And I thank you
for furnishing us with the kind of uncertainty and examples of
the uncertainty that come from not having a budget. And I hope
it will inspire them to do that.
I think it is particularly important, when you look at what
Mr. Van Hollen identified in the beginning of this, that there
is an effort here by going through appropriations in defense,
military construction, and homeland security that will
essentially result in very, very substantial additional cuts in
non-discretionary spending and non-defense spending above and
beyond the cuts of sequestration, which will have, obviously,
very serious impacts.
But I just want to ask you to spend a few moments here, if
you would, to address the Department's investment in programs
that can help realize sustainable budgetary savings while
approving efficiencies, accountability, and readiness. For more
than a decade, the Department and Congress have collaborated on
efforts to implement item-unique identification strategies.
This technology, as you know, allow for permanent marking of
equipment with unique identifications to ensure the efficient
management and a real accounting of the resources the
Department possesses. And we have a great company in my
district, A2B Tracking in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, has really
been a leader in this work. But a Department logistics item-
unique identification taskforce in March of 2011 estimated that
full implementation of this policy could result in savings
between $3 billion and $5 billion every year, beginning in
2017.
But there has been some, I think, difficulties with
implementation of this. So I would like to know where that
stands, whether the sequestration cuts will adversely impact
this implementation which has the potential to produce real
savings, improve efficiencies, bring greater accountability and
transparency to the Department.
Secretary Hagel. Congressman, I am going to respond
generally, and then very quickly ask for the comptroller's
specific comment on this. One of the things that we are focused
on, have to be focused on, is accomplishing the objective that
you just noted. We have to; we do not have any choice. We
should be doing it anyway, whether sequestration or not, for
the reasons everyone understands. We are doing it. Let me get
the comptroller to be more specific about your question.
Secretary Hale. Well, I am afraid the comptroller's going
to have to go do some research to be more specific. I am not
real familiar, but we will get back to you. Let me just add
though, we have done a lot of things, some small, TRANSCOM,
shipping on 40-foot containers rather than 20, that has saved
us some money; grouping together cellphone contracts in the
Navy, to bigger items, terminating more than 30 weapon systems
that we felt were of lower priority in past efforts to reduce
our costs. And we are going to do it again, as the Secretary
has directed. And we are all committed to it.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Mr. Nunnelee.
Mr. Nunnelee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here. General. I recently had the
privilege to meet with a group of Mississippians that came up
for an honor flight, World War II veterans. I met them at the
World War II memorial; it was a very emotional experience. And
one of the takeaways I had from that, here is a group of men,
and there were actually a couple of women World War II veterans
in the group, it is a group of men and women that were part of
the greatest mobilization to defend freedom in the history of
the world. And while they went to place they had never heard
of, their families were back home doing two things: building
the tools necessary for the war effort, and also buying bonds
necessary to fund the war effort.
One of the things that keeps me awake at night is the fear
that if we were to have a repeat of that, that we could not
afford to put together that kind of mobilization, because we
could not afford it. And I do not think my fears are alone. The
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the greatest
threat to our national security is our debt. And we are going
to be bumping up on a debt ceiling that is statutory, but our
real debt ceiling occurs when creditors will no longer be
willing to lend us money at interest rates we can afford. Are
my concerns justified? And is our ability to defend freedom
limited by our ability to fund it?
Secretary Hagel. I think the quick answer is yes. I think
Admiral Mullins' comments, and I recall when he said them, I
agree with. A nation's economic strength is the underpinning of
all their liberties and preservation of security. And you
cannot disconnect the two, as you know.
Mr. Nunnelee. All right. And then maybe a final question:
How do you go about planning for the uncertainty and the
difficulty of a reduced budget? We have just passed, out of
Appropriations, the defense markup on defense. Previously, you
had a request for equipment, helicopters, airplanes, tanks, et
cetera, and that has been diminished. What process do you use
to make those decisions and plan?
Secretary Hagel. You mean reducing those efforts?
Mr. Nunnelee. Yes.
Secretary Hagel. Well, it is a long process, but the
services have their budgets. We have the component overseas,
the services on accountability, responsibility for managing the
Pentagon. That is the larger office of the Office of Secretary
of Defense. It is five undersecretaries; the comptroller is one
of them. Another one that is key to this is the undersecretary
for acquisitions. And then in consultation with the chairman
and the chiefs of the services, with input from the nine
combatant commanders, I mean, it works through that. Then the
budget, obviously, is an underpinning dynamic of this because
if you do not have the money, you are not going to be able to
buy the weapons.
Mr. Nunnelee. Thank you.
General Dempsey. Could I, really briefly, sir?
Mr. Nunnelee. Okay.
General Dempsey. We have three responsibilities as a
military: deter enemies, assure our allies, and then defeat if
deterrence fails. And as we map the force we have to those
three responsibilities, it allows us to see how big we think it
needs to be.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Mr. Jeffries. And again, I ask
members not to ask their questions near the end of their three-
minute time so that we can try to get the answers to comport
within that time as well so everybody else can get a chance.
Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for your testimony, your presence here today, as well
as, of course, your great service to this country. Am I correct
in my understanding that if you look at the United States's
military spending, and then you compare that to the military
spending of the next 10 highest spending countries from a
defense perspective, that the United States, from a budgetary
standpoint, exceeds the spending of those 10 countries that
fall behind us?
Secretary Hagel. The military budgets? Defense budgets?
Mr. Jeffries. Yes.
Secretary Hagel. I think that is right. I think that is
correct.
Secretary Hale. I suppose it might be 13, but you are
right. The gist of it is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. So certainly a national security is of
tremendous concern. It is a top priority, I think, for all of
us on both sides of the aisle. But it will be useful for me if
either the General or you, Secretary Hagel, could provide some
context for why that level of spending is necessary in terms of
the threats that we need to be prepared to guard against
relative to what other countries, including in that list China,
and Russia, and others do combined.
Secretary Hagel. Let me make a general comment, and then I
know Chairman Dempsey wants to answer this as well. Well,
first, you have to analyze the national security strategic
interests of your country. What does it take to assure that
those interests are protected, starting with the homeland of
your country? I mean, that is, as the General said, that is the
first priority of any nation's defense structure, is the
security of their country. Then you build out from there. What
does it require? I do not need to go much beyond pick up a
newspaper today, and you go down through The New York Times,
The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the inventory of
problems in the world that are threats to us. They come
different ways. They come from cyber; they come from nuclear
threats; they come from terrorism; they come from conventional
forces; they come from economic threats. And so you assess what
your requirements are to defend your country. And then, based
on that assessment, then you flesh what the requirements are
going to be and the resources in order to defend your country.
General?
General Dempsey. It is a great question. It is the question
we are asking ourselves in this choices review, is what do we
want to be able to accomplish? And at what level of effort,
what capability and how much of it so it can rotate?
Our force is generally present in places like Korea and
Europe. It is rotational, and then we keep a capacity for
readiness at home as a hedge against future uncertainty. We
have global responsibilities, and we want to provide the
president, the commander-in-chief, with options. I mean, you
could convince yourself, ``Well, really all you need is about
25 nukes. And if anybody tries to interfere with your
interests, we will just nuke them.'' But that is not who we
are. So we need options along a spectrum of conflict. But this
is a much longer question to be answered.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
Chairman Ryan. Ms. Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, and General, it is great to have this conversation
with you. And I certainly am a big supporter of our national
defense. Believe me, there is only a few things we should be
doing here in Congress, and one of them is to provide for the
common defense. And I, like you, have been very concerned with
the cuts to the defense over the years, especially with the
impact of sequestration. Certainly, in my district,
representing Whiteman Air Force Base and Fort Leonard Wood,
yeah, that is very concerning to us with the layoffs of
civilians, as well as the reduced flying training hours, and
the other issues we have been talking about, lack of
modernization and reset.
But, having said that, I wanted to visit with you today
about a report that Senator Coburn has put out. I just wondered
if you had seen this. And this is on wasteful spending in the
Department of Defense. And this is very concerning to me
because I believe it undermines my efforts and a lot of our
colleagues' efforts here to advocate for more defense spending
when they have identified $67.9 billion in what they think is
wasteful spending. That could certainly be put better towards
helping advance the new long range strike-bomber, or getting,
you know, more weapons to our soldiers.
Some of the things they have identified is that the Navy
recently funded research concerning the behavior of fish to
teach us about democracy, and developed an app for the iPhone
on how to pick the best time to take a coffee break. The Air
Force Office of Scientific Research funded a study examining
how to make it easier to produce silk from wild cocoons in
Africa and South America. And there was this study that was
done by that same office to try to determine the color of a
dinosaur, the first, perhaps, bird that flew.
And I just wondered, what are you doing to address the
examples of ways, I believe there was a video produced called,
``The Grill Sergeants,'' where you did barbecue grilling by the
drill sergeants. It is very frustrating to me that this is
going on at the same time we are trying to advocate for more
defense dollars. So have you seen the report, and if so, what
are you doing to address the waste?
General Dempsey. Well, I have not seen the report. And I
have never appeared before any body of Congress and argued that
we could not find a way to be good stewards of the nation's
resources. We will look for the report. I will be interested to
see whether we put it in there or somebody else put it in there
when it became part of the bill.
Secretary Hale. I am familiar with the report. Let me say,
I am not going to defend some of those. Sometimes you get into
the details, and these do not sound quite as bad as Senator
Coburn described it, but I think there is room for paring of
waste. I will say it was $69 billion, I think, over 10 years;
about two-thirds of it was cuts in civilian personnel, and he
did not really identify how to do that. As I have told you
before, one way to do it is to let us close bases and get rid
of the civilians we do not need. You may notice a theme. And so
if we are going to make some of these big changes that were
suggested in there, we are going to need your help.
Chairman Ryan. Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you. And thank you, gentleman, thank you
for being here and for your service. Let me ask two questions,
different questions. Let's put them both out there to save a
little time. General, one of the comments you made in your
presentation that really concerned me, especially when we are
talking about the sequester and the effects of sequester, the
fact that our House leadership refuses to appoint conferees.
So, once again, you know, we may not have a budget for this
country, a road map. The words you used were, ``We are less
ready every day.'' And that should concern every single person
about preparation, some of the things you are having to scale
back. Could you just talk a little more about what that means
with the current sequester, and what that could mean down the
road if the sequester continues?
And then the second question, Secretary, for you. I am
concerned, and perhaps, I could say, skeptical of the drone
program. I know the president has now assigned some guidelines
that the Department of Defense is going to be more involved. I
was just hoping you could address a little bit what role you
are playing in the development and implementation of those
plans, specifically to ensure that there could be zero
civilians who are involved, as well as what oversight Congress
might have in that.
General Dempsey. Readiness is the most challenging thing to
articulate. Most of what we do has some constituency in
Congress and Washington D.C., weapons systems, bases, people.
Readiness is the hardest one to articulate because there is no
huge constituency for it. You only know you need it when you
need it.
Let me use a basketball analogy. Right now, about a third
of the force is training at the individual level. They are not
training as big units. And so if it were a basketball team, we
are doing individual drills, but we are not scrimmaging. And
when you do not scrimmage before you go into the game, it
generally does not have a very good outcome. And so I am
uncomfortable that we are cancelling rotations to our training
centers, which is where we do our scrimmages. And that is all
services.
Secretary Hagel. Just very briefly on your question
regarding drones, I support strongly the president's policy and
the speech he gave. And much of that was about more
transparency and oversight. We do have oversight now, the
Congress does and the intelligence committees. What we do, in
every way, is legal. Drones are a very key factor in our
security inventory. It is always a responsible use, wise use.
Factoring in one of your examples, civilian casualties,
collateral damage, is this the right thing to do, laws,
relationships with other countries.
So I think what the president did here, and I was co-
chairman of the president's Intelligence Advisory Board the
last four years, and it is something we recommended to him
often, is a little more transparency. But the two titles of
authority that are used, he specifically mentioned Title 10,
which is the authority that is in our Constitution, in our law,
as you know under DoD, and then Title 50, which is covert
action, which usually the CIA or intelligence; both are
necessary for the security of this country.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Mr. Rigell.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary Hagel,
thank you for your service, General Dempsey and Secretary Hale.
Secretary Hale, I would like to really direct this question to
you. If there is universal agreement on anything, it is that
sequestration is unwise. And we, as Americans, can do better
than that. And it seems like there are two principal drivers to
it. One is the top-line funding, of course. And then the other
part of it that creates so much inefficiency is this, you know,
the cuts are universally applied. Now the top-line part is a
high hurdle; I am not going to try to get into that right now.
But on how they are uniformly applied, I would like to delve
into that just a bit.
I know you have got over $9 billion reprogram in the works,
right? As we were marking up the NDAA the other night,
actually, the other morning, ended up around 2:00 a.m. in the
morning, one of my colleagues introduced an amendment that
would give DoD about $20 billion of running room on that. I
would like to hear your views on that. I voted no, to be clear
here, because it did not seem like that much discretion without
congressional oversight was wise or prudent. But I was
intrigued by the idea, and in this time remaining, please if
you would expand on that, please.
Secretary Hale. I would like to see you take the limits off
entirely, and here is why. You would still have full oversight.
Every time we do a reprogram, it has to be submitted to all the
committees who can only do it if every committee approves. I
have never understood why you need a separate limit on the
amount, especially in the environment as uncertain as this one.
But if you will not do that, I would certainly prefer, it is
around now $7.5 billion, something significantly higher. I will
say again, I think you would have the oversight you need, and
full oversight, even without transfer authority limits.
Mr. Rigell. Well, is the reprogram that is in the works
now, does that reflect the full source of consternation within
DoD, or is there more that you are looking at right now that
you are going to need to come back to us on and work through?
Secretary Hale. We are just about at the legal transfer
authority, only $200 million short of it in that reprogram. So
we do not have any more flexibility. But yes, we have some
remaining problems, particularly in the Army, of local [spelled
phonetically] shortfalls, that we are working actively right
now. We are not going to be able to do it through
reprogramming, unfortunately.
Mr. Rigell. Well, I have got just maybe 40 seconds or so
left, but Mr. Secretary, I would be open, and I do not speak
for my colleagues, of course, but for a wiser path of saying if
we are expecting to be under sequestration or sequestration-
type levels for the foreseeable future, and I am trying to
avert that, I would be open to any type of wise alternative
that would give you more running room.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you, Congressman. Flexibility is, as
we have said throughout this hearing, absolutely key. And your
point about more running room is part of that flexibility. We
are going to most likely need that, depending on what happens
here. But if this plays out the way it appears it is going to
play out, at least for the remainder of fiscal year 2013, then
we are going to have to continue to make these tough choices,
and we are going to need more flexibility.
Secretary Hale. Thank you. Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Hagel,
it is a pleasure to have you here. We are excited that somebody
with your background in business, in government, in the
military, is in the position you are to make these tough
choices. And I really appreciate, General Dempsey and
Undersecretary Hale, what you have said. You are coming to
Capitol Hill, for instance, urging health care reform and base
closures. Congress has never met a base that it wants to close,
which is why we have a Base Closer Commission, because we want
to have it both ways, you know. You know, you look at savings
with PXs, and people go ballistic, and you get stuffed back
where you are dealing with readiness issues. And I appreciate
your patience.
I would request, in a written form at some point, a little
analysis on nuclear weapons. It is mind-boggling to me that we
are looking at upwards of three-quarters of a trillion dollars
over the next 10 years that the Administration was forced to
deal with some upgrades. And we have far more than we need, and
we are spending a miniscule amount, less than 1 percent,
decommissioning. And I would really love an explanation for why
we have to have this level of expenditure when you are talking
about major other initiatives that are before us.
But the question I would put to you, Mr. Secretary, now,
for perhaps a reaction, deals with environmental stewardship of
the Department of Defense. I have been impressed with the
progress that has been made for a sustainable military. I have
been impressed with the recent guidance in terms of facilities.
That is really terrific, and I hope it can be put into effect.
But there is also the element, the Department of Defense is the
largest generator of superfund sites in America. There are 10
other members of the Committee who have superfund sites in
their district that have yet to be cleaned up. I am dealing
with one in the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon that was a
staging area for the Navy for three wars, and there is serious
pollution that is, in part, the responsibility of the federal
government.
And I would like to know what we can look forward to. I
know it is tough times and I am willing to go the extra mile
with you on things that you have requested, and maybe a few
that you have not. But I hope that we are not backing away from
the responsibility of the Department of Defense for pollution
that is across the country in every state, and many of them in
our districts.
Secretary Hagel. I can assure you the Department of Defense
is not going to back away. We have not backed away. We will
continue to fulfill the commitments we have made, and those
commitments are based on our obligations and responsibilities,
you are exactly right. As you know, the superfund sites, I
think, is administered out of the EPA. We fund part of that;
part of that, a good part of that, is due to us, the DoD, over
the years. It goes back pre-World War II. I mean, I do not have
to tell you. So we will continue to make those funds available,
continue to work with the superfund administrators.
Specifically, if you have something, let us know, we will
respond.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Ms. Blackburn.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
for being here with us. I represent Tennessee's Seventh
District; Fort Campbell is in that district. And, of course, we
have the wonderful 101st, the 160th, and the Fifth Division.
And when I am on post and when I am talking with many of our
men and women in uniform, a couple of different things come up.
They all have to do with readiness, and I appreciate your
comments about loss readiness. And I think one of the lessons
we learned through the '90s is when you do these drawdowns, and
not carefully, there are consequences to pay.
But looking at Europe, and this is one of the things that
people are talking about now in my district, they are looking
at the forestructure that we have there in Europe, and they are
concerned this may go away. So I want to talk with you about,
and just have you, Mr. Secretary, I have told them if I ever
got a chance to ask you, I would ask you, so here we go. What
purpose does this serve, to have that permanent force there?
And what is it there for? Is it there to counter Russia? Is it
there to make it better, easier to serve as a launch point to
get to other parts of the world? If we had another Benghazi-
style crisis somewhere North Africa, or Israel, or the Middle
East, how would we handle it if we did not have a place like
Europe to go from? How badly would it impair a commander's
options, or degrade his ability to respond if we did not have
it? And, you know, just talk to me about Europe for about a
minute. And I have got one other comment to add once you do,
so----
Secretary Hagel. Well, I will be very brief, and I am going
to ask the General to respond, too, because this has been his
whole life. Just very briefly, I think you listed a number of
reasons why we need forward-deployed forces. It is force
projection, of course; that is the whole point of the
rebalancing Asian Pacific. It is time, it is schedules, it is
options. Benghazi, a good example, the Congress continues to
ask a lot of questions about what happened in Benghazi. Why
were we not there? Could we have been there? What was the time?
It is clearly in our national security interests to have that
forward-deployed option because if you do not have it, then the
only option you have is you bring them out of the United
States. And you cannot respond. The world is too hair-
triggered; it is too fast; it is changed. We do not have any
options. And so things happen like that. So I think your list
of questions actually was a list of answers as well.
General Dempsey. I have nothing to add.
Secretary Hagel. That is the first time the General has
ever said he had nothing to add.
Mrs. Blackburn. Well, and I will just say the Flying Hours
Program, I have worked with the Committee to add in the funds
to continue that. I was very concerned about the loss of 500
aviators, and I would just ask you all to work with Army to be
certain that that program continues in 2014.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary Hagel,
General Dempsey, and Undersecretary Hale for your leadership
and for being here today. I wanted to ask a couple questions,
one relating to the end of the war in Afghanistan. We know that
the timetable now is 2014, but what do you see or foresee as
future involvement after 2014? And as it relates to military
personnel and contractors, and what do you see Congress' role
in that effort, in terms of our responsibility to authorize or
to appropriate?
Secondly, I was glad to hear the answer about audit the
Pentagon. For years, I have been working on issues around
waste, fraud, and abuse, and what I learned was that the
Pentagon has missed all these deadlines as it relates to the
audit. And so I am going to ask, I hope it is not too
redundant, but have you projected any savings from this audit
that hopefully will be completed pretty soon?
And finally, just a little bit about the Overseas
Contingency Operations Fund, that really has exploded beyond
any reasonable measure of what a contingency fund should be. I
think now you are asking, what, for $5 billion above the
request that the House Armed Services Committee has provided?
And so why are we not projecting major savings from ending the
war in Afghanistan if, in fact, this contingency fund continues
to explode?
Secretary Hagel. Congresswoman, I will try to be very brief
because I know we have all got time issues here. I will start
with OCO. That $5 billion additional, that did not come from
our request. That was a congressional addition to what we
requested, $79 billion. That represents $10 billion less than
what the request was last year. I was in the Senate for most of
the Iraq-Afghanistan War. And we financed those two wars almost
entirely, all the time, to emergency supplementals. That is
where, really, it came from. And now, we are going to be
bringing that back down for the very reasons you know and
others.
In addition to that, however, why do you still need it if
you are coming out? Then I will get to your post-2014 question.
We have still got over 60,000 troops there; we are bringing out
a couple thousand a month to get down to 34,000 troops by, I
think, February of next year. A huge amount of equipment that
we have got to get out, we have got to do something with that
equipment as we consolidate bases. All these are huge costs to
us. It is not as easy as getting out as we did in Iraq when you
just come right down to the desert, load everything up on the
ships. This is a whole different ballgame. So those are
additional costs.
What do I see after 2014? The president has laid out that
we will have a trained assistant advise mission after that. We
will have a presence there.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Yes, I want to thank all of you for being
here. I appreciate your patriotism. My question is being
directed to you, Mr. Secretary. Fort Hood is in my district,
and they are doing a fantastic job. A lot of people in my
district ask, do you think that America should be the number
one superpower in the world?
Secretary Hagel. I believe, and I always have, that America
must maintain its superiority in every way to maintain our
national security.
Mr. Williams. Do you feel that our enemy is fierce today?
Secretary Hagel. Our enemy is very fierce today.
Mr. Williams. Do you think our friends trust us?
Secretary Hagel. I think we have partners, we have allies,
we have relationships that are all built around common
interests. That is not new; that is the history of the world.
And those common interests that forge those relationships, the
era of coalitions of common interests came after World War II
when we built all those coalitions, NATO, so on and so on. And
we will need them even more so in the 21st century.
Mr. Williams. We have talked a little bit about the
president's budget, that you are aware that it came to us very
late in this cycle.
Secretary Hagel. Yes.
Mr. Williams. And are you also aware that sequestration,
which we talk about all the time, was the idea of President
Obama?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I am going not going to get into the
politics of whose idea it was.
Mr. Williams. I just want to make sure you are aware. I
want to make sure you are aware of that.
Secretary Hagel. I have got a responsibility to run the
Pentagon, not to get involved in politics.
Mr. Williams. All right. Okay. I just want to make sure you
are aware of that. And I also would ask you, it is been widely
reported that some DoD components had identified sufficient
spending cuts such that they would not have needed to furlough
their civilian workforce during that 11 days. I know you have
got reports in the Navy and Air Force that gave you some other
options. My question is why did you choose to go to the wide
furloughs rather than implement cuts to activities that you had
been advised on that you could have gone another way, thus
creating pain with the public and creating, really, havoc with
some of the communities?
Secretary Hagel. Well, if you were here for my opening
statement, I noted that decision and why, but I will repeat it.
We have looked at every possible area we can cut, and I listed
some of them, and we can give you an entire list of them. I
would be very happy to do that. I got to the point where, we
started with the possibility of 22 days of furloughing. The
decision I made was finally 11. It was the last thing we wanted
to do. This was in coordination with all our commanders, all
our senior leaders, because I could not take the readiness
issue down any further than where it was. We would have to cut
more into our readiness and our force protection of our people,
and I could not do that.
Mr. Williams. Okay. Last question, I have never been able
to understand, why do we compare ourselves to other countries
as far as amount of missiles, you name it? Why do we compare
ourselves to them? Why do we not set the standard? If we are
going to be the superpower in the world, why do we want to come
to their level? Why do we not just want to be America?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I am not sure what you mean.
Mr. Williams. Well, we talk about bringing missiles down to
a certain level, doing this, we are worried about a budget of
another country; I do not see how that plays into our defense.
Chairman Ryan. We will have to leave it at that just
because the votes on the floor, 11-54 left. Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you to all the witnesses. I will be
quick. Secretary Hagel, I was a big fan of your work in the
Senate, your bipartisan work on nonproliferation, and
continuing into your time when you were out of office working
on sensible ways to right-size our nuclear arsenal to address
21st century needs instead of Cold War and bloated nuclear
arsenal. So that is the big-picture question I want to ask you
about. In the post-Cold War era, at a time when we are
struggling to address our long-term debt and deficits, we still
have a huge nuclear arsenal, even with the progress we have
made in the START treaty numbers, 1,550 deployed nuclear
weapons. Some estimate as much as $52 billion a year to
maintain that arsenal, and we will be being asked to pay for
modernization of it all.
In light of all of that, can we afford this type of a
nuclear arsenal in this day and age, and do we need it? Or can
we move back towards something more like the great report that
you did in May of 2012 with Global Zero where you envisioned a
nuclear arsenal closer to 900 total weapons deployed in a very
different way?
Secretary Hagel. Well, I think it is been the goal of every
president of the Unites States since the advent of nuclear
weapons. Recognizing every president has realized, as I have,
and I think most Americans, that the nuclear deterrence has
been as important a part of keeping our freedoms as anyone
thinks since World War II. Ronald Reagan, if you remember in, I
think it was 1986, turned to Gorbachev, and said, ``Let's get
rid of all the nuclear weapons.'' And I recall that vividly.
And a lot of people gulped, ``Is he crazy?'' Every reduction in
our nuclear armament has come as a result of a treaty, in a
commiserate reciprocal reduction. You ask yourself, well, how
many missiles and how many nuclear warheads do you need to
defend yourself? How many times do you have to blow up the
world?
I mean, I believe strongly in a strong nuclear deterrence,
strongly. And I also believe that Ronald Reagan and every
president we have had, Democrat or Republican, asked the right
questions. This president is asking the right questions. Your
numbers that you mentioned was a result of a treaty with the
Russians, I think in 2010, that Congress approved, the Senate,
with the president. I think that makes sense. If we can find
ways to reduce the threat to mankind but still protect
ourselves, is that not what we should be doing?
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Let's leave it at that. Mr.
Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your service. I am going to
submit a couple questions for the record, but I just want to
get a couple of points in real quickly. When it comes to BRAC,
I think you probably know, even though we are discussing BRAC,
there is probably not a stomach for voting for it. And I would
hope we can work together to maybe closely more define what a
BRAC process is. I think, too, we may need to add the National
Laboratories and NASA centers to it also. If we are going to do
it, let's just do it all.
One thing, to be specific, electronic health records. We
asked the Department of Defense some time ago to get that done.
It would create efficiencies and save a lot of money. You know,
Kaiser in California, has gone to digitized health records a
long time ago. And we asked, it is been God knows how many
years now, five years ago. What is the hold up?
Secretary Hagel. Well, first, DoD and VA will be
interoperable by the end of this year in the transferring of
all of our paper back and forth. This is a long story. As you
know, five years' worth and a lot of money's worth, but let me,
in the interest of time, just hit a couple of important points.
The seamless interoperable of those two systems, they do not
have to be the same systems, just interoperable. As long as
they are talking to each other, and we can accomplish getting
paper records out of DoD over to VA, over to their claims, and
that is being done, it will be done. That is one part of it.
The backlog at the VA is not a DoD-result problem. About 4
percent of that backlog is our piece. And that is mainly
because Secretary Shinseki made a decision, which I think he
was right, a couple of years ago to start including all the
Vietnam veterans and everybody prior to Iraq and Afghanistan,
and the veterans that were produced the most two wars, we had
electronic records.
When I was in Vietnam, I mean, you have got maybe your
folder. It is all paper records, so they have been flooded with
this stuff. We have been working very closely with them. A lot
of glitches, a lot of issues, absolutely. But I have got to be
responsible for the modernization of our systems for DoD. That
is not mutually exclusive from the VA. We work very closely. I
just offered more manpower. We have people over in the VA, and
we have got them all over. And the VA just accepted seven more
of our people, which I am glad they have done. So, yes, a lot
of issues, a lot of problems, but we are getting there, and we
will get there.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. Ms. Lujan Grisham.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much for being here today, Mr. Secretary and General. I
appreciate that, too. And I was not playing on talking about
this, and I will be brief, but I want to echo what my colleague
just talked about, and I appreciate your response on veterans'
issues, the backlog, and electronic medical records. And with
all the different proprietary records in the private sector, it
is clear that having a single system is not going to work, that
we have to find utility programs that will make them all
interoperable. And I just had a veterans' forums, and I will
tell you that every single complaint was having access and
following their record trail, and making sure that they are
getting adequate and quality care, and that that is seamless.
So I appreciate that, and appreciate your diligence.
I quickly want to go to contracting, and I want to have you
just talk to me a little bit about the impact sequestration is
having on defense contractors, and their ability to stay
staffed and meet any of these demands. I have got negative job
growth in significant defense contracting in my district. I
represent Albuquerque in New Mexico, and it is a real
challenge.
Secretary Hagel. Well, again, within the limits of our time
here, contractors are going to be and are being severely cut
employees. Just as we are having to take a hit with our
civilian workforce, there is no way around it. I mean, when you
are putting off contracts and forcing them out into the future,
and because you have less resources you cannot go forward with
making commitments.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Are you concerned about their ability to
have capacity when you do need them as a result of this?
Secretary Hagel. Absolutely. Of course. The chairman talked
about that, and we all know that.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. And to also meet your goals for
disadvantaged groups such as veterans and women, and to make
sure that you are meeting those goals that you set aside to
encourage that entrepreneurship and those kinds of
relationships?
Secretary Hagel. It is all affected.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Any suggestions that you have in the
interim, since the power rests here, about what we do in a
district like mine to sure up these relationships and these
private businesses?
Secretary Hagel. My suggestion is, as the chairman, and the
ranking, and all the members of Congress know, is if we could
get some clarity, some certainty, some flexibility on a budget.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. You have my support to that.
Secretary Hagel. Thank you.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. And thank you very much.
Chairman Ryan. Last but not least, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My constituents
had one question; they would want me to direct it to you,
General Dempsey. And it involves the rules of engagement that
have placed our young men and women under the most
unprecedented constraints, I think, in the history of a
battlefield. The point was brought home to me at a veterans'
lunch a couple of years ago in Nevada City where I was talking
to a young man who just returned from Iraq, as well as a
veteran of Patton's Third Army. And I asked the young man about
the rules of engagement, and the look of relief crossed his
face, like, ``Thank God somebody is asking.'' He says, ``They
are terrible; they will not let us fight back. If we are shot
at, we have to identify ourselves, and first yell at them to
stop shooting at us. If it is at night, we have to shine a
light at them. If the fire is coming from anywhere in the
vicinity of a village, we are not allowed to return fire. We
are not allowed to pursue insurgents into a mosque.'' He says,
``I had a buddy who did that. The insurgents were released; my
buddy was demoted for breaking the rules of engagement.''
I turned to the veteran and I said, ``Well, what were the
rules of engagement in Patton's Third Army?'' And he says,
``Well, we did not really have any rules of engagement. They
told us to kill Germans, and that is what we did.'' And I said,
``Well, if a German squad escaped into a church, would you have
pursued them into the church?'' ``Oh, heavens no,'' he says,
``we would have blown up the church.'' And my question is, can
we look any of these young servicemen and women in the eye and
tell them that we back them with the full might and fury of our
country when we have placed them in harm's way? And that we
gave them the battlefield discretion that has been given to
every generation of fighting men since the beginning of this
republic?
General Dempsey. It is never been, despite what the veteran
told you from World War II, it is never been the tradition in
our country to use force indiscriminately. And the rules of
engagement are reviewed by the commanders in the field with
great frequency. The particular form of conflict in which we
find ourselves now, where what truly hangs in the balance is
the support of the population, and less so, killing a
particular number of insurgents, requires us to be particularly
careful about the use of force. But one thing I can assure you,
no man or woman who we sent into previously Iraq and now
Afghanistan, ever is hamstrung in their ability to protect
themselves. And so some of what you are referring to, I have
seen it myself, I have heard it myself, a good bit of it is
misinformation.
Mr. McClintock. Well, I would suggest that if World War II
were conducted in the same manner as we have conducted our
affairs in Afghanistan, that war would still be going on.
Chairman Ryan. Thank you. This was a fast-moving hearing. I
wish we had more time, but I appreciate your indulgence. Thank
you, Secretaries, for coming. Thank you, General. This hearing
is adjourned.
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
Questions Submitted for the Record From Chairman Ryan
secretary hagel
Afghanistan
1. Recently we have seen several high-profile Taliban attacks. The
Afghanistan NGO Safety Office reported that Taliban attacks are up 47
percent from this time last year. Do you consider this increase in
attacks significant? Why has the military stopped publishing data on
the volume of enemy attacks? What metrics are you using to determine
whether we're making progress? Is there a level of violence that would
necessitate revising the current drawdown plans?
2. In FY 2013, the Department of Defense faced a $12 billion
shortfall in funds available for prosecution of the war in Afghanistan.
Please quantify the contributing factors to this shortfall. What steps
were taken in preparing the FY 2014 war funding request to ensure there
would not be another shortfall in FY 2014?
general dempsey
Defense Efficiencies
3. In response to a question from Mr. Rokita, General Dempsey
testified that a significant factor in the increase in the number of
civilians employed by the Joint Staff was due to the disestablishment
of Joint Forces Command and the absorption of civilian employees from
JFCOM into the Joint Staff. One reason cited for closing JFCOM was to
reduce costs. Please provide an itemized estimate of the savings
achieved by disestablishing JFCOM net of any costs that were assumed by
other elements of the Department of Defense.
4. General Dempsey's prepared statement noted that given recent
budget reductions ``everything must be on the table'' and specifically
noted that included civilian force reductions. Please specify what
additional statutory authorities DOD need to efficiently reduce the
size of its civilian workforce.
Questions Submitted for the Record From Hon. James Lankford, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Oklahoma
secretary hagel and undersecretary hale
Defense Management
In response to my question, Under Secretary Hale testified that the
planned reduction in DOD's civilian workforce ``is heavily dependent on
BRAC.'' The DOD civilian workforce has increased 17% since 2001. During
that same time period, no new domestic bases were established and DOD
executed BRAC 2005 which was arguably more extensive than all four
previous BRAC rounds combined as it involved 24 major base closures, 24
major realignments, and 765 minor closures and realignments. The
evidence does not suggest that BRAC necessarily leads to a smaller
civilian workforce. Given the compressed time available for the
hearing, I wanted to provide you an opportunity to explain this seeming
discrepancy.
Questions Submitted for the Record From Hon. Bill Flores,
a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
secretary hagel
I. Recommendations adopted in the Executive Order stated that
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning will require ``significant initial
investment of both human and financial resources,'' \1\ and in early
2012 the National Ocean Council noted that federal agencies had been
asked to provide information about how ``existing resources [can] be
repurposed for greater efficiency and effectiveness'' in furtherance of
the National Ocean Policy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Page 43, Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force (``Final Recommendations''), released July 19, 2010,
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/
OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf.
\2\ See Draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, National
Ocean Council, released January 12, 2012, Page 5, available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/
national_ocean_policy_draft_implementation_plan_01-12-12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, DOD and Joint Chiefs of Staff representatives are
currently serving on newly-formed Regional Planning Bodies created
under the Executive Order in regions including the Northeast.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://northeastoceancouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/
04/Membership-Roster-NE-RPB1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Please describe how many DOD and Joint Chiefs of Staff resources
and personnel have been directed toward activities specifically in
support of the National Ocean Policy to date, the specific activities
that they have been engaged in, and how many resources and personnel
are being requested to support such activities in the FY 2014 budget
request.
Please describe the DOD and Joint Chiefs of Staff response to the
National Ocean Council inquiry about the repurposing of existing
resources, and any actions that DOD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have
taken or plan to take in this regard.
II. Section 6(b) of Executive Order 13547\4\ that established the
National Ocean Policy in July 2010 requires ``[e]ach executive
department, agency, and office that is required to take actions under
this order shall prepare and make publicly available an annual report
including a concise description of actions taken by the agency in the
previous calendar year to implement the order, a description of written
comments by persons or organizations regarding the agency's compliance
with this order, and the agency's response to such comments.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/2010stewardship-
eo.pdf.
\5\ Federal entities required to take actions pursuant to Executive
Order 13547 include members of the National Ocean Council, comprised of
the Departments of State, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Health and
Human Services, Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Energy, Homeland
Security, and Justice, the Administrators of the Environmental
Protection Agency and National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the Chairs of the Council on Environmental Quality, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, and Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Directors of the
Office of Management and Budget, National Intelligence, the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, and the National Science Foundation, the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (NOAA
Administrator), the Assistants to the President for National Security
Affairs, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Domestic Policy,
Economic Policy, and Energy and Climate Change, and a federal employee
designated by the Vice President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Pursuant to this requirement, have DOD and the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff--both members of the National Ocean Council--
prepared and made publicly available any such annual report for
calendar years 2010, 2011, or 2012? If so, please describe the findings
and contents of such reports, and if not, why has this not occurred?
III. The recommendations adopted by the National Ocean Policy
Executive Order state that effective implementation will require
``clear and easily understood requirements and regulations, where
appropriate, that include enforcement as a critical component.'' \6\ In
addition, the Executive Order requires federal entities including DOD
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to implement the policy
to the fullest extent possible.
At the same time, the National Ocean Council has stated that the
National Policy ``does not establish any new regulations or restrict
any ocean uses or activities.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Page 30 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/
OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf.
\7\ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oceans/faq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if any commitment can you make that DOD and its affiliate
branches will not issue any regulations or take any actions having a
regulatory impact pursuant to the National Ocean Policy, including
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning?
Questions Submitted for the Record From Hon. Luke Messer,
a Representative in Congress From the State of Indiana
secretary hagel
Question Series #1--National Guard Facilities, Muscatatuck Urban
Training Center (MUTC) in Butlerville, IN
The Muscatatuck Urban Training Center, which is located in my home
district, is a 250-acre campus and 180-acre reservoir with urban
infrastructure consisting of 1,560 training structures, including a
school, hospital, dormitories, light industrial structures, single-
family type dwellings, a dining facility and administrative buildings
totaling approximately 850,000 square feet of floor space.
Additionally, the training area includes an extensive, 1,866-foot
underground utility tunnel system and over 9 miles of road. This
installation provides a critical service for preparing National Guard
soldiers, Department of Defense civilian personnel, and U.S. State
Department personnel for deployments to Afghanistan and other locations
through simulations and immersion experiences, as well as other
training opportunities for first responders, law enforcement and
homeland security personnel.
Question: The Vibrant Response 13-2 Northern Command exercise--held
at the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center--is the largest homeland
security exercise conducted annually. This exercise brings together
over 8,000 people across 22 states to test and evaluate our ability to
respond to a nuclear detonation in an urban environment. The exercise
will run from July 21 to August 23, 2013, with incidents on July 30 and
August 10.
The Vibrant Response exercise is an excellent opportunity to
experience the unique capabilities and environment the National Guard
has designed to prepare the U.S. military for combat and humanitarian
operations in urban environments, and also to witness our whole-of-
government response to major humanitarian disasters.
1. On May 7th, the entire Indiana Congressional Delegation sent you
a letter inviting you to come to Indiana to observe the Vibrant
Response 13-2 Northern Command exercise which runs from July 21 to
August 23. If you are unable to attend, would you consider a site visit
to personally observe the joint training programs at Muscatatuck Urban
Training Center and Camp Atterbury?
Background on Civilian-Military Training at Camp Atterbury (CA) and
Muscatatuck Urban Training Center
Camp Atterbury and Muscatatuck Urban Training Center have been
supporting integrated civilian--military training since July 2009. The
programs were created in response to a need to prepare civilian
personnel for overseas deployment in support of U.S. military missions.
Prior to these programs, the ability to bring together civilian and
military interagency teams for pre-deployment training was stymied
because programmatic and systemic obstacles.
In January 2010, the Department of Defense initiated the Civilian
Expeditionary Workforce (CEW) program to provide civilian personnel
with ``real world'' training prior to deployment to a conflict area.
This joint, pre-deployment training and mobilization program plays a
critical role in preparing civilians to work side-by-side with military
personnel in support of humanitarian, reconstruction, and combat-
support military missions. In June 2009, the State Department initiated
its own integrated civilian-military training program for the purpose
of providing its personnel with individual mobilization and situational
training.
Questions: 1. While the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (CEW)
program initially was stood up to support our military missions in Iraq
and Afghanistan, as we draw down in Iraq and Afghanistan won't there
still be will be a need for an integrated civilian-military workforce
to support operations globally?
2. The current programs in place which have the needed partnerships
established and are fully operational and coordinated provide the
Department of Defense and the Department of State a platform to build
an enduring, global program upon. Do you think that the Department of
Defense/Department of State Integrated Civilian-Military Training
program has value and, if so, is it worthy of expansion of its scope to
meet global needs?
Question Series #2--DOD Broadband Spectrum, Spectrum Scarcity
Background
In 1993, 1997, 2004 and 2012, Congress addressed spectrum scarcity
in the commercial mobile industry by requiring spectrum assigned to the
federal government to be reallocated to the FCC for private sector use.
The enormously successful spectrum management policy approach has been
to have the federal entities clear the spectrum, reallocate the
spectrum to the FCC, and then to make the spectrum available for
exclusive use via competitive bidding (i.e. auctions). Spectrum
scarcity has reemerged and now exists in the wireless industry and the
industry is in dire need of additional spectrum to meet the data and
video driven uses by consumers, especially those with smart phones and
tablets.
Questions: 1. Secretary Hagel, you have actual expertise in these
spectrum issues and in the commercial mobile industry having formed
Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc. in 1984. To what extent do you intend
to utilize your spectrum experience when it comes to the management of
the enormous amount of spectrum that is currently assigned to the
Department of Defense?
2. On March, 20, 2013, then FCC Chairman Genachowski advised NTIA
that the FCC intended to auction the licenses in the 1695-1710 band and
1755-1780 band as early as September 2014.The Spectrum Act of 2012
requires that the 2155-2180 band be licensed by February 2015. Recent
estimates indicate that the auctioning of the 2155-2180 MHz band alone
would yield $ 3.6 billion, but auctioned together with the 1755-1780
MHz, the yield would be $12 billion. Can we be assured that DOD will
take all steps necessary to clear this 1755-1780 band, so that it can
be auctioned with the 2155-2180 band?
3. Do you believe that the opportunities for clearing and
reallocating to the private sector spectrum currently assigned to the
Department of Defense and other federal entities have been totally
exhausted, with spectrum sharing between federal agencies and
commercial users being the only alternative to spectrum scarcity? Or do
you believe that there are still opportunities for spectrum currently
assigned to federal agencies to be reallocated to the FCC for private
sector use?
[Response to questions submitted for the record follow:]
congressman cicilline
Question: What's the Department's status with implementing item-
unique identification (IUID) markings? Will sequestration cuts
adversely impact IUID implementation?
Answer: The Department continues to make progress in the
implementation of IUID markings. It is tracking the marking of both
legacy and newly procured items by class of supply. Currently, almost 7
million legacy and over 14 million new contract receipt items are
marked. Each Service developed plans of actions and milestones to track
progress. In addition, an IUID system indicator field is included in
the Department's inventory catalog system. This helps facilitate the
identification of assets requiring the IUID mark and trigger the
inclusion of the required IUID contract clause. Finally, the Department
is revising its policy governing the implementation of the IUID marking
to reflect the current approach.
Sequestration and the budget uncertainty in FY14 and beyond may
impact progress in the following manner:
1. Reduced ``opportunistic IUID marking'' on legacy assets based on
slower induction rates into the depots, since this is the approach most
widely used by the Services to mark assets in inventory.
2. Reduced ``dedicated marking teams'' for legacy assets because
this implementation is being accomplished mainly through contractor-
supported efforts and associated funding may be impacted.
3. Potential delays in IUID IT system enhancements due to budget
prioritization.
The Department remains committed to the importance of IUID marking,
but future efforts will need to be weighed against other mission
priorities based on future years' budgets.
congressman messer to secdef hagel
Question No. 1: Muscatatuck Urban Training Center (MUTC) in
Butlerville, Indiana
Question: The Muscatatuck Urban Training Center, which is located
in my home district, is a 250-acre campus and 180-acre reservoir with
urban infrastructure consisting of 1,560 training structures, including
a school, hospital, dormitories, light industrial structures, single-
family type dwellings, a dining facility and administrative buildings
totaling approximately 850,000 square feet of floor space.
Additionally, the training area includes an extensive, 1,866-foot
underground utility tunnel system and over 9 miles of road. This
installation provides a critical service for preparing National Guard
soldiers, Department of Defense civilian personnel, and U.S. State
Department personnel for deployments to Afghanistan and other locations
through simulations and immersion experiences, as well as other
training opportunities for first responders, law enforcement and
homeland security personnel.
The Vibrant Response 13-2 Northern Command exercise--held at the
Muscatatuck Urban Training Center--is the largest homeland security
exercise conducted annually. This exercise brings together over 8,000
people across 22 states to test and evaluate our ability to respond to
a nuclear detonation in an urban environment. The exercise will run
from July 21 to August 23, 2013, with incidents on July 30 and August
10. The Vibrant Response exercise is an excellent opportunity to
experience the unique capabilities and environment the National Guard
has designed to prepare the U.S. military for combat and humanitarian
operations in urban environments, and also to witness our whole-of-
government response to major humanitarian disasters.
On May 7th, the entire Indiana Congressional Delegation sent you a
letter inviting you to come to Indiana to observe the Vibrant Response
13-2 Northern Command exercise which runs from July 21 to August 23. If
you are unable to attend, would you consider a site visit to personally
observe the joint training programs at Muscatatuck Urban Training
Center and Camp Atterbury?
Answer: I appreciate the Indiana Congressional Delegation's
thoughtful invitation to visit Muscatatuck Urban Training Center and
Camp Atterbury to observe the annual Vibrant Response exercise.
However, due to other commitments, I will be unable to observe this
year's exercise.
I agree that the Vibrant Response exercise is an excellent
opportunity to visit Muscatatuck and observe firsthand the whole-of-
government response to a simulated complex weapon of mass destruction
catastrophe in the homeland. I look forward to taking advantage of a
future opportunity to do so.
congressman messer to secdef hagel
Question No. 2: Background on Civilian-Military Training at Camp
Atterbury (CA) and Muscatatuck Urban Training Center
Question: Camp Atterbury and Muscatatuck Urban Training Center have
been supporting integrated civilian--military training since July 2009.
The programs were created in response to a need to prepare civilian
personnel for overseas deployment in support of U.S. military missions.
Prior to these programs, the ability to bring together civilian and
military interagency teams for pre-deployment training was stymied
because programmatic and systemic obstacles.
In January 2010, the Department of Defense initiated the Civilian
Expeditionary Workforce (CEW) program to provide civilian personnel
with ``real world'' training prior to deployment to a conflict area.
This joint, pre-deployment training and mobilization program plays a
critical role in preparing civilians to work side-by-side with military
personnel in support of humanitarian, reconstruction, and combat-
support military missions. In June 2009, the State Department initiated
its own integrated civilian-military training program for the purpose
of providing its personnel with individual mobilization and situational
training.
1. While the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce (CEW) program
initially was stood up to support our military missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as we draw down in Iraq and Afghanistan won't there still
be will be a need for an integrated civilian-military workforce to
support operations globally?
2. The current programs in place which have the needed partnerships
established and are fully operational and coordinated provide the
Department of Defense and the Department of State a platform to build
an enduring, global program upon. Do you think that the Department of
Defense/Department of State Integrated Civilian-Military Training
program has value and, if so, is it worthy of expansion of its scope to
meet global needs?
Answer
1. The need for an integrated civilian-military workforce is driven
by the requirements of the Combatant Commanders and in fact the
Civilian Expeditionary Workforce currently supports the world-wide
needs of all Combatant Commanders. Further, the portability and
transferability of the Iraq and Afghanistan pre-deployment training and
mobilization can be adapted to meet global requirements based on
identified needs and requirements. This gives Combatant Commanders
greater contingency manning flexibility.
2. The Department of Defense sees great value in the Integrated
Civilian-Military Field Training Program that it conducts in
partnership with the Department of State. The Atterbury-Muscatatuk
field training portion of the course is consistently praised by its
graduates and has certainly proven its worth in Afghanistan. The
potential to expand this training course globally depends on a
statement of need from both the State Department and Combatant
Commanders. The genesis of the current training course at Atterbury-
Muscatatuk was contingency operations in Afghanistan. Future
contingencies will in all likelihood require civilian federal agencies
and military personnel to serve side-by-side. If so, there is a high
potential this need will once again be identified.
congressman messer
Question No. 3: Spectrum Scarcity Background
In 1993, 1997, 2004 and 2012, Congress addressed spectrum scarcity
in the commercial mobile industry by requiring spectrum assigned to the
federal government to be reallocated to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for private sector use. The enormously successful
spectrum management policy approach has been to have the federal
entities clear the spectrum, reallocate the spectrum to the FCC, and
then to make the spectrum available for exclusive use via competitive
bidding (i.e. auctions). Spectrum scarcity has reemerged and now exists
in the wireless industry and the industry is in dire need of additional
spectrum to meet the data and video driven uses by consumers,
especially those with smart phones and tablets.
1. Question: Secretary Hagel, you have actual expertise in these
spectrum issues and in the commercial mobile industry having formed
Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc. in 1984. To what extent do you intend
to utilize your spectrum experience when it comes to the management of
the enormous amount of spectrum that is currently assigned to the
Department of Defense?
Answer: I fully intend to apply my spectrum experience with full
commitment to balance national security and economic goals in the
implementation of U.S. spectrum management policy. In that regard, I am
already actively working with the Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), other
Administration partners, the FCC, and industry in support the
President's goal to make 500 MHz available for commercial mobile
broadband use.
In terms of how much of this scarce resource is available to DOD,
the perception of ``enormous'' amounts of spectrum being available to
DOD is relative. Based on the United States Frequency Allocation chart,
and using the strict interpretation of the allocations, one will find
in spectrum between 225 and 3700 MHz 18% federal exclusive use, 33%
non-federal exclusive use, and 49% federal/non-federal shared use.
Within spectrum allocated for exclusive federal use, the majority of
the spectrum is shared between DOD and all of the other federal
agencies, across a wide array of systems, performing a multitude of
varied missions, often with very different technologies.
2. Question: On March, 20, 2013, then FCC Chairman Genachowski
advised NTIA that the FCC intended to auction the licenses in the 1695-
1710 band and 1755-1780 band as early as September 2014. The Spectrum
Act of 2012 requires that the 2155-2180 band be licensed by February
2015. Recent estimates indicate that the auctioning of the 2155-2180
MHz band alone would yield $ 3.6 billion, but auctioned together with
the 1755-1780 MHz, the yield would be $12 billion. Can we be assured
that DOD will take all steps necessary to clear this 1755-1780 band, so
that it can be auctioned with the 2155-2180 band?
Answer: DOD understands the desire to bring the 1755-1780 MHz to
market rapidly, particularly with industry's desire to pair the band
with 2155-2180 MHz. To that end, DOD actively supports interagency
processes for repurposing spectrum for commercial broadband purposes
that entail both sharing and relocation possibilities. The Department
has significant concerns with the FCC's proposed auction timeline,
since it presents a very risky possibility of being required to
``clear'' operations from the 1755-1780 MHz or compress operations into
the 1780-1850 MHz without the necessary accommodation of comparable
spectrum and funding, which are both required by statute.
The Department's concerns are heightened when expectations seem to
be that DOD can simply alter assignments or protection requirements, in
turn its operations, to clear the 1755-1780 MHz band, in spite of the
findings from analysis done thus far. These findings indicate that both
complete relocation or total compression of federal operations into the
70 MHz between 1780-1850 MHz have major challenges associated with
them, if either one is attempted without proper accommodation.
The Department is prepared to support a balanced solution to
address just the 1755-1780 MHz band, as desired by industry, but
remains certain that such a short-term solution without assured long-
term status of the remaining 70 MHz will put warfighting capabilities
at further risk. The analysis findings highlight that a realistic and
balanced solution will likely need to include a combination of sharing,
relocation, and some compression. An approach that considers such
combination of strategies and that takes into account national security
and economics could reduce the total relocation costs for federal
agencies and lessen demands for comparable spectrum.
3. Question: Do you believe that the opportunities for clearing and
reallocating to the private sector spectrum currently assigned to the
Department of Defense and other federal entities have been totally
exhausted, with spectrum sharing between federal agencies and
commercial users being the only alternative to spectrum scarcity? Or do
you believe that there are still opportunities for spectrum currently
assigned to federal agencies to be reallocated to the FCC for private
sector use?
Answer: This question is best answered by NTIA, the federal
spectrum regulator. DOD is a user of spectrum that gets assigned by
NTIA based on need, taking into account all other federal agencies'
requirements. However, the increasing demand for this invaluable,
finite resource for both commercial use and federal missions indicates
the importance of evaluating all alternatives, including spectrum
sharing. Consistent with the national economic and security goals of
the President's 500 MHz initiative, DOD supported and continues to
support interagency processes for repurposing spectrum for commercial
broadband purposes that entail both sharing and relocation
possibilities.
From a DOD perspective, both sharing and relocation decisions pose
potential risks. While no decision to repurpose spectrum is ``risk
free,'' the risks can and must be managed. To date the interagency
efforts the Department has been involved with, have identified ?400 MHz
of federally allocated spectrum for potential commercial broadband use.
The Department is committed to continuing its strong working
relationship with government and industry partners to develop equitable
spectrum repurposing solutions to make more spectrum available for
commercial use without impact to national security and other agencies'
missions.
congressman calvert to secdef hagel
Question No. 4: DOD Civilian Workforce
Question: In our challenging fiscal environment, I am concerned
that the Department of Defense is not tracking the size of the civilian
workforce as effectively as it can. I have heard official and
unofficial testimony while under my Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
``Hat'' to the effect that DOD has difficulty managing the civilian
workforce which has increased in size by 114,000 employees (17 percent)
since 2001. Specifically, the very high proportion of retirement
eligible employees and the difficulties in terminating employees who
are not performing has raised some red flags. A former service
secretary has told us that it was easier to shrink the size of the
force by tens of thousands of uniformed personnel than to fire a single
civilian employee.
In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports
that the Department of Defense has yet to include an accurate
assessment of the appropriate mix of military and civilian personnel
capabilities in its strategic workforce plan. Its latest strategic plan
from March 2012 cites 22 mission critical, civilian personnel
occupations. However, the report had only conducted competency gap
analyses for 8 of the 22 occupations identified. The GAO also reports
that the DOD has neglected to provide full data on the mix of military,
civilian, and contractor workforces. Of the 11 groups reporting, only
two provided the proper data while nine provided partial or no data.
1. Do you share these concerns about the constraints on your
ability to manage your department effectively?
2. When can we expect an accurate assessment of your military and
civilian personnel capabilities as part of your strategic workforce
plan?
3. Can you describe the process for terminating employment for a
civilian employee who is underperforming?
4. Are there legislative measures that Congress can take to assist
the department in managing the civilian workforce in a more cost
effective manner?
Answer
1. I do not share the concerns attributed to a former service
secretary. The Department's managers and commanders have a wide variety
of tools and authorities to incentivize and shape their civilian
workforce. The execution of large shifts in any sector of the
Department's workforce requires thoughtful planning. The high
proportion of retirement eligible employees is very concerning as is
the on-going, unjustly negative characterization of public service.
Further, it is a mischaracterization that it is hard to terminate a
poorly performing civilian. It is no harder and requires no more
documentation than to cancel a poorly performing contract, or release a
military member for an infraction. The burden of proof is appropriately
high for all of these actions to guard against arbitrary, retaliatory,
or capricious actions.
2. The Department is committed to a comprehensive Strategic
Workforce Plan (SWP) that helps address the demographic (talent,
competency, education, skill) make-up of its civilian personnel
inventory. As part of a continuous process to improve the accuracy and
relevancy of the SWP, the Department is maturing its competency
modeling process and skill gap analysis. That said, let me assure you
that the Department's programming and planning processes consider the
balance of capabilities and the Department's ``sourcing'' of functions
and work between military and civilian personnel, as well as contracted
services. The Department's Total Force is sized and structured based on
the capabilities necessary to implement the national military and
security strategies of the United States as well as delivering the
readiness and support to organize, train, and equip a force capable of
executing operational plans in support of those strategies. The
Department aligns its workforce (both in size and structure) to mission
and, as such, justifies the current size or possible reductions/
increases to that workforce based on mission workload rather than
competency or skills gaps. The FY14 budget request reflects a balanced
workforce that decreases spending on military personnel, civilian full-
time equivalents, and spending for contract services. It reflects a
carefully coordinated approach based on the Department's strategy and
policy that balances operational needs and fiscal reality.
3. The Department is subject to Office of Personnel and Management-
established rules for removing employees for unacceptable performance.
Generally, under the government-wide rules for a performance-based
action, an employee must clearly be put on notice of their unacceptable
performance as well as the consequences of unacceptable performance,
and be provided an opportunity to improve their performance to an
acceptable level. If after the opportunity to improve, the employee's
performance continues to be unacceptable in a critical job element, the
employee is given written notice of proposed removal, which includes an
opportunity for the employee to respond to the proposal orally and/or
in writing. Upon conclusion of consideration of the employee's
response, the employee may be removed and appeal rights charged in the
employee's status.
4. Congress could assist the Department with better total force
management by repealing the requirements in section 955 of the FY13
National Defense Authorization Act and instead requiring a future
year's defense plan that reflects the Defense Strategic Guidance, given
on-going fiscal pressures, risk, required readiness, and a rebalancing
of the total force--active duty, guard, and reserve military,
government civilians, and contracted services.
congressman calvert to secdef hagel
Question No. 5: Electronic Health Record
Question: In the 2008 NDAA, Congress mandated that DOD to jointly
develop and implement electronic health record systems or capabilities
to allow for full interoperability of personal health care information,
and to accelerate the exchange of health care information between the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
by September 2009. DOD and the VA were initially on board with that
plan. Now, this past February, it was announced that instead of
building a single integrated electronic health record (iEHR), both DOD
and VA will concentrate on integrating VA and DOD health data by
focusing on interoperability and using existing technological
solutions. This is unacceptable. The creation of a single electronic
medical health record is not rocket science and private industry, which
services many more people than DOD and VA, has been able to implement
electronic medical health records.
My questions for you are:
1. Why, after four years of being on board with the concept, are
DOD and the VA moving away from the single electronic medical health
record?
2. Is DOD partnering with private industry health providers to
implement a plan to solve this problem?
3. Do you have any data comparing the long-term cost savings of a
single electronic medical health record vs. interoperability? Would you
expect that a single electronic medical health record would provide
more savings than interoperability?
Answer: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you and the
committee DOD perspectives on the healthcare record system. The
questions that you asked are reasonable and the answers follow:
1. Why, after four years of being on board with the concept, are
DOD and the VA moving away from the single electronic medical health
record?
DOD and VA are committed to jointly establishing standards-based
healthcare data interoperability through a single electronic medical
health record since Congress directed the establishment of the
Interagency Program Office (IPO) in 2008. Since that time, DOD and VA
also initially agreed to modernize their respective healthcare
management systems to equip clinicians with state-of-the-art clinical
decision support through the joint development of a single healthcare
management system. Based on concerns by my predecessor regarding the
viability of the joint development approach, DOD and VA reconsidered
the joint development and VA subsequently declared its commitment to
modernizing its legacy VistA system. Following an internal DOD review,
I issued a memorandum on May 21, 2013, reasserting DOD's commitment to
working with VA to establish healthcare data interoperability and
separately directing a competitive acquisition to modernize DOD's
healthcare management systems. DOD continues to remain committed to a
seamless integration of electronic medical health data based on
standards-based healthcare data interoperability with VA, independent
of the healthcare management system acquired by each respective
Department.
2. Is DOD partnering with private industry health providers to
implement a plan to solve this problem?
The DOD/VA IPO is working with the Department of Health and Human
Services' Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology (IT) to establish and implement national health IT
standards. Through this effort, the Departments seek to establish
interoperability of healthcare data with private industry health
providers, many of whom provide direct care to Service Members, their
dependents, and our Nation's veterans.
3. Do you have any data comparing the long-term cost savings of a
single electronic medical health record vs. interoperability?
The Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE),
performed analyses in 2010 and 2013 to determine the optimal approach
for DOD, including lifecycle cost estimate comparisons between
candidate solution approaches. My May 21, 2013, memorandum directing a
competitive acquisition enables DOD to review and evaluate the costs
and benefits of potential electronic healthcare record solutions,
including the possibility of acquiring an evolved VistA, based upon
responses to a forthcoming request for proposal. DOD remains committed
to establishing standards-based healthcare data interoperability with
VA, regardless of the outcome of our healthcare management systems
modernization effort.
4. Would you expect that a single electronic medical health record
would provide more savings than interoperability?
The DOD path of pursuing a competitive acquisition to consider
commercial- and Government-developed solutions offers a technical and
cost advantage for DOD. Regardless of the outcome of the competition,
DOD is required to establish healthcare data interoperability based on
national standards to permit healthcare data exchanges with private
healthcare providers. Interoperability with the numerous electronic
healthcare management systems utilized by private healthcare providers
is essential since they provide 65 percent of the healthcare received
by Service Members and their dependents. The competitive acquisition
approach to modernizing our healthcare management system as an effort
separate from, but closely tied to, establishing healthcare data
interoperability, will provide DOD with the flexibility to evaluate
potential options and acquire the most capable solution to serve our
Service Members and their dependents for the best value to the American
taxpayer.
congressman calvert to secdef hagel
Question No. 6: BRAC
Question: Given our fiscal challenges and continually evolving
military requirements, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process
can provide us another way to address the Department of Defense's
extensive footprint and its associated costs. Knowing that this process
can become a political quagmire, is there a way the Department of
Defense can come up with a methodology for executing a BRAC system that
allows for a simpler and speedier process?
Answer: While the request for BRAC authorization can become mired
in politics as you suggest, the BRAC process itself represents a grand
political compromise that makes military value the primary
consideration and is structured to be free from political influences.
BRAC is recognized as the only fair, objective, and proven process for
closing and realigning installations because it includes a sound
analytical process, an independent Commission review, an ``All or
None'' review by the President and Congress, and a legal obligation and
date certain for completion. Therefore, the BRAC process is
comprehensive and thorough and, as such, it takes time to do it
properly.
congressman flores to secdef hagel
Question No. 7: National Ocean Policy
Question: Recommendations adopted in the Executive Order stated
that Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning will require ``significant
initial investment of both human and financial resources,''\1\ and in
early 2012 the National Ocean Council noted that federal agencies had
been asked to provide information about how ``existing resources [can]
be repurposed for greater efficiency and effectiveness'' in furtherance
of the National Ocean Policy.\2\ In addition, DOD and Joint Chiefs of
Staff representatives are currently serving on newly-formed Regional
Planning Bodies created under the Executive Order in regions including
the Northeast.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Page 43, Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force (``Final Recommendations''), released July 19, 2010,
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF--
FinalRecs.pdf.
\2\ See Draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, National
Ocean Council, released January 12, 2012, Page 5, available at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/national--ocean--
policy--draft--implementation--plan--01-12-12.pdf.
\3\ See http://northeastoceancouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/
04/Membership-Roster-NE-RPB1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Please describe how many DOD and Joint Chiefs of Staff resources
and personnel have been directed toward activities specifically in
support of the National Ocean Policy to date, the specific activities
that they have been engaged in, and how many resources and personnel
are being requested to support such activities in the FY 2014 budget
request.
2. Please describe the DOD and Joint Chiefs of Staff response to
the National Ocean Council inquiry about the repurposing of existing
resources, and any actions that DOD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have
taken or plan to take in this regard.
Answer: Both DOD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff designated
representatives to each of the nine proposed or constituted Regional
Planning Bodies (RPB). Such personnel were assigned this additional
duty based on existing military duties or federal civilian job
performance objectives, which include working in various interagency
forums as well as engaging in strategy and policy planning activities.
DOD personnel are supporting the National Ocean Policy at multiple
levels, including:
Regional Planning Bodies (13 individuals/additional
duties),
multiple interagency working groups (seven individuals/
additional duties),
the Ocean Resources Management Interagency Policy
Committee and the Ocean Science and Technology Interagency Policy
Committee (two individuals/additional duties),
senior policy representative (two individuals/additional
duties), senior executive representatives (two individuals/additional
duties).
The Navy is serving as the federal co-lead for the South Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico regions, even though neither of these regions is a
formal RPB yet. A Navy officer has also been detailed to the National
Ocean Council staff for the past three years. Moreover, DOD and the
Joint Staff established an Executive Steering Group (ESG) comprised of
flag/general officers and senior civilian personnel to provide
leadership and guidance for ocean policy matters arising from any
issues or questions that may arise while the regional planning bodies
carry out activities consistent with the National Ocean Policy. The ESG
is comprised of 32 flag/general/SES members and supported by 86 staff
members. Working in support of ocean policy is within the current
assignments and subject matter portfolios for all of these DOD
personnel. They meet and engage on issues on an as-needed basis,
consistent with the pace and range of issues raised by the National
Ocean Council and regional planning bodies.
DOD and the military services do not have accounting lines for
National Ocean Policy activities in the FY 2014 budget. Furthermore,
DOD is not requesting additional personnel to support National Ocean
Policy activities. In response to the National Ocean Council's request
regarding how DOD is furthering the National Ocean Policy, the
Department identified existing mission areas that align with and
support the goals and objectives of the policy. By leveraging these
appropriate mission objectives with those of other agencies, DOD is
supporting and contributing to the goals and objectives defined by
Executive Order 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the
Great Lakes. For example, DOD informed the National Ocean Council that
it is concerned about climate change for multiple reasons, and that sea
level rise must be planned for and adapted to at multiple bases that
are located in the coastal zone. The Department specifically said that
it would leverage the work of the Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program (SERDP), which estimates the potential effects of
sea level rise.
congressman flores to secdef hagel
Question No. 8: National Ocean Policy
Question: Section 6(b) of Executive Order 13547\4\ that established
the National Ocean Policy in July 2010 requires ``[e]ach executive
department, agency, and office that is required to take actions under
this order shall prepare and make publicly available an annual report
including a concise description of actions taken by the agency in the
previous calendar year to implement the order, a description of written
comments by persons or organizations regarding the agency's compliance
with this order, and the agency's response to such comments.''\5\
Pursuant to this requirement, have DOD and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff--both members of the National Ocean Council--prepared
and made publicly available any such annual report for calendar years
2010, 2011, or 2012? If so, please describe the findings and contents
of such reports, and if not, why has this not occurred?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/2010stewardship-
eo.pdf.
\5\ Federal entities required to take actions pursuant to Executive
Order 13547 include members of the National Ocean Council, comprised of
the Departments of State, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Health and
Human Services, Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Energy, Homeland
Security, and Justice, the Administrators of the Environmental
Protection Agency and National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the Chairs of the Council on Environmental Quality, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, and Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Directors of the
Office of Management and Budget, National Intelligence, the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the National Science
Foundation, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
(NOAA Administrator), the Assistants to the President for National
Security Affairs, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Domestic
Policy, Economic Policy, and Energy and Climate Change, and a federal
employee designated by the Vice President.
Answer: DOD and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted
materials to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for
2010, 2011, and 2012 for inclusion in the Federal Ocean and Coastal
Activities Report (FOCAR). DOD provided CEQ and OSTP with material for
the 2012 report in August 2012. DOD reported on the activities of the
Office of Naval Research, Naval Ocean Sciences, Applied Ocean Research,
National Oceanographic Partnership Programs (NOPP), Marine Mammal,
Oceanography, and Geospatial Information and Services programs.
congressman flores to secdef hagel
Question No. 9: National Ocean Policy
Question: The recommendations adopted by the National Ocean Policy
Executive Order state that effective implementation will require
``clear and easily understood requirements and regulations, where
appropriate, that include enforcement as a critical component.''\6\ In
addition, the Executive Order requires federal entities including DOD
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to implement the policy
to the fullest extent possible. At the same time, the National Ocean
Council has stated that the National Policy ``does not establish any
new regulations or restrict any ocean uses or activities.''\7\ What if
any commitment can you make that DOD and its affiliate branches will
not issue any regulations or take any actions having a regulatory
impact pursuant to the National Ocean Policy, including Coastal and
Marine Spatial Planning?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See page 30 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF--
FinalRecs.pdf.
\7\ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oceans/faq.
Answer: In order to comply with environmental laws, such as the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), the Department engages in numerous environmental
planning activities while executing its title 10 mission. Relative to
its title 10 mission, DOD and its components are regulated entities and
do not issue regulations or take actions that have regulatory impact
pursuant to the National Ocean Policy. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
does exercise regulatory responsibilities under title 33 (Corps Civil
Works / Regulatory mission) in navigable waters, but does not report to
the Secretary of Defense for these activities. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will continue to operate under its existing authorities, and
any new regulations would be issued on a case-by-case basis independent
of the National Ocean Policy.
congressman rice to secdef hagel
Question No. 10: Survivor Benefits
Question: Secretary Hagel, I would like to ask you about Survivor
Benefits for members of the Guard and Reserve who die while performing
their primary mission on an Inactive Duty Training (IDT) status. My
understanding is that there is a longstanding inequity in the
calculation for survivor annuities of reserve personnel killed while
performing inactive duty training and this concerns me. The families of
anyone who perishes while wearing the uniform--whether on an IDT status
or active duty status--deserves to have their survivor benefits
calculated with consistency and equity.
A hypothetical based on current law could be the way Survivor
Benefits Plan (SBP) would be calculated for two Air Force Majors, both
with 18 years of service. Let's assume Major A is on Active Duty orders
and Major B is a reservist on IDT status. If both Major A and Major B
are piloting a T-38 and that T-38 is involved in an unforeseen incident
that results in the deaths of both Major A and Major B--SBP annuity
payments for Major A and Major B will be calculated differently,
despite being killed in the same incident. The surviving spouse of
Major A would receive an annuity of $2,908 per month, while the
surviving spouse of Major B would receive an annuity of just $969 per
month. This type of inequity for the families of a loved one who
perished while serving their country is wrong and needs to be corrected
and fixed for those who have died and those who may die.
1. What efforts has the Department of Defense made to end this
survivor annuity inequity between Active Duty orders and IDT status?
2. Are you aware of a bill I authored with Rep. Jason Chaffetz--
H.R. 1770--that would provide the necessary legislative fix for this
inequity? This bill would also include retroactive payments for the 98
families who had loved ones die while assigned an IDT status and have
been receiving either a reduced or no annuity. According to a
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score in the 112th Congress, this
legislation would have a cost of $12 million over the 10-year budget
window--$1 million in retroactive payments and $11 million in future
annuity payments. This bill is also being heavily supported by the
Military Coalition, which as you know, includes 33 uniformed services
and veterans associations representing more than 5.5 million current
and former servicemembers and their families and survivors.
3. Would the Department of Defense support the efforts of HR 1770,
including the retroactive payments for the 98 families?
4. Will the Department of Defense officially request that Congress
find a legislative fix to this inequality between IDT and Active Duty--
either in future budget submissions or other means? If so, will the
Department of Defense assist the Congress to identify an acceptable $12
million offset in Department of Defense mandatory/direct spending?
Answer: We are aware of the concern you raise and of the bill you
co-sponsored, H.R. 1770. The Department does not support H.R. 1770 and
believes the retroactive provision in the bill could create significant
unintended consequences.
At this time, we are complying with current law regarding the
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and acknowledge the differences in the
annuity calculation. The Services are currently reviewing the
discrepancy between Active Duty and Inactive Duty Training (IDT)
survivor annuities and will make a recommendation to me on whether or
not to maintain status quo. If we conclude a change is necessary to
address this issue, we will submit a request for legislation.
chairman ryan to secdef hagel
Question No. 11: Afghanistan
Question: Recently we have seen several high-profile Taliban
attacks. The Afghanistan NGO Safety Office reported that Taliban
attacks are up 47 percent from this time last year. Do you consider
this increase in attacks significant? Why has the military stopped
publishing data on the volume of enemy attacks? What metrics are you
using to determine whether we're making progress? Is there a level of
violence that would necessitate revising the current drawdown plans?
Answer: The Department of Defense (DOD) assesses the level of
violence in Afghanistan using data from many data sources, including
reports from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the
Intelligence Community. DOD neither uses ``Afghanistan NGO Safety
Office (ANSO)'' data, nor does it have insight into ANSO's methods of
collection, level of fidelity, impartiality, or accuracy. The ISAF
metric that appears to be most similar to the ANSO ``Armed Opposition
Group attacks'' metric is Enemy Initiated Attacks (EIAs). Between
October 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013, ISAF reported no change in EIA
levels when compared to October 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012.
The Department no longer uses nationwide EIA totals, and historical
comparisons of these totals, as a main metric of success in
Afghanistan. In the past, ISAF public reporting and media coverage of
the conflict in Afghanistan relied too heavily on EIA reporting as a
``scoreboard'' for progress. DOD's primary assessment of the conflict
in Afghanistan, the semi-annual report to Congress on ``Progress Toward
Security and Stability in Afghanistan,'' draws from a wide array of
security, governance, and economic metrics that provide a more
comprehensive picture of the overall situation than the total number of
EIAs. These metrics include: improvised explosive device events, direct
fire attacks, high-profile attacks, complex attacks, indirect-fire
attacks, civilian casualties, Afghan National Security Force (ANSF)
capability ratings, ANSF operational reporting, ANSF facilities
construction and maintenance, ANSF funding, ANSF recruitment, GDP
growth rates, population polling, international community donations to
Afghanistan, Afghan government budget execution rates, school
attendance, economic infrastructure build, cell phone usage, counter-
narcotics indicators, health indicators, and many other metrics and
indicators. A tally of EIAs is not now, nor was it ever, the most
complete measure of the campaign's progress. At a time when more than
80 percent of EIAs are happening in areas where less than 20 percent of
Afghans live, this single facet of the campaign is less relevant in
evaluating progress against the insurgency.
There is no pre-set level of violence that would necessitate
revising the Department's plans to execute President Obama's direction
announced in February 2013 that the United States reduce force levels
in Afghanistan by 34,000 personnel by February 2014--a level one-half
the size of U.S. forces in Afghanistan at the time of the announcement.
This timeline provides support to the ANSF through two crucial Afghan-
led fighting seasons, as well as assist the ANSF during the 2014
election period, the success of which is critical to the long-term
stability of Afghanistan. The pace and size of this drawdown of U.S.
forces is consistent with the recommendation of Commander, ISAF to draw
down in a manner that protects our forces and maintains the gains of
the past two years. These drawdown plans are based upon a comprehensive
analysis of the situation in Afghanistan, of which violence levels are
only one of many factors considered.
chairman ryan to secdef hagel
Question No. 12: Afghanistan
Question: In FY 2013, the Department of Defense faced a $12 billion
shortfall in funds available for prosecution of the war in Afghanistan.
Please quantify the contributing factors to this shortfall. What steps
were taken in preparing the FY 2014 war funding request to ensure there
would not be another shortfall in FY 2014?
Answer: The Department is experiencing higher-than-expected costs
in FY 2013 war spending because operating tempo in Afghanistan and
transportation costs are higher than anticipated when preparing the war
budget 2 years ago. The Department estimates a $7 to $10 billion
shortfall for FY 2013, and continues to refine this estimate based on
operational needs. The contributing factors include greater than
expected requirements for:
In-theater maintenance providing organizational and
intermediate level maintenance repairs on various air, ground, and
support equipment;
The Logistics Civil Augmentation Program providing
operational support to the warfighter and other support personnel in
the form of food preparation, power generation, and other basic life
support functions;
Base communications throughout the U.S. Central Command
area of responsibility for network operations, satellite communication
bandwidth and transmissions, air traffic control landing system
support, and teleconferencing;
Base and facilities operations, transportation and storage
of perishable foods in theater, air operations, and other activities
that sustain vital mission capability; and
Military operations including increases in the number of
flying hours being flown, changes in Military Service mix, e.g., less
Marine Corps but more Army, and other operating tempo changes;
In preparing the FY 2014 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
request, the Department made every effort to ensure all anticipated war
costs are included and reflects the most current military assumptions
available for FY 2014.
chairman ryan to gen dempsey
Question No. 13: Defense Efficiencies
Question: In response to a question from Mr. Rokita, General
Dempsey testified that a significant factor in the increase in the
number of civilians employed by the Joint Staff was due to the
disestablishment of Joint Forces Command and the absorption of civilian
employees from JFCOM into the Joint Staff. One reason cited for closing
JFCOM was to reduce costs. Please provide an itemized estimate of the
savings achieved by disestablishing JFCOM net of any costs that were
assumed by other elements of the Department of Defense.
Answer: The disestablishment of JFCOM provided an estimated savings
of approximately $292M for FY12 and $1.9B for FY12-FY16. See below for
details:
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Forces (USA)...................... $8 $18 $28 $39 $39 $132
Operating Forces (USN)...................... $120,626 $127,887 $135,144 $138,066 $140,363 $662,086
Admin & Service-Wide Activities (USN)....... $23,265 $29,477 $29,978 $30,488 $31,006 $144,214
Operating Forces (USAF)..................... $6,546 $8,639 $8,836 $9,059 $9,213 $42,293
Operating Forces (SOCOM).................... $1,861 $3,179 $2,235 $2,292 $2,347 $11,914
Admin & Service-Wide Activities (DIA)....... $16,313 $17,926 $18,300 $18,872 $18,628 $90,039
Admin & Service-Wide Activities (OSD)....... $15,800 $31,349 $26,966 $24,985 $25,410 $124,510
Personnel & Command Support Equipment (USN). $3,998 $3,395 $4,581 $9,996 $9,423 $31,393
Electronics & Telecommunications Equipment $917 $931 $937 $951 $967 4,703
(USAF).....................................
Major Equip (DIA)........................... $900 0 0 0 0 $900
Major Equip (OSD)........................... $20,604 $25,123 $20,432 $20,151 $19,282 $105,592
Operational System Development (USAF)....... $3,319 $4,011 $4,068 $4,124 0 $15,522
Advanced Technology Development (OSD)....... $54,215 $61,868 $62,816 $63,984 $66,374 $309,257
Advanced Component Development & Prototypes $13,177 $15,886 $16,090 $16,281 $16,971 $78,405
(OSD)......................................
Management Support (OSD).................... $42,493 $43,465 $39,994 $37,126 $36,627 $199,705
Operational System Development (OSD)........ $17,481 $19,674 $19,629 $20,203 $21,097 $98,084
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. *$341,523 $392,828 $390,034 $396,617 $397,747 $1,918,749
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The savings of $292M for FY12 was calculated by taking the $341,523 referenced above and subtracting the $49M
the Joint Staff received in FY12 from Resource Management Decision 703A2 (JFCOM Disestablishment Costs).
chairman ryan to gen dempsey
Question No. 14: Defense Efficiencies
Question: General Dempsey's prepared statement noted that given
recent budget reductions ``everything must be on the table'' and
specifically noted that included civilian force reductions. Please
specify what additional statutory authorities DOD need to efficiently
reduce the size of its civilian workforce.
Answer: No additional statutory authorities are needed to reduce
the size of the DOD Civilian workforce. Civilian reduction in force
regulatory guidance is contained in Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 351. The Secretary of Defense has the authority to
decide whether or not a RIF is necessary, and when the RIF will take
place.
chairman ryan to secdef hagel, usd(c) hale
Question No. 15: Defense Management
Question: In response to my question, Under Secretary Hale
testified that the planned reduction in DOD's civilian workforce ``is
heavily dependent on BRAC.'' The DOD civilian workforce has increased
17% since 2001. During that same time period, no new domestic bases
were established and DOD executed Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC
2005 which was arguably more extensive than all four previous BRAC
rounds combined as it involved 24 major base closures, 24 major
realignments, and 765 minor closures and realignments. The evidence
does not suggest that BRAC necessarily leads to a smaller civilian
workforce. Given the compressed time available for the hearing, I
wanted to provide you an opportunity to explain this seeming
discrepancy.
Answer: The BRAC 2005 focus was realignment and consolidation of
infrastructure, not on closures necessitated by force structure
reductions. A more appropriate comparison of the BRAC requested in the
FY 2014 President's Budget is to BRAC 93/95. The focus for those BRAC
rounds was on shedding excess Cold War infrastructure of which
generated approximately 36,000 civilian full-time equivalent
reductions.
The BRAC requested in the FY 2014 President's Budget will allow the
DOD to rightsize and align its infrastructure to the needs of its
evolving force structure, which is critical to ensuring that limited
resources are available for the highest priorities of the warfighter
and national security. The BRAC authorization is required to meet the
fiscal limitation of statutory spending caps, while providing important
assistance to affected communities.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the committee adjourned subject
to the call of the Chair]