[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2014
----------
Tuesday, March 5, 2013.
FORCE STRUCTURE ISSUES AND THE IMPACT ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
WITNESSES
GENERAL RAYMOND T. ODIERNO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY
ADMIRAL JONATHAN W. GREENERT, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
GENERAL JAMES F. AMOS, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS
GENERAL MARK A. WELSH III, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE
Chairman's Opening Statement
Mr. Culberson. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to
the first hearing of the Military Construction and V.A.
Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. It is a
great privilege to chair this extraordinary committee, with so
many members of the House who share my passion for the, to help
the United States military is something that we all are arm-in-
arm in and we are honored to be here with you this morning,
gentlemen.
And we have a lot of questions that we want to have your
help in answering to help us better serve you, to make sure
that the men and women of the United States military have
everything they need to do their job and don't have to look
over their shoulder or worry for one moment about their
facilities, their living conditions, their health care when
they are active duty or when they retire. This is an
extraordinary privilege for us, and we are looking forward to
hearing from each and every one of you this morning.
But before I introduce our witnesses, I would like to turn
to our ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for any opening remarks that
he would like to make.
Mr. Bishop.
Ranking Member's Opening Statement
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to thank all of you for your continued service to our nation.
You certainly are truly deserving of our nation's affection and
support.
Mr. Chairman, we are facing some very difficult times. And,
of course, March 1st, the automatic cuts called sequestration
are being implemented.
And it was included in the Budget Control Act to force all
of us in the Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to work
together to resolve our fiscal problems, but the cuts that are
set to go into effect are really unacceptable, and I find it
hard to believe that some of our colleagues are willing to
accept cuts that would significantly harm our national security
and our military's ability to handle any contingency now and
going forward.
Some of our colleagues believe that these cuts won't
threaten the hundreds of thousands of middle-class jobs; that
this is just merely hyperbole to scare the public, but I just
want my colleagues to know that these cuts are real, and that
they will have a devastating impact.
For example, in Georgia, sequestration will affect over
37,000 jobs. In my district, just for the Army, 17,000 jobs
will be affected. And the people in our district are really
hard working folks, and they just want a chance to pursue the
American dream. Many of them are federal employees who have
already been forced to cut back as a result of some of the
actions that have already been taken.
Others are defense contractors, who support our men and
women in uniform, and who--at the point of the spear--and rely
on--we rely on the defense contractors to keep them well
equipped and well trained. They can't afford the arbitrary
irrational cuts that are being implemented by way of the
sequester.
Many of our colleagues have forgotten that we have already
cut $487 billion over 10 years in the defense under the Budget
Control Act, not to mention the $138 million that Secretaries
Gates and Panetta implemented.
We can't continue to address the budget issues on the backs
of our servicemen and -women and their families. I think there
is no question that we need to cut our deficit, but it has to
be done in a balanced way that protects the investments in
middle class, doesn't jeopardize our national security. It is
important for us to have this hearing today, because I know
that you gentlemen share our concern when it comes to defense
of our nation.
Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked very hard in the last
Congress, and we have tackled some very difficult issues. And
we look for compromises. And I look forward to hearing from
witnesses today, and to hear your thoughts on these issues,
particularly the terrible impact of sequestration.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the remarks, and I
yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.
I would like, if I could, to recognize the chairman of the
Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, our former chairman, and
truly a man who is a national treasure for all that you have
done, Bill Young, for the United States of America, and for our
military.
I know we all owe you a great debt of gratitude sir, and I
would like to recognize you sir for any statement you would
like to make?
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And it is a
distinct honor to actually serve as a member of this
subcommittee.
Continuing Resolution
I wanted to just take a couple of minutes and say that last
week we were wondering where were we going to go with the
problem of the continuing resolution. You know, everybody
focused on sequestration.
Continuing resolution, when it came to national defense is
every bit as serious. And, frankly, we were on dead center. We
needed some movement, and you all came, a week ago today, and
you gave us some powerful, powerful testimony on the problem of
the C.R. and what needed to be done. So our plan actually got a
huge boost from what you told us.
And we went that very same day to our leadership and to the
membership of the Republican conference and presented your
testimony where they were cool in the beginning, they really
warmed up. So the plan that we have is moving, and we are going
to pass that plan in the House this week.
So thank you very much, not only for what you do in your
military capacity, but you actually help us move our plan
forward, hopefully solving some of the possible--potential
problems of a continuing resolution. So I don't think we can
thank you enough for what you do for our country.
And Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for letting me make
those comments. I think it is important that they be recognized
as to the importance of what they do.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I share those sentiments, and I deeply appreciate your
service to the country, the men and women you represent, they
do an extraordinary job, and it is truly our mission in
Congress to ensure that they don't ever have to look over their
shoulder or worry about their paycheck, their living
conditions, their health care, the equipment that they have we
want to make sure is the best in the world. So I would, at this
time, like to introduce our witnesses. The four gentlemen that
are well known to the nation, General Raymond T. Odierno, chief
of staff of the United States Army; Admiral Jonathan Greenert,
chief of Naval operations; General James F. Amos, coming out of
the Marine Corps; General Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff
United States Air Force, deeply appreciate the time that you
have taken to be here today with your busy schedules, and of
course would like to ask without objection that your written
statements be entered into the record in their entirety.
And due to the number of witnesses today, we would welcome
your summarization of your statements in approximately 5
minutes. We will, as we go through the year, members, I just
want to emphasize, we will start promptly on time. And for
those members present in the room when I gavel, the hearing to
order I will recognize you for questions in order of seniority
alternating between majority and minority.
And for those of you who arrive after the hearing has
started, I will recognize you in order of arrival.
I deeply appreciate your being here today, each and every
one of you.
And we will start with you, General Odierno. Thank you very
much sir for your service to the country and for being here
today. We look forward to your testimony.
OPENING STATEMENT OF GENERAL ODIERNO
General Odierno. Thank you sir, Chairman Culberson, Ranking
Member Bishop, and the rest of the committee thank you for
allowing us to be here today.
I would just start out by saying, the combination of the
continuing resolution, a shortfall in overseas contingency
operation funds for Afghanistan, and the sequester in fiscal
year 2013 has resulted in at least an $18 billion shortfall to
the Army's operation and maintenance accounts. As well as an
additional $6 billion worth of cuts across all of our other
programs.
As I have said previously these cuts will have grave and
immediate impacts to the Army readiness that will not only last
in 2013, but will last well beyond 2013, and mitigate itself
into 2014--excuse me--promulgate itself into 2014 and beyond.
Under sequestration and a full year continuing resolution,
the Army will reduce all military construction by 7.8 percent,
$567 million reduction in fiscal year 2013, and all unobligated
prior year accounts. We will be forced to delay progress on our
top construction priorities, the renovation of an existing
cadet barracks, and the construction of a new cadet barracks at
West Point, and the Arlington National Cemetery expansion.
Until the Army receives an appropriations measure with new
start authority, we cannot initiate 102 military construction
projects that are scheduled for award in 35 states. We are
reducing our base sustainment funds by $2 billion in fiscal
year 2013, a 70 percent drop from what has been historically
required to run our installations. This translates into an
estimated 100,000 facility work orders per month that will not
be executed, which places the Army on a slippery slope, where
our buildings will fail faster than we can fix them.
All restoration and modernization projects for fiscal year
2013 will be deferred. Budget cuts will have tremendous impact
on one of my top priorities, family programs. The furlough of
251,000 valued civilian employees, reduction in base
sustainment funds, and the elimination of service contracts
will strain our ability to protect our Army family programs
across every one of our installations.
Sequestration will force us to reduce resources for our
schools, our day care centers, and every one of our family
assistance and community service programs that rely upon the
installation's infrastructure to provide services.
Sequestration will impose a $44.7 million cut to our family
housing program. Consistent with the Budget Control Act of
2011, the Army is reducing its authorized end strength by
89,000. Sequestration will impose an additional loss of at
least an additional 100,000 soldiers from the active Army, the
Army National Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve. Together this
will represent a 14 percent reduction of the Army's end
strength, which will equate to an almost 40 percent reduction
in our brigade combat teams.
This means we will have excess U.S. base installation
infrastructure, therefore a future round of base realignment
and closure is essential to identify excess Army
infrastructure, and prudently line civilian staffing and
infrastructure with reduced force structure, and reduced
industrial base demand.
If we do not make the tough decisions necessary to identify
inefficiencies and eliminate unused facilities, we will divert
scarce resources away from training, readiness, and family
programs and the quality of our installation services will
suffer.
I understand the seriousness of our country's fiscal
situation. We have and will continue to do our part, but we
simply cannot take the readiness of our force for granted.
In my opinion, sequester is not in the best interest of our
soldiers, our civilians, and our national security.
Furthermore, I do not want to see the impact of these cuts rest
on the shoulders of our soldiers and civilians who so
adequately and courageously defended our country over the last
12 years. Furthermore, I would ask that you provide us with an
appropriations bill that would provide flexibility to reprogram
funds to at least reduce some of the O&M shortfalls and allow
for new starts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee for
allowing me to testify here today.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, General Odierno.
We in a bit of a--you know, this is a little bit confusing
and it is frustrating to me just because of the nature of the
process, but we are, thank goodness, going to be able to pass
an appropriations bill. It will be a C.R. with the defense
appropriations bill that Chairman Young has put together and
our military construction bill for 2013.
So you are actually--we are going to get, thank God, a
complete defense appropriations bill and a complete MILCON, and
V.A. bill, thank goodness. We are certainly in a very difficult
fiscal environment, so fortunately, General--Admiral, General
Amos, and General Welsh, the, you are going to have, by the end
of the week, out of the House, a DOD bill and a MILCON-V.A.
bill for 2013 that actually gives you a certain amount of
cushion and protection.
There will be some cut out of that 2013 level, but it won't
be as difficult a course as it would have been with a C.R. and
automatic cut out of that 2012 level.
So as you go through your testimony, keep that in mind,
that we are doing our best to cushion the blow as much as
possible.
Admiral Greenert, we welcome your testimony. Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL GREENERT
Admiral Greenert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then you will
recognize my points.
Thank you for, and Ranking Member Bishop, for what you have
done. Distinguished measures, distinguished members of the
committee. And I want to thank you for your support on our
military construction request, especially.
Our naval forces are defined by two important qualities,
Mr. Chairman. We operate forward where it matters, at the
maritime crossroads of the world. And we are ready when it
matters. And this remains our mandate.
And because of it, your Navy and your Marine Corps are
uniquely able to quickly respond to crises and assure our
allies, build partnerships, deter aggression, and contain
conflict.
Our near-term concern with the implementation of
sequestration and the current lack of an appropriation bill is
the impact on deployed operations, both this year and next
year.
However, make no mistake, the $10 billion to $13 billion
per year reduction to our budget over the next 8 years will
fundamentally change the shape, it will change the size, and it
will change the way we operate in our Navy.
We will not be able to respond in the way we can today and
the way we have in the past. That will be a fact of life. We
should make that kind of strategic adjustment consciously and
deliberately, however. And now that sequestration has been
implemented, we will pursue solutions that minimize acute
readiness degradation caused by the simultaneous impact of
sequestration and a continuing resolution.
Now, within the Navy Department, we have resources that can
be reallocated to fund our operations and maintenance for this
year.
For example, the continuing resolution constrains our
accounts at the level of last year's funding level. But this
fiscal year, we are implementing a new defense strategy, and
that emphasizes readiness over capacity.
So as a result, we currently have about $3.7 billion more
in our investment accounts than we requested, and we currently
have $4.6 billion less in our operations accounts than we
requested.
So we are out of balance. And this unbalance is made worse
in our operations account because of sequestration.
Today we are reducing our presence in every theater and
stopping training for next year's deployments. Now with either
an appropriation bill or the authorities to reallocate funds
where they are needed, we would first be able to restore the
training and maintenance and keep a carrier strike group and an
amphibious ready group in the Middle East and the Pacific
through next fiscal year.
As more funds are transferred and as we can recover here
into our operations account, we would restore the rest of this
year's planned deployments, training and maintenance.
That wouldn't bring back all the activities that we
requested for this year, but it is the minimum needed to
support the department's Global Force Management Allocation
Plan.
Mr. Chairman, that is our demand signal; that is our
covenant with the combatant commanders, the Global Force
Management Allocation Plan.
Given that funds are available, we should not delay. And in
the last 2 months, we missed $600 million worth of ship,
aircraft and facility maintenance, training, and we also missed
some program management.
In this month alone, we will miss more than $1.2 billion of
maintenance and operations because we are deferring planned
activity. These are lost opportunities, many of them, and these
will increase each month as we go on a continuing resolution.
Again, most are not recoverable. For example, we can't go
back and redo a deployment that was already gaffed, and we
can't go back and redo a ship maintenance when that ship's
schedule requires it to continue on into its deployment.
Our Navy is at its best when it operates forward. And our
modest overseas MILCON and facility investment requests enables
our ships, our aircraft, and our sailors and civilians to
operate from or be based in overseas places where they can
rest, refuel, repair and resupply. Operating forward is more
efficient than rotationally deploying units from the
continental United States.
Under the continuing resolution all of our military
construction projects are on hold. You know that.
Because of the continuing resolution and sequestration, we
were compelled to stop almost all of our facility renovation
and modernization. Our ability to continue operating forward is
constrained because of that.
The continuing resolution and sequestration directly impact
our sailors, our civilians and also our families. Our folks are
stressed by uncertainty, the uncertainty about their jobs, the
uncertainty of their schedules and their future.
So we ask that the Congress quickly act to provide an
appropriations bill for this fiscal year or a continuing
resolution that at least gives us the authority for new
projects, allows the department, us, to reallocate the funds
that we have very quickly.
Time is critical, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on
behalf of our sailors, our civilians, and our families.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Admiral, for your
testimony and your service.
General Amos. Look forward to hearing from you, sir. Thank
you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF GENERAL AMOS
General Amos. Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Bishop and
the committee, I am heartened by what I saw come across my
computer yesterday afternoon and the likes of a draft NDA or a
resolution to an NDA for a Department of Defense NDA, so thank
you.
Thanks for your faithfulness, thanks for your willingness
to understand where we are at the Department of Defense, as it
relates to the security of our nation.
All my colleagues and I take that very, very seriously. We
have testified three times to that.
This is more than just C.R.; this is more than
sequestration. Quite honestly, the world is looking at us, as a
nation, both our enemies and our friends, to determine which
way we are going to go.
So thank you for that, and I look forward to hopefully a
successful passing in the House and in the Senate as well.
I would like to thank this committee for its enduring
commitment to our Marines, our sailors and our families. As a
historically frugal service, for decades we have grown
accustomed to substandard barracks and inadequate facilities.
However, in 2006, that began to change, as a result of the
faithful support of Congress and this committee in particular.
Long overdue, it was time to raise the standard of living
for our Marines. Thanks to your commitment, both single Marines
and Marine families are enjoying the finest housing and
facilities we have ever known.
During more than a decade of conflict, we have worked hard
to ensure that the critical needs of our families and our
single Marines are met during rigorous deployments as well as
in garrison.
Providing the high-quality services, facilities and
programs for our all-volunteer force, they have thrived, while
facing the challenges of a rigorous operational tempo.
With the help of this committee, we have successfully
constructed new barracks and family housing all across our
Marine Corps.
We built wounded warrior housing and care complexes at Camp
Lejeune and at Camp Pendleton, and improved the many facilities
around our bases and our stations.
This has had an immediate affect on improving the quality
of life of our Marines and their families around the world. But
we are not finished.
For fiscal year 2013 we proposed a military construction
effort with the following priorities: First, infrastructure
development, replacement of inadequate facilities at our bases
and our stations, construction of much-needed professional
training and military education facilities, and, finally,
aviation support facilities in support of our new aircraft.
Our military construction request has been adjusted to
accurately reflect our planned downsizing to an end-strength of
182,000 by the end of fiscal year 2016, and it represents a 45
percent reduction from last year's fiscal year 2012 submission.
As military construction funds likely become even more
constrained and competitive, we will have to rely on the sound
stewardship of existing facilities and infrastructure to
support our needs.
However, with the continuing resolution and sequestration,
all 37 of our planned fiscal year 2013 military construction
projects are halted and unable to proceed.
The value of these projects equals $716 million. These
well-planned, critical projects fitting into those four
categories that I mentioned before include key elements in our
support for the president's strategy in the Pacific, to include
relocation of an MV-22 squadron from Miramar to Hawaii, and
support facilities for fueling the F-35 JSF in Japan.
Additionally, we have been forced to halt construction
plans on hangars for the F-35 in Beaufort, South Carolina, as
well as road improvements aboard our major installations
designed to correct safety deficiencies. These projects are
ready to begin today. Without fiscal year 2013 MILCON
appropriations or the authorities for new starts, we are forced
to defer to future years' budgets, causing a ripple effect
which will no doubt significantly impact our modernization and
our sustainment efforts.
At the heart of the matter, sequestration by its magnitude,
its timing and its methodology will have a devastating impact
on our nation's readiness, both short and long term.
Because of our unique role as America's crisis response
force, Marines place a premium on maintaining a high state of
readiness. I have done everything within my current authorities
to preserve the tenets of a ready Marine Corps. I will continue
to do so until I run out of money.
Under continuing resolution, I have kept deploying units
ready, but only by stripping away the foundations of a long-
term readiness for the total force.
While these near-term mitigations are possible, the
enduring effect of these decisions puts the future health and
readiness of the force at risk.
By the early part of next year, more than 50 percent of my
tactical units will be below minimum acceptable levels of
readiness for deployment in combat. This pattern inevitably
leads to a hollow force. Its impact is already being felt under
continuing resolution.
Additionally, as a result of sequestration, planned
civilian furloughs will recklessly impact the lives of more
than 19,000 civilian Marines, who face 20 percent pay cuts.
They are an integral part of our Corps. They deserve better.
During our last three hearings, I have spoken about the
combined effects of the existing continuing resolution and
sequestration. These indiscriminate measures create
unacceptable levels of risk to our national security, risk to
our forces, risk to the American people, and risk to the United
States of America.
I urge the committee to consider the full range of these
risks created by the Budget Control Act and the year-long
continuing resolution. I ask for your assistance in mitigating
them to the extent possible. And I thank you for your continued
support of your Marine Corps.
I look forward to your questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. General Amos, thank you very much, sir.
General Welsh.
OPENING STATEMENT OF GENERAL WELSH
General Welsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Bishop. It is a special privilege to be here today. Thank you
for the honor of appearing before you. It is a special thrill
for me to sit beside the gentleman to my left. I happen to be a
fan of all of them.
Thank you for the efforts of this committee that you have
already outlined this morning to move us forward from where we
are today.
And thank you, Chairman Young, for the larger committee's
efforts to do the same thing. All of us appreciate it deeply.
The Air Force story on sequestration is very similar to
what you have already heard this morning. I tell you that it
will significantly undermine your Air Force's readiness and
responsiveness today. It will significantly impact our civilian
workforce in the coming months. And eventually, it will clearly
affect our future capability.
Throughout this period of budgetary uncertainty, the Air
Force has taken care to minimize the disruption to Airmen and
family support programs, while also protecting the distinctive
air power capabilities that America expects of us. The
arbitrary cuts of sequestration, along with the possibility of
a year-long continuing resolution, which I hope is less of a
possibility today, sacrifices many of the strategic advantages
of air power and jeopardizes our ability to fulfill our role in
executing the Nation's current defense strategic guidance.
For the Air Force, sequestration represents a $12.4 billion
topline budget reduction in fiscal year 2013, affecting, of
course, every account and program. The fiscal year 2013
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes $460
million for Air Force military construction. This figure is
about $900 million less than in fiscal year 2012 and reflects
an intentional pause in military construction to ensure
resource availability in other areas necessary to fulfill our
role and support the strategic guidance.
So the MILCON projects we requested this year and that were
authorized in the fiscal year 2013 NDAA represent only the most
critical infrastructure improvements that we foresee. Besides
enabling the delivery of air, space, and cyber capabilities for
America, our installations contribute to the quality of life of
our Airmen and their families, enhance force readiness through
training and maintenance facilities, and facilitate
modernization through bed-down and infrastructure improvements
designed for new and emerging weapons systems.
Because our installations and infrastructure represent the
foundation of these three areas, the consequences of
sequestration and a year-long continuing resolution (C.R.)
generate significant second- and third-order effects. For
example, our Airmen and their families will experience delays
to improvements for substandard dormitories and housing. Flight
simulators and maintenance facility construction delays will
magnify readiness degradations that are already unacceptable,
and potential cancellation of bed-down facilities for Air
Force's newest platforms can slow the fielding of those newer,
more capable modernization efforts. The Air Force is long
overdue for reconstitution following over two decades of war.
Our inventory still includes aircraft from the 1950s and our
force is as small as it has ever been since we became an
independent service. And now we find ourselves stuck in the
unenviable trade-space between modernization and readiness,
with infrastructure improvement delays and deferments
amplifying the impacts to each, and we need your help to get
out.
I urge you to do all that is necessary to pass an
appropriations measure and to grant whatever flexibility is
possible to mitigate the significant impact of the ongoing
continuing resolution. This is clearly an unusual budget
environment and unusual measures are worth considering this
year.
Thank you again for allowing us to be here, and I look
forward to your questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. General Welsh, thank you.
And again, thanks to each and every one of you for your
service to the country. And as I start off this round of
questioning, I think, General Amos, you hit it at, I think you
made the critical point that Marine Corps readiness is at a
tipping point. I know each and every one of you feel the same
way.
The concern that you have expressed today in your testimony
about the effect of sequestration or these cuts on the
readiness of the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Navy and our
Army are deeply concerning to each one of us. And we want to
make sure as a committee of the Congress that the armed forces
of the United States have everything you need and we are
certainly going to do everything in our power to minimize the
effect of these cuts in this tough budget environment on the
services.
And you see that in the determination of the Congress. The
House is about to pass a continuing resolution with a complete
military construction-V.A. bill and a complete Department of
Defense appropriations bill. And the bill that we are about to
pass is, the overall bill will total about $1.0343 trillion and
meets the separate security and non-security Budget Control Act
caps.
But it does, of course, include a provision that
sequestration will take effect, but that will be, the
sequestration cuts will be on the funding levels for fiscal
year 2013, which will, I think, minimize the impact on the
services.
The bill does freeze, the bill we will pass tomorrow or
this week in the House, will freeze federal employee pay for
fiscal year 2013. And the bill also ensures that the Department
of Defense is funded at the correct levels and in the
appropriate accounts for fiscal year 2013. And while the
Department of Defense will obviously have to, still have to
absorb the sequestration cuts, again having those funding,
having the funding in the correct accounts for 2013 certainly
helps.
The Department of Defense will also have new start
authority for military construction and we know how important
that is, as you have each indicated in your testimony. And the
Department of Veterans Affairs, of course, is exempted from
sequestration, but we will have an appropriations bill for
2013, so that allows the V.A. to continue their work to reduce
the time that they have, the backlog of claims, and the
difficulty they have had in handling the tremendous number of
claims.
But I know the concerns of the committee and the Congress
is that the readiness of all our forces could be at a tipping
point. We are very concerned about that. I would like to ask,
if I could, each one of you to briefly for the record reiterate
how critical it is that Congress pass this C.R. with the
Department of Defense, MILCON and V.A. bills funded at the
appropriate levels for 2013. How important is that for each one
of the services?
General Odierno.
BUDGET IMPACT UNDER A CONTINUING RESOLUTION WITH SEQUESTRATION
General Odierno. Thank you, Chairman. First, for us, I
believe we are at a significant point where the impacts to our
readiness will impact everything that we do for the next 2 to
2.5, 3 years if we don't make these decisions. We have already
begun to cancel our combat training center rotations, which is
the culminating event of our readiness for our brigade combat
teams. We are going to have to reduce all training by, to the
units that are not in Afghanistan, about 80 percent of the
Army. We are going to have to almost eliminate a significant
amount of training.
We now believe up to between 37,000 and 50,000 flying hours
will have to be reduced, which means about 750 pilots will now
go untrained. That will take us 2 to 3 years to catch up on
that readiness level. So it is a combination of all of these
things, as well as the impact on our installations, as well as
the impact on our family programs that hits at the heart of
Army readiness.
And I remind everyone that as we sit here today, I still
have nearly 60,000 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan and another
21,000 deployed in other places in the Middle East.
C.R. WITH NO DOD BILL
Mr. Culberson. These changes you are describing, that is
assuming we had a C.R. with no DOD bill?
General Odierno. So, what I described to you is a
combination of the continuing resolution if we do not have a
bill, of sequestration, and a shortfall that we currently have
in our OCO funds.
Mr. Culberson. Sequestration at the 2012 level, because we
are going to get, of course, a bill at 2013 levels and the cuts
that we would see with the sequestration would be at the, on
the 2013 level. That will minimize or mitigate to a certain
extent----
General Odierno. That will help mitigate some of the
problems.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir, mitigate some of the problems.
General Odierno. That is right.
Mr. Culberson. So it is, in your opinion, then, critical
that we do a C.R.
General Odierno. Absolutely critical that we do it. It
mitigates----
Mr. Culberson. That is what I am looking for.
General Odierno. It mitigates at least one-third of our
problem.
Mr. Culberson. There you go.
General Odierno. It also, depending on what it does for
OCO, could help us on the OCO shortfall we have as well.
EFFECTS OF PASSAGE OF APPROPRIATIONS BILL
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
That is what really the thrust of my question is, the
effect. How does the passage of the 2013 appropriations bill
with DOD and MILCON mitigate the effect of what would have
otherwise been just a straight C.R. with sequestration. You say
it mitigates about a third.
General Odierno. Right.
Mr. Culberson. That is the impact. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Admiral Greenert.
Admiral Greenert. Well, for us, it is almost night and day,
Chairman, because right now, I am $8.6 billion, when you take
the two, sequestration and continuing resolution, out of
balance in my operations account. You eliminate $4.6 billion of
that imbalance right off the bat. And what that means in simple
terms, today we are able to put one carrier strike group and
one amphibious ready group forward, and pretty much, not much
in the other theaters of the world.
With a bill, what we can do is we can restore, if you will,
the global force management allocation plan, the vast majority.
We can get back to the covenant that we have with the combatant
commanders to get almost all of that back. So we get the get-
back, if you will. We get two carrier overhauls. We get a
carrier new construction. We get--new construction. We get all
the military construction.
We don't have any of this right now. So, all of that comes
back. And of course, all the installation readiness, excuse me,
renovation and modernization, which we have none of now because
we have had to put it off to pay for this imbalance.
Mr. Culberson. So it is night and day, night and day.
Admiral Greenert [continuing]. Yes, sir.
LAUNCHING TWO ``VIRGINIA'' CLASS SUBMARINES
Mr. Culberson. I also want to ask, if I could, Admiral
Greenert, very quickly on something near and dear to my heart,
and I know that as members of Congress, we appreciate seeing
the Dolphins there, sir. We get this bill done, you know, that
funds you at 2013 levels as needed, with the support of the
chairman and I know the subcommittee and the full Armed
Services Committee.
Will you be able to build and launch two Virginia Class
submarines a year, that are so vital to our strategic security
with the Chinese launching 10 top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art
submarines a year?
Admiral Greenert. Well, Chairman, I can't today tell you,
``Yes, I can.'' But I tell you, without your help, I can't.
What this bill provides for us is the advance procurement, the
multi-year procurement authority that we would have. Now, what
we will need--what we need is the ability to use incremental
funding to get that second submarine. And then it is over to us
to look into our 2014 bill, balancing with sequestration and
the other requirements, to come up with the remainder of that
money.
And as we brought to the committee when we brought you our
2013 bill, that is something we very much want to do and that
would be a priority for me. I would do the very best I could.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir.
And I know the committee will support you in that, and I
certainly want to encourage Chairman Young and our
subcommittee. I will do everything I can to help make sure that
the Navy gets everything you need to make sure we are
continuing to build and launch at least two Virginia Class subs
here and continue to design the Ohio replacement.
Admiral Greenert. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. And I want to also compliment the Navy and
the Marine Corps, and I know the Army and the Air Force are not
far behind, but it is my understanding that, you know, over the
years all of us as members of Congress, we learned that it is
not, in the past, it has not been possible for example,
PriceWaterhouse or an outside auditor to audit the Defense
Department because over the years, the, just the way your
accounts have developed over time, that there is sort of a
little, I guess, tangled up.
But I understand that Navy and the Marine Corps are the
first two branches of the services to adopt generally accepted
accounting procedures so that Navy and Marine Corps are now in
a position that an outside independent auditor,
PriceWaterhouse, could actually come in and audit the Navy and
the Marine Corps in the same way they would, you know,
ExxonMobil or a private entity. And that is a great tribute to
you and certainly a great help to the Congress as we do
everything we can to make sure that our constituents' hard-
earned tax dollars are spent right where they need to be.
And I compliment you for that, sir. And thank you, and I
know the Air Force and the Army is not far behind.
PASSING OF A COMPLETE DOD APPROPRIATIONS BILL
General Amos, could you talk to us about the difference,
the importance of the passing of a complete DOD appropriations
bill and a MILCON bill along with that C.R.? How important is
that to the Marine Corps?
General Amos. Sir, I would be happy to.
But on the audit business, a week ago while we were in
testimony in front of the Appropriations Committee, we were
getting our final grade from 2 years' worth of auditing. I
think DOD started with us because we are the smaller service,
so it is a little bit easier.
But 2 years of going through that to learn the lessons that
can be passed on to the other services. We finished that last
week. And, to the best of my knowledge, we came out the other
end of it okay.
Mr. Culberson. Congratulations. Thank you.
General Amos. Thank you.
Chairman, here are some facts. Some of these I have already
talked a little bit about in my opening statement, but without
funding it for this year, just this year in C.R., without
restoring operations and maintenance, and that is really where,
operations and maintenance, military construction, and the
ability to get some multi-year contracts underway are really
the impacts that you are going to, you will solve with the
House and the Senate, if they pass this new appropriation or
the new bill.
Greater than 55 percent of our non-deployed ground units
and 50 percent of our non-deployed aviation squadrons will be
C-3 or less by mid-year of next year. But this is not done.
This is a function of training dollars, flight hours, 39,000
flight hours are going to be taken out of the Marine Corps.
That may not sound a lot for my sister services that have a
larger fleet, but for us, that is significant. That means,
effectively, our pilots are going to be flying about 10 hours a
month.
When you get historically, we have become pretty adept at
figuring out how many hours a month a pilot has to fly to
maintain a sense of currency that plays to safety records. It
is typically right around 15 to 17 hours a month. We are going
to be done to about 10 hours a month.
CLOSING AVIATION DEPOT MAINTENANCE
We are going to close aviation depot maintenance in the
third and fourth quarter of this year, if this thing isn't
done. If C.R., because they get funded by operations and
maintenance. That is how we pay for the personnel. So those
will be closed. And, for us, what that means is, there will be
no more airplanes going in the front door of the depots. There
will still be some work going on inside our aviation depots,
but nothing more will come in.
Half of my F-18 fleet, my 254 F-18s, half of them will
either be stuck in depot or stuck outside the garage door
waiting to get into depot. And my sense is, although it is hard
for me to tell, but I have been flying for 42 years and
managing this, so this is, my instincts are, we will never
catch up. In other words, the airplanes are old enough now
where it takes so much to extend their service-life and get
them out the back door, our F-18s, that we may very well never
catch up with the amount of depot maintenances required to get
the fleet back up to flying status.
And by the way, when we do that, that means all our
forward-deployed squadrons will have the standard compliment.
If they are on a carrier, they will have 10 airplanes per
squadron. If they are ashore in-country, like our 3-4 deployed
squadrons, and the one we have in the Persian Gulf, they will
have 12. All the rest of the squadrons back home will average
between four and six airplanes. That is it in a squadron. That
is all we will have because there won't be anything else
available.
REDUCING THEATER SECURITY COOPERATION
We are going to reduce our theater security cooperation. In
other words, the stuff we do in the Pacific, by 30 percent, we
are going to cancel what we do in SOUTHCOM, down Central
America and southern command this year. We are going to cancel
it completely. And we will cancel most of what we do in
NORTHCOM.
FUNDING FACILITIES
Facilities' sustainment, we fund, we typically budget in
the Marine Corps because those great facilities you bought us,
we fund for 90 percent of the requirement. In other words, if
it takes a dollar to maintain a facility, we fund, we budget 90
cents. We are going down to 71 cents with C.R. And if
sequestration and C.R. combine, we are going down to 67 cents
on the dollar, which means we are going to have a harder time
maintaining those great facilities.
The reduced depot maintenance for Albany and Barstow for us
will go down to 27 percent of the requirement. In other words,
if I have a 100 vehicles, I have got to get through Albany,
under C.R., I am only going to be able to get through 27 of
them under C.R. And that is operations and maintenance funds.
MOVING THE MONEY AROUND
So I already said that I have moved money around. Here is
the money I have moved around this year. We are about $1
billion short of operations and maintenance money, this year
alone. I moved $450 million underneath, you know, various
pookas that I have in the Marine Corps--$450 million this year.
I have put $280 million back out to the operating forces so
that those forces, getting ready to deploy, will be ready to go
to combat, which is what I promised you I would do.
I put $112 million in Albany and Barstow into the
operational, my operations and maintenance funds, put them in
there so that we could maintain the contractor and temporary
and term workforce that we have. We will keep those workers on.
There are 845 of them between the two facilities until one May.
And then after one May, I am going to have to let the
contractors and term employees go, and then the rest of my
employees fall under the sequestration.
Mr. Bishop. Sir, are you saying that, excuse me, are you
saying that is with or without the C.R.?
General Amos. No, this is without the C.R.
Mr. Bishop. Without the C.R.
General Amos. Right now, I have, the money that I moved in
there will sustain, I did that to keep the workforce whole so
we could get the vehicles through. I have got something like
45,000 principal endliners we brought in from Afghanistan. A
lot of it is sitting on the shelf out there ready to start
through the depot.
So we have done that. And lastly, Mr. Chairman, they, a
budget this year will allow me to get a B-22 on a my last
multi-year contract, the very last one for that wonderful
airplane. And, by doing that, it will save $1 billion. In other
words, if I have to buy these things one at a time, instead of
a multi-year, it will cost, at the end of the day, several
years from now, it will cost the federal government $1 billion.
And then, lastly, I have already talked about the $761
million in military construction. And I need to get going. I
need to finish these things and the 37 projects.
Mr. Culberson. General Welsh, I will recognize my good
friend from Georgia, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. General Welsh, what is the difference between
passing a complete DOD bill and MILCON versus the C.R. to the
Air Force?
General Welsh. Yes sir, well it is huge, as you know.
Flexibility and reprogramming capability to use their own
unobligated funds to mitigate the impacts of sequester on those
projects that we either have under way or will begin--the
ability to use those unobligated funds against emergencies that
actually occur, as opposed to throwing them at a problem by
requesting reprogramming authority without a bill.
In a big way, it allows us to look at our civilian
workforce and figure out a way around this idea of furloughing
in the Air Force, 180,000 great civilian Airmen. We want no
part of that. And this would give us the ability to look at it.
Of course, the C.R. kills us in the military construction
(MILCON) project side. The new starts, we have 19, which are
significant to us, as I mentioned, because we cut it down to
what we thought was the bare minimum.
And the final thing is in many of our acquisition programs,
the multi-year authorities, the quantity increases, the ability
to mitigate the impact of sequestration on those programs by
reprogramming across account lines. Just having the ability to
request that authority. It is significant for us. It is a huge
change.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
I recognize, again, my good friend from Georgia.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Let me, again, thank you, gentlemen, for what you do. And
it is good news to hear that the C.R. will help mitigate the
challenges that all of you face, and that is a good thing.
ARMY PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Let me look a little bit more provincial. General Odierno,
I want to talk a little bit about the Army Programmatic
Environmental Assessment, which goes with the challenge that
you face. The 2005 BRAC moved the Army center down to Fort
Benning, and the committee was very supportive of the Army in
that endeavor. We spent almost $3.5 billion in infrastructure
improvements and the expansion of training areas.
On top of those improvements, the state and local
governments made significant investments, such as $57 million
for an interchange into Fort Benning on Interstate I-85, the
passage of an education special purpose local option sales tax
to raise $223 million to provide additional schools for
children of soldiers and civilian personnel and defense
contractors.
I noticed that the decisions that you have on force
restructure are very difficult. But I worry that all of these
investments that have been made on behalf of the Army at Fort
Benning would all be for naught if our third brigade, 3rd
Infantry Division were to leave, which would remove 17,815
soldiers and dependents with them.
How are you taking into account these investments in your
decision-making process in the PEA, and how will sequestration
affect this process? Because, obviously, building new
facilities might become very difficult in the future.
FORCE STRUCTURE REDUCTION
General Odierno. Well first, Congressman, the impact you
are talking about is just from the original Defense cuts based
on the Budget Control Act of the $487 billion, where the Army
is reducing the active component by about 80,000, which
translates into about 60,000 worth of force structure.
In 2012 and 2013 we took about $12,000 out of Europe. We
have done that already. We will finish that up this year and
the beginning of next year. And then we will move to reducing
our structure in the United States in order to meet the
requirements that we have.
PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
As we have put out now, the Programmatic Environmental
Assessment, we are now getting feedback from the installation.
But the criteria we are going to use will be a couple of
things. It will talk about the facilities. It will talk about
training space. It will talk about housing. It will talk about
all the things that we look at. And we will categorize all of
those things and do an evaluation of every installation. Then
after that, we will make decisions on where we decide to take
further reductions that we are going to be forced to take based
on the Budget Control Act.
With sequestration, you can basically double that number.
And in fact, it will now double, probably, it will be about the
same amount of--in structure out of the active component,
probably another $60,000 or so out of the active component,
50,000 to 60,000. And now we will have to start reducing force
structure in the National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve, as
well, which we had not taken out of, based on the first
reduction from the Budget Control Act.
So it will be a significant reduction in over the next 7,
8, 9 years, in Army capacity, in all of our installations as we
move forward.
Mr. Bishop. Construction-wise, you put a lot of investment
in the infrastructure. Staying with the PEA, in the PEA you
describe two alternatives to the 2020 forced restructure. Under
alternative two, you would actually add an additional maneuver
battalion to each of the brigade combat teams, and if
sequestration were to go into effect, would you still be able
to choose alternative two?
FORCE STRUCTURE REORGANIZATION
General Odierno. We would if we decide to do that. And
because under that course of action, what we are able to do is
we add battalions to the brigade, but we start to eliminate the
number of brigades. So what we are able to do is get rid of
some overhead, but sustain more combat capability by putting in
an additional maneuver battalion under the brigades.
And there are some other things that we have identified
over the last 10 years, such as engineers and some other
shortfalls that we have in our brigades. So our brigades would
get larger, but there would be less of them, and it would be
more, and it, what the course of action looks at, is
potentially a more efficient way of sustaining some of our
combat capabilities.
Mr. Bishop. So that would result in inactivation of some
other battalions----
General Odierno. Yes, really, brigade headquarters, because
the--and some maneuver battalions. But, again, it would add
maneuver battalions to the brigades, as well.
Mr. Bishop. So if that takes place, what are you going to
do with the facilities, the infrastructure that we have----
General Odierno. Well, again, the assessment we will do
will maximize the use of the facilities that are available
across the Army. Because of this committee, the increase in the
capacity and capability of our facilities on many of our
installations is very good. So what we would do is we would
maximize our best facilities as we go forward. That would be
one of the criteria that we assess as we go forward.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.
Now my pleasure to introduce--to recognize our chairman,
Bill Young, for any questions you may have, Mr. Chairman.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Mr. Young. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I
do have one quick question. Are there any military construction
projects at some phase of construction or preparation for the
construction or cleaning up after the construction, anything
that is ongoing that would have to be stopped or changed if we
don't get the C.R. issue settled and get the appropriations
bill?
General Amos. Mr. Chairman, the, we do, we have about $1.2
billion right now of unobligated funds kind of carrying over
from last year, and these are contracts that, some of which
have started, some of which are waiting to start, but of that
$650 million, is in jeopardy. As a result, these are projects
that we have already contracted out. These are projects that
have follow-on monies that are required to finish the contract
and whatever. So the answer is yes. I can get you the precise
number of buildings, projects themselves, but for us, it is
$650 million.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
General Welsh. Chairman, the increment two of the United
States Strategic Command headquarters renovation project, that
is not a new start this year, but if under the C.R., we would
run out of money in July. And under the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR), the project would have to be terminated.
Because we don't have a military construction veterans affairs
appropriations bill yet, the $120 million in this year's
increment is not available to us. We have a major concern about
that.
Admiral Greenert. Without a bill, we can't start projects,
but we have no projects in progress that would have to stop
because of this.
BUDGET IMPACTS TO EUROPE BASE CLOSURE
General Odierno. Chairman, a little bit different take. We
have a $93 million shortfall which prevents us from closing our
European bases that we have already identified in closing. So
if we don't get that, we would have to delay that. What that
means is, it is about $112 million in savings we avoid and so
we have in Weisbaden and that we would lose.
There is about $66 million in base sustainment funds that
we would lose. And then it could delay the inactivation of
5,000 soldiers if we are not able to relocate. So for us, that
has a pretty significant impact as we move forward with
reducing the size of our force in Europe. And so that is, that
would be fixed, if we are able to get the appropriations bill.
Mr. Young. Thank you all, and that is exactly what we have,
what our plan is, to make that happen, so stick with us. Watch
us this week, because I think we are going to have some
additional progress.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Chairman Young.
We recognize our good friend Mr. Farr, from California.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to recognize my fellow Carmel High School graduate, General
Amos. From a small high school in California to up here on
Capitol Hill today.
First of all, I want to thank you all for your great
service to our country. I want to apologize for our
institution. I have been here 20 years, and I have never seen
it lead the nation into such epic confusion over the fiscal
future of this country. And obviously, this dialogue for the
last hour has shown that confusion.
We all represent constituents in our districts. I represent
a district that has some great institutions, institutions which
General Abizaid when he was the CENTCOM commander said that,
without the Defense Language Institute and the Naval
Postgraduate School, we could never learn to cross the cultural
divide and America could never win the peace. Furthermore, he
said these schools were national treasures.
SEQUESTRATION IMPACT UNDER A CONTINUING RESOLUTION
So my questions really are on the impact of not only
sequestration, but also flexibility and reprogramming
authority. And let me ask a question, Mr. Young, because I
haven't really gotten the answer yet. Every one of the speakers
today asked that we give them flexibility in their cuts, and I
know we are giving them money, but are we also giving them the
flexibility that they have requested?
Mr. Young. If you would yield, I would say yes. With a
C.R., there is no flexibility, as the witnesses have testified
here. What we will present does provide certain flexibility in
the area of reprogramming, new starts, yes. The answer is there
is some flexibility, maybe not as much as they would like, but
there is flexibility in our plan that we are moving this week.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. I think that it is unfortunate, Mr.
Chairman, that this is the only hearing we are going to have. I
have never been full of more questions or more uncertainty, and
the inability of our institution to have the hearings to really
get to the bottom of what the impact is going to be. And, you
know, we have the previous C.R. up until the end of the month.
In the meantime, the hatchet dropped on sequestration, which
means bigger cuts than were intended for the original C.R. and
now we are going to have a second C.R. for the rest of the
year. There are going to be impacts that we haven't worked
through. It seems to me, we ought to have a lot more hearings
to really understand the full impact and whether the
flexibilities we are giving you are enough.
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
Let me just ask some specific questions. Now, I am just
wondering how the sequester in itself will affect the services
in being able to send personnel to the Defense Language
Institute and the Naval Postgraduate School. The sequester is
going to affect training and operations and maintenance, but
education is extremely important in the new operating
environment. Do you have any idea what the impact will be at
DLI and NPS?
General Amos. Congressman, right now, we have a little over
183 students at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. It
is yet to be determined what, we are working through that now.
It is not just Monterey. It is our resident schools we have at
Quantico and around the Marine Corps. Those are funded by
operations and maintenance funds. I mean, all our PME,
professional military education, to include the postgraduate
school, that is O&M.
So we are working through it right now. It is a 10 percent
cut under sequestration, roughly 9 percent, as we go into this
thing for O&M in these areas, of PME and all that. So there is
going to be an impact. I can't tell you how much, 183 right
now, I think we are planning on. We are hopeful we get to
maintain that.
Our numbers at DLI are going down some from what we
currently have, and the reason for that is the downsizing of
the force. You know, we use FAOs and Foreign Area officers and
ancillary officers and language experts, cultural experts. So
by virtue of the downsizing of the Marine Corps, our DLI
requirement will go down.
Mr. Farr. Even with the new increase you are getting, the
O&M offset in the new C.R. that we will be passing this week,
with a $10 billion increase?
General Amos. Sir, that----
Mr. Farr. Will that mitigate some of these----
General Amos. Oh, it will. It will this year. I mean, that
is this year, and if this bill is passed, we get an
authorization, an NDAA bill authorization, we are going to be
fine this year. You won't see a blip there at all. I am
thinking about in the future, we get into 2014, 2015 and 2016,
the 10 years of sequestration.
FURLOUGHS AND LAYOFFS OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
Mr. Farr. Admiral Greenert, you operate the Naval
Postgraduate School. Is this going to have an effect on
furloughs and layoffs of civilian personnel?
Admiral Greenert. Well, of course, if we get the bill, the
furloughs go away, the school is restored faculty-wise, and
returns to, if you will, normal operations. That is an
important institution to me. When I now look and turn to
sequestration, it is a matter of balancing the accounts,
dealing with sequestration.
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
And Naval Postgraduate School is a priority. I don't see a
change in our student population. That is my seed corn. That is
where I build my Jedi knights, you know? There are a lot of
important issues, acoustics, cyber, financial management, it
goes on. You know that, sir.
Mr. Farr. I haven't heard the term ``Jedi knights.'' I am
going to use that more often. Nice to have that training
program in our backyard.
General Odierno, since the Army is the executive agent for
the Defense Language Institute I am interested in your
perspective. And I really applaud your efforts to seek the
efficiencies that are needed, but you recently stated in the
strategic intent that to be effective once deployed, the
soldiers must be familiar with local cultures, personalities,
and conditions they are operating, where they are operating. We
can't afford to gain this knowledge under fire. Through the
regional alignment of forces, we will meet both these
imperatives, ensuring that our Army remains globally responsive
and regionally engaged.
Can you achieve that strategic guidance with budget cuts
and modernization: And I am hopeful that you realize how
important language is and understanding of cultures play in
that.
LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL TRAINING
General Odierno. Congressman, absolutely. As part of our
strategy going forward, it is the continuing to develop
language and culture among our soldiers that will support us to
do this. And I would even talk about the fact that our cyber
program, which we are investing in with more people, also will
require the ability to speak numerous languages.
And so it becomes a critical component as we move forward.
So DLI remains for us a very critical program.
And I would just add, you know, we send many soldiers to
Naval strategist school, as well.
And so for us, both of those institutions are important,
and become more important based on how I see us reaching out
to, more into the Pacific, remaining in the Middle East. And
even now into Africa, as we are conducting and looking at how
we are going to conduct operations there.
So for us it will continue to be a key piece as we continue
to develop not only our intel core, but also our operational
capabilities to operate in these areas.
Mr. Farr. Well, I appreciate that, I think we are on the
right track; if we are going to have a leaner military, we have
certainly got to have a smarter military. And I always say to
get smarter, you have got to go to Monterey.
I also want to thank you for the leadership you provided
our former secretary. He is now back in Monterey as a
constituent of mine. And Leon Panetta is really looking forward
to being home, but also I think he is going to remain in close
contact with those institutions as well.
I think we need to know what the MILCON project cuts are
going to be. If we can get a list of those from the services.
So far, you have all mentioned the number and 102 construction
projects in 32 states from the Army, we have some buildings at
DLI and some at the Naval Post-Graduate School and I would like
to know if they were affected. The local economy really depends
on those construction projects as well.
Mr. Culberson. If I may, in our bill, Mr. Farr, we are
fully funding the requests to the branches of military for
2013----
Mr. Farr. The----
Mr. Culberson. At the 2013 level that is asked for. Yes
sir, we fully funded them.
However, of course, the sequestration will automatically
kick in, but there will be a cut, 7.8 percent, to the 2013
level, rather than 7.8 percent to the 2012 level, which will
mitigate, as we were discussing, some of the impact.
Mr. Farr. And Mr. Young said that you were able to give him
some discretion as to how they make those projects whole, cut
those projects.
Mr. Culberson. Yes. We understand there is about $4 billion
of general transfer authority that Chairman Young provides in
his bill that the--yes, the DOD bill, Chairman Young has
produced will give the branches, the services general transfer
authority of $4 billion, and we provide in our bill for
military construction special transfer authority of $3.5
billion for the OCO accounts. So we have given them as much
flexibility as we can in this tough environment to make sure
that you can continue to do what you do and mitigate the blow
as much as possible.
Mr. Farr. If I can, I would like to submit for the record
the unique programs that we provide in the district to
implement the national security strategy.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Without objection, of course.
And I know that the branches of the military always enjoy
getting a chance to go to the California coast for some of that
important training, beautiful part of the country.
All right, sir. Let me move, if I could, on to my colleague
from Texas, Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. I really appreciate
it.
I am blessed to represent Fort Hood. We call it the great
place, and I am going to be directing a lot of my questions to
the Army because I live within the Army every day. I appreciate
all of you, and thank you for your service to our country you
have more than adequately shown for us over the last 10 years
and we are very, very proud of all of you.
General Odierno, I know you are working on this Army
programmatic environmental assessment. Preliminarily, I
received information that under alternative one, we will be
reducing about eight BCTs across the Army.
When you made that assessment, was that based upon the C.R.
and the sequester, or was it just based on the C.R., or was it
based on a appropriations bill as we are hoping we will be able
to pass?
FORCE STRUCTURE REDUCTIONS
General Odierno. Congressman, that was based on the numbers
based on the Budget Control Act of last year. And the reduction
of eight BCTs was based on first course of action, so it was
two battalion brigade combat teams. So, if we make the
decisions to go to three battalions it would be more brigades,
but it would be more of battalions that remain in the force in
order to fill those.
Mr. Carter. Alternative two, would be to insert a battalion
in each of the remaining----
General Odierno. That is right.
Mr. Carter [continuing]. Brigades.
General Odierno. That is right.
Mr. Carter. You are still working on the assessment, but
what number will you be working, we are hopeful that, of
course, the House, and I think our colleagues all seem to be
pretty united thus far that in the House we will get this thing
done and have an appropriations bill for the defense
appropriations bill and for MILCON and C.R. for the rest of the
government. We still have to get through the Senate, we don't
know what their feelings are yet for sure, but we are hopeful.
Does this analysis change any if we get an appropriation--
--
General Odierno. It doesn't, because the, what the C.R.,
what the appropriation does for us is increase readiness, it
doesn't impact force structure. The force structure is based on
our base budget numbers, and our ability to balance readiness,
modernization, and force structure and strength. So it will not
adjust that.
So the initial assessment was based on the $487 billion
reduction in the Budget Control Act. With sequestration signed
into law, and if that continues, that will cause us to take
probably a double amount of the BCTs, or another five to six or
seven more BCTs out of the force structure.
So that is why, what we are trying to do is, that is why we
gave ourselves an alternative, a course of action one, a course
of action two. Although we might take out more brigade
headquarters in a course of action two, it might allow us to
keep more battalions, which is important to us.
So that is the difference between the two courses of action
that we are working, and once we get the results back from the
PEA, which I think finishes 21st of March, we will then begin
to assess how we move forward. I think we will do some
listening sessions out at each one of the installations so we
get to hear the concerns, and then we will move forward with
our decision making process after that.
Mr. Carter. The flexibility that we are hoping to get you
under this bill, one of the things that I have heard from you
personally, and others, and it is so very important, and I
think everybody on this committee absolutely understands this,
you don't put any of your people in harm's way without
training.
Will you have enough flexibility to maintain training
schedules, because I am very concerned about that comment you
made about going to the national training center, and the fact
that you would be at a shortfall on that?
BUDGET IMPACTS TO READINESS
General Odierno. It will allow us to mitigate portions of
it, it will not allow us to mitigate all. But again, we have a
$6 billion shortfall in O&M, it almost corrects that completely
based on the C.R.
So you correct that problem. I have another $12 billion
problem because of sequestration and because of our OCO
shortfall. So we will be able to correct some of it, but not
all of it.
Mr. Carter. Well this nation should never send any of your
people in harm's way without training and that has got to be
our first priority.
General Odierno. And I will----
Mr. Carter. Whatever it takes, we need to do it.
General Odierno. And I will say, Congressman, that $6
billion will definitely help us in ensuring we don't do that.
Mr. Carter. Thank you for what you do.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Judge Carter.
I want to turn to my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of
you for being here today, and for the work you do.
General Odierno, I will address this first to you, but
invite others to contribute as they wish. Before the C.R.,
before the sequester there was the Budget Control Act, and
there was the strategic review. And of course, all of you are
already contemplating how to bring our military construction
needs into line with the personnel reductions envisioned in the
strategic review.
I have particularly been aware of this, because many in my
congressional district have expressed concerns about the
scenarios that are projected in the Programmatic Environmental
Assessment published earlier this year of the impact on the
communities adjacent to Fort Bragg. And again, that was before
sequestration.
I heard a panel of economists yesterday respond to the
question, ``what is the perspective of history likely to be on
what we are going through right now, 20, 30 years from now?''
And they said, the question likely would be one of great
puzzlement. How could a great country do such damage to itself
through artificially created crises and ideological rigidity.
Economists of all stripes will tell us this process we are
engaged in right now will damage this recovery. There is no
question about that; hundreds of thousands of jobs will be
lost, or not restored. As much as a percentage point will be
shaved off of economic growth. There is a radically uncertain
climate for business investment. So that is the macroeconomic
impact.
And then there is the impact on specific functions of
government, from cancer research, to building highways, we have
basically stopped that, by the way, to border control, to many
of the specific functions that you are discussing here today.
Huge damage at the overall economic level, and at the level of
specific critical governmental functions, defense and non-
defense.
Now, the continuing resolution does include some well
considered defense and military construction appropriations
bills as worked out on this committee. And why can't it include
more? We have a Homeland Security bill ready to go with the
same, having undergone the same process and the same is true of
many bills.
The defense and military construction pieces do anticipate
and mitigate some sequestration effects, but by no means all.
The sequester will still fall on this bill. All of you have
reaffirmed that, and there is a clause in the continuing
resolution that makes that abundantly clear. And it is also
clear, by the way, that the C.R. does not cancel or totally
mitigate the across-the-board character of the sequester, that
is what a sequester is by definition, and the sequester will
fall.
So, in light of that, my question is pretty basic: At what
point is it going to be simply unsustainable to maintain the
force levels that we need when the various programs and
personnel who sustain and support our active duty personnel are
subject to the indiscriminate acts of sequestration?
Now, I think we all agree that men and women in uniform,
men and women in harm's way, shouldn't be subject to the whims
of congressional malfunction. So the active duty troops
properly were excluded from the sequester from the beginning.
But that is not true of the support personnel. That is not
true of the civilian personnel. That is not true of a lot of
support functions.
So I am asking you to reflect on what the breaking point
looks like when it comes to cutting all the various other
programs upon which our troops rely.
BUDGET REDUCTION IMPACTS TO THE ARMY
General Odierno. Congressman, first, as we look at this,
and I mentioned it earlier, as I look at this, we have to stay
in balance between end-strength, modernization and readiness.
And if we don't do that, we become a hollow force because we
have too much end-strength, and we can't give them the right
equipment, we can't train them properly.
And, frankly, that is going to happen pretty quickly.
Now, for the, for eliminating active duty soldiers, that is
really just for 2013. And so, when we go beyond 2013, we can
then start to submit budgets that would continue to balance
between end-strength, readiness and modernization.
And in the Army, that means we are going to have to cut
people, because 48 percent of our budget is people.
So, as I have testified, right now we think it is somewhere
between, if you include the Budget Control Act cuts with
sequestration, it will be somewhere between 185,000 to 200,000
military personnel, a large majority of those being active
component, but some National Guard-Reserve. It will include
another significant amount of civilians as well.
So in just the Army alone, I would tell you it is about
230,000 to 250,000 jobs that will be affected by the Budget
Control Act and sequestration, as you move forward.
If we don't do that, we will be out of balance. And we
can't be out of balance, because, as we have talked about here,
we cannot send soldiers into harm's way without the right
equipment and the proper training. We simply can't do it.
And so, we have got to make sure we have got that right
balance.
So, to me, I don't know what the number is yet. We are
working our way through that. We are doing some analysis on
when do I say it is just too low to meet our nation's needs. We
have not come to any conclusions on that. And we will do that
as we get further in to our development of how we will execute
sequestration plus the Budget Control Act over the next 10
years--9 years.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
STRESSES OF CIVILIAN WORKFORCE CUTS
General Amos, you referred very persuasively I thought in
your statement to the stresses of these civilian workforce
cuts. Do you have anything in particular to add?
General Amos. I do. But if you will allow me just a minute
to put my Joint Chiefs' hat on for just a second because you
alluded in your earlier comments to General Odierno about the
United States and when is it going to be a bend in the knee of
the curve or knee in the curve with regards to when you can't
do it.
Congressman, we have, I think we are--the larger question
for me, and I think for all of us that sit on the Joint Chiefs,
is what is it our nation expects to be able to do in the world
over the next decade to 2 decades? What is our global
responsibility?
I realize that is not a state, it is not Texas, North
Carolina, Carmel. I understand that. And I could never get
elected, because nobody would ever vote for me.
But the fact is, is that we that wear the JCS hat, and,
quite frankly, we are worried about that. We are worried about
our responsibility as, quite honestly, the world's sole global
power. That is it. There are rising powers, but we are it.
So I look at this in sequestration and I look at the
impacts on the Department of Defense and all of our services
and, quite honestly, I get very worried about it. I worry about
what does that equate to with regards to presence, engagement,
partnership.
We have got five major treaties in the Pacific. We have had
them for over 50 years. They depend on us. So when we start
retrenching, we start coming back to America and are the
assurance of allies we will be--they are going to look at us
the same way they are looking at these hearings, and going
"Hmm, I wonder if they are going to be there for us."
So I just throw that out.
Sir, we have got almost 20,000 regular civilian Marines and
another almost 8,000 what we call non-appropriated funds, where
we actually raise those funds through other facilities or other
means.
The bulk of those are going to be furloughed. Sixty-eight
percent of our civilian Marines, are veterans. Sixteen percent
are wounded veterans that are classified as having gotten out
of the service as a result of their wounds.
I mean, that is significant.
By the way, the bulk of them don't work in Washington, D.C.
Almost all of them are outside of Washington. They are out at
our bases and stations. They are our health care workers.
I have got some, this is fairly staggering. I asked last
night my staff to tell me, go into the health care and
behavioral health and family readiness and our sexual assault
prevention, highly qualified experts and folks that we have
asked to come in and join our efforts.
And here is the cut. It is going to furlough about 500, a
little over 500 of these folks; 25,000 behavioral health
counseling hours will be eradicated; 15,000 what we call
transition readiness, which is our transition for our veteran--
our Marines into society, that will go away; 5,600 hours of
Marine Corps family team building will go away; 114,000 child
care hours are going to go away; and 1,500 sexual assault
victim advocate hours are going to be reduced.
In my previous testimony, I have said this is not about
things, it is about people. And people count. We are a people-
intense organization in all our services and in particular
mine.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
I don't know how much time I have. I would welcome any kind
of response from others of you.
STRATEGIC BALANCE
Admiral Greenert. If I could reiterate a little bit what
General Odierno said, which is, one, we have got to look into
the future and give you a strategic answer. We have got to get
in balance for where we are today, or it is just too difficult
to look into the future.
So, number one, as the committee has said, a bill,
appropriations bill, very important. That will help us get in
balance. But we still have sequestration, which is equal
opportunity reduction across all the appropriations. My point
would be we still will need some reprogramming.
And the wisdom of Chairman Young earlier applies to the
transfer authority to come in later in the year, we say, "Okay,
great. We have got a bill; now we get balance, now what about
sequestration and where does that put us, and how do we patch
up the programs, you know, that lost the 9 percent here or
there that are really important, and what do we do with the
remaining? And do we want to now, again, come in and ask the
Congress for the ability to reprogram?"
Once we can get that foundation, we can then look into the
future, with the other caps, and determine what that really
means.
Thank you.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Price.
I recognize my friend from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Gentlemen, thank you all for the service you provide to our
nation.
And let me also, Mr. Chairman, thank you for mentioning
Bill Young. Bill Young, as you said, is a national treasure.
But for us in Florida, well, he is just a very special icon. So
thank you for mentioning him as well.
Gentlemen, a few issues, let me just kind of throw them out
there, and so you all can kind of respond to them.
SOUTHCOM, it was mentioned briefly. We all know the issues
in Latin America, whether it is the, you know, incivility and
some not-so-friendly players, like Huge Chavez in Venezuela,
even though nature may have taken care of that one soon, Evo
Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Daniel Ortega in
Nicaragua, et cetera.
While at the same time Iran, China and Russia are making,
frankly, very concerted efforts to gain influence and power in
the region, including sales of advanced weapons.
SEQUESTRATION AND THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH LATIN AMERICA
So I have, obviously, serious concerns about what
sequestration would mean for our operations and our ability to
deal with the issues in Latin America, but as well as drug
interdiction. And I understand that sequestration could have a,
frankly, a devastating impact on the interdiction of drugs.
GUATEMALA AID SUSPENDED
If you would comment briefly on the, I would, it would be
helpful. Number two is Guatemala. You know, in the 1980s under
Jimmy Carter, President Jimmy Carter, military aid to Guatemala
was suspended because of concerns of human rights. In 2005, the
aid began to flow through the Foreign Military Sales, for
example, to Guatemala.
And in 2008, Congress started allowing International
Military Education Training, IMET, funds, but only to certain
components of the armed forces. Now, currently, you know, our
government works very closely, hand-in-hand, with the
Guatemalan counterparts on drug interdiction and on security
operations.
Members of the Guatemalan military participate in U.N.
sanctioned peacekeeping operations in Haiti, in Lebanon, in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, in South Sudan. So, clearly, the
Guatemalans meet at least U.N. threshold for those guidelines.
So I am not quite sure why they are still not receiving that
aid.
And are you all going to be trying to get State and
Congress to rethink that policy, which I think is, frankly
makes no sense whatsoever.
And, lastly, we have heard, and we are all concerned about
the budgetary impacts that sequestration and the C.R. is having
on you, and they are devastating.
I was, frankly, shocked to hear in some press reports late
last year about I believe the Navy is spending $200 billion in
biofuels. According to press reports, at the rate of $26 a
gallon. Two questions on that. Is that, which I think is just,
frankly, you know, amazing.
And I know that the secretary of the Navy mentioned that he
wanted to create a market, a world market for biofuels. So it
was not because, for our national security interests. It was to
create a world market in biofuels.
And I believe the secretary said he was going to spend $1
billion on biofuels in the next year. Is that off the table?
You know, at a time when we are, again according to press
reports and we know it is true, when the Navy is not able to
send a carrier task force out, are we still going to be now at
this time of sequestration and C.R.s and tight budgets, are we
still looking at spending, you know, close to whatever--$26 a
gallon or hopefully less, but what are doing there? Three
questions, three issues, and thank you very much, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BIOFUELS
Admiral Greenert. If I may, I will answer the question on
biofuels. The Navy's budget, total budget for alternate fuel,
and that includes biofuel as well as others, is $17 million;
$11 million of that is testing different mixtures of fuel, in
addition to pursuing the testing and evaluation of other
alternative energy sources. The other $6 million is for
research.
The money frequently quoted with the larger sums are
outside the Navy. They are DOD sources which you apply for. It
is called a DPA fund, and I will have to get you the specifics
of that act and what it stands for. And over a 2-year period, a
2- or 3-year period, when you add all that up, if the Navy were
to get that funding, effectively held in escrow, and apply for
it, then it could total the number of about----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So Admiral, that is, and right now, that
is, I would assume, that in the list of priorities of the very
tough choices that you are having to make, I am assuming, and
that is just when you get a chance, I would like some
information. Is that something that is really low on the
priority list? Or is that still something that is--because I
know it was a very high priority for the secretary. So I just
want to make sure that, if you could, you don't need to now,
but just let us know where that is on the priority list.
Admiral Greenert. I will provide that for you.
The Navy has been pursuing energy efficiencies since the 1980s. Our
energy efficiency program focuses on three areas: (1) operational
energy efficiency; (2) shore energy efficiency; and (3) research and
development. We will make energy efficiencies a priority to the extent
that it improves endurance of our forces, mitigates vulnerable
logistics tails, lowers total ownership costs, and enhances the
resilience of our shore facilities. We are seeing results, for example,
since 2003 the Navy has reduced energy use ashore by more than 17%.
Investing in expanded sources of supply in energy reduces risk for
future warfighting capability. The $11 million invested in FY13 in
alternative energy sources R&D is modest, which can help mitigate the
impacts of a volatile fuel market as price and supply fluctuations in
the petroleum market. For example, a $1 change in price per barrel of
oil can cost the Navy $30 million.
The Navy provided a one-time $64M investment in PB13 towards the
OSD Defense Production Act Title III Program's (DPA) Alternative Fuel
Programs. The Alternative Fuels DPA program leverages other federal
agencies and industry commitments to expand discovery and delivery of
alternative fuels. This program models itself after other successful
efforts that supported industrial production capacity for critical
defense needs. The Navy seeks greater energy security though demand
reduction initiatives, supply expansion initiatives, and by building a
culture of energy awareness and efficiency.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great.
And then the issue of Guatemala, are we going to--is that
something that you all disagree with my assessments that
Guatemala should be now receiving, because they are receiving
funding, but just not their army. I think they are, you know,
there are other parts of it. Is that something--is my
assessment wrong? Is that something that you all are looking
at?
And thirdly, remember the other issue about drug
interdiction mission with--how sequestration will impact that.
FOREIGN MILITARY AID RESTRICTIONS
General Odierno. Well, I would just say, Congressman, that
decisions like that are based obviously on our policy decision,
but also some legislation. There are amendments out there that
limit our ability to provide aid in certain situations. I think
that is why we are unable to do that. So until, you know,
either they can be in compliance with the legislation that has
been developed, as well as determined by the State Department
that they are meeting all those requirements, we are not
authorized or allowed to spend money.
GUATEMALA
I am not completely familiar with Guatemala, but I do know
it stands in that category right now and that is why we are
unable to spend money.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Any comment on the drug interdiction
efforts? And my understanding is that it would be a rather
dramatic reduction of our ability to interdict narcotics.
Admiral Greenert. In the maritime sense, sequestration will
affect it. And the deal is our force structure is going down,
and particularly the ships that we employ down there. But there
is also a shift going on, Congressman. We are going from our
frigates--using our frigates and some destroyers, to littoral
combat ships, which are a new class of ship--very fast, a lot
of volume, and have already proven their value down in the
Southern Command.
Also, called--a vessel called a ``joint high-speed
vessel.'' It is a catamaran, very high-speed. It, too, we will
deploy it soon to the Southern Command and it is custom-made,
among other things that it does, for counter-drug, and has
proven itself in exercises.
So we are evolving in this regard. We have got to get more
innovative. And as our strategy says, our footprint will be, by
direction really, fiscal direction, smaller.
But I commit to you, we value the importance of the
mission. We will do whatever we can. It is a balance in our
global force management allocation plan, but we have other
things up our sleeve that we can do to bring for that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. With the C.R., would that, in other words,
how affected would that effort be due to sequestration? And
would this, would the, you know, C.R.--I guess, the C.R.-plus,
how would that change the scenario?
Admiral Greenert. If we can get a spending bill once again,
now, that is a horse of a different color, especially for this
year. Now, we have these operating funds for this year that we
can go back and revisit and do the balance and try to get back
those operations, including Operation Continuing Promise down
there, where we would--we--these are things that aren't
interdicting drugs, but they are very important because they
help preclude people from being interested in becoming drug
runners.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thanks very much.
I recognize Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And General Welsh, in your testimony you talked about some
of the effects of these cuts in terms of weapons sustainment
systems in Florida, Arkansas, a number of other locations.
There seems to be an argument that these cuts are not going to
weaken our military readiness. This is basically being made by
people who are not wearing the uniform.
Since you are sitting here, and you have got this testimony
that says that there are going to be real challenges with the
cuts, I think that it would be helpful for the committee to
understand what you mean when you say that there will be these
delays, how will they really impact the force.
General Welsh. Thank you, Congressman.
Let me give you just an example. The Commandant talked a
little bit ago about depots and equipment not getting into
depots, and what that does to us. There is impact across the
force, from readiness to people--to organizations and
businesses that support the military. And I will just use an
aircraft depot as an example.
Under the current sequestration law, without any new
Defense appropriations bill, without any mitigation, we will
not put 150 Air Force aircraft into the depot this year, and
about 85 engines won't go into depot. That is about $500
million worth of depot work that will not occur. Now, that
depot workforce will also be undergoing the furlough activity
for 22 days apiece over the rest of the year.
Along with that, we will stop about half-a-billion dollars
in contract logistics support for that because the depot work
is not occurring. That goes to small businesses that support
the depot with spare parts, specialized expertise, tooling and
people. Recreating those small businesses that will be
dramatically impacted by this takes years.
SET OF CUTS IN THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT
Mr. Fattah. Let me ask you a question. So, there was a set
of cuts, almost about $500 billion in the Budget Control Act
that DOD has to deal with over the next 10 years. How are those
cuts different from these automatic cuts?
General Welsh. From our perspective, what has happened is a
series of cascading effects have now put us at a place where we
are walking a knife's edge between being able to maintain
readiness or not. It was the cuts at the end of the Gates
administration. Remember, they were, on how we calculated
somewhere between $87 billion and $200 billion. There was the
Budget Control Act, which took effect back in 2011, really hit
our budget in 2013.
And the Air Force, for example, has been trading readiness
for modernization for the last 10 years because we need to
modernize our force. We critically need to do it. Our readiness
rates have been coming down for 10 years consecutively because
we have been moving money into modernization accounts, focusing
on the activity in the Middle East, not doing full-spectrum
training across our force, so we could begin modernization.
When the Budget Control Act hit our budget in 2013, it
exposed the margin that we were operating on--a fine margin
between manageable risk and readiness and now an inability to
maintain it. Sequestration exposed that completely. And so now
we have had to think about taking money out of readiness--or
excuse me, out of modernization and putting it back into
readiness. That is why we canceled the Global Hawk Block 30 a
year ago. That is why we recommended canceling the C-27
program, not because we don't want them, but because we can't
afford everything.
Sequestration now magnifies the problem. Everything is
affected. And it happens abruptly and arbitrarily. The biggest
frustration for the people at this table is all the commentary
we read and hear about, hey, we are making this stuff up. We
are not. Nobody is emotional about this. It is pretty matter of
fact.
The big issue over time for us, I believe, is what is our
topline going to be for the next 10 years with sequestration.
And until we know that, we can't even help define the specific
impact on acquisition programs, modernization programs,
infrastructure, numbers of people, force structure. We don't
know yet.
BATTERY ISSUE WITH DREAMLINER
Mr. Fattah. And one fairly pointed question, the battery
issue with the Dreamliner. Some of your fighter planes use
similar types of batteries. You have looked through this issue
and are you comfortable?
General Welsh. Yes, sir. We don't have anything that I
would consider a similar problem. I don't know where Boeing
stands on their--I know they are comfortable with----
Mr. Fattah. They are moving along pretty well.
General Welsh. But we are very comfortable. We do not have
that same problem.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And first of all, let me say how much I appreciate being a
part of this new committee, being new, and I look forward to
serving under your leadership.
And thank you all, gentlemen, for coming today and for your
very informed and thoughtful and heartfelt testimony.
As I recall, Admiral Mullen several years ago was asked:
What is the greatest threat to America? And he said: ``Our
debt.'' And so we are, as you are, caught trying to work
through very difficult principles here. One is stopping the
over-spending and getting our fiscal house in order so that we
can help save this economy, turn it around, and also prevent
national security problems that are resulting from this high
level of debt and deficit, while also at the same time,
delivering smart and effective, prudential, reasonable
government services, the core essence of which is defending our
country.
So all of you obviously are struggling, I think, with most
good-willed members of Congress, as to how to best achieve this
balance. And I agree with you, the sequester is a clumsy
mechanism. It disproportionately affects the military and there
should be more prudential ways to find appropriate reductions.
Yet at the same time, we are where we are. And it, of
course, is becoming a leverage point for the broader necessary
discussion that has to take place in Congress as to how we move
forward on proper fiscal order.
With that said, let me move specifically to a question for
you, General Welsh.
I represent Bellevue, Nebraska, which is where STRATCOM is
located. STRATCOM came under an assault in December of 2010. It
wasn't by the Russians. It wasn't by the Chinese. It wasn't by
terrorists. It was by a broken water main, which flooded the
basement of a nearly 60-year-old facility, which was designed
when the telephone was the main way in which we communicate.
And this was the central place where we basically take care of
our nuclear infrastructure and planning. So an important
process has been under way for a number of years to provide a
new facility. We broke down on it recently.
I want to go back to a couple of comments that you made.
Two being--one being to Chairman Young, as to how
sequestration, in and of itself, would potentially or fully
stop construction of a new STRATCOM headquarters, plus the
furlough question. If we passed a continuing resolution with
the Department of Defense Military Affairs appropriations bill
attached, from what I hear you saying is, those projects
proceed normally and a significant number of the furloughs
could be prevented. Is that correct?
General Welsh. Yes, Congressman, that is exactly what I
said.
Mr. Fortenberry. Why don't I just stop there, Mr. Chairman,
in the interest of time?
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. Right on target.
And then, Mr. Nunnelee, Mississippi.
Mr. Nunnelee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday I had in my office a young Marine, and when he
got finished telling me his story, he just grabbed my heart. He
said, ``I saw an IED blow up, the colleagues on my right and
left were blown to bits.'' And he said, ``I am home now, and I
am begging for help.'' And he said, ``There are numbers all
over my base. I called the number. Maybe somebody answers the
phone. If somebody answers, I don't get a call-back.'' He said
the intake workers ``are very, very good. Once I sit down with
them and they talk about the issues I am dealing with.''
But it appears that whatever paperwork they complete on the
intake gets put in a file, and nobody ever follows up. And he
said, ``There are many of us that are begging for help, and we
are not getting it.'' And I don't question, in any way, your
commitment to the men and women under your command. I know you
want for them the best. But I do question all the demands that
are on your time, and if this is something that gets lost in
the bureaucracy.
YOUNG MARINES NEEDING HELP
So, since it was a Marine, General Amos, I will ask you
first, but also the other servicemembers. What are we going to
do to help these people?
General Amos. Congressman, first of all, thanks, from the
great state of Mississippi for your concern about our Marines.
And I, obviously, I can't, I can't specifically dive into,
although I would be happy to, and get you some specifics on the
young Marine that came and spoke to you.
Since we crossed the border in 2003, in March of 2003, we
have had 13,362 Marines wounded. Twenty-five percent of those
Marines are what we would call seriously wounded. The other 75
percent are Marines that were patched up. Sometimes it is
something as a grazing shot, it is something if a shrapnel is
pulled out of a piece of flesh. But 75 percent return back
within, probably, the first 2 to 3 weeks, back to their unit.
They are patched up, and their life moves on.
That other 25 percent, there is a percentage of them that
struggle with this matter of PTSD--it is real. There is
nothing--there is not a single service here that--we are well
past the point of being in denial on that. That was many years
ago. We believe in it. We have put untold amount of effort to
try to have the counselors, try to have the right people, have
the programs. But it is more than programs. It has got to be a
compassionate individual that sits down with a wounded sailor,
soldier, Marine, and actually takes their story and talks to
them.
That is what we try to do, and of that 25 percent of those
13,000 plus, I think we are pretty successful, that almost a
clear majority of the time. Every day I will get an e-mail from
somebody. It will come often from a family member or somebody
of a Marine that was released from active duty 2 or 3 years
ago. So this is out there. And we will find out that this
Marine is struggling. This Marine is homeless. This Marine is
without a job. This Marine is suffering from PT--this Marine
has attempted suicide.
And, Congressman, I have come to understand, having touched
this now for 6 to 7 years personally, you have got to--they
come to you one at a time. You have got to deal with them one
at a time. You can't deal with them in a, kind of, a group
think thing. Each one of these young men or women are
individuals. And we try. We try to get them while they are on
active duty. We try to take care of them once they go out the
other side and enter civilian life.
So, sir, I would be happy to give you the specifics of that
young man, but I have got to tell you, there is no more
compassionate organization right now to care for our young men
and women that are wounded than my service.
CARE FOR VETERANS
General Odierno. Congressman, if I could jump in on this,
this is, obviously, a very important issue. And it goes along
several different lines. Let me just try to quickly summarize
those.
So one is, as we talk about both traumatic brain injury and
Post Traumatic Stress, this is something about the continuum of
care that we have to develop. And it starts, first with the
individual coming forward, when he does come forward, as you
just addressed in this one case, that the appropriate
capability is there to assist him.
And for the Army, it is in a variety of places because of
our National Guard, our U.S. Army Reserve, as well as our
active duty soldiers. They are all over the United States. So
how do we develop a network of continuum care to make sure they
can reach out and be treated?
And then the third is our ability to then hand them off to
V.A. And how do we do that in such a way where everybody
understands their problems, the medical records are handed
over, the counseling sessions are handed over, so it is a
constant continuum of care? This is what we owe our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and Marines, is this continuum of care, and
that they don't get lost in the system, that we are going to
continue to fund this, because, to go on for 10, 15, 20 more
years, as we all know to make sure that we continue to have the
programs in place.
RECRUITING MORE COUNSELORS
In the Army, one of the issues we have had is, we have the
authorization, and we have allocated the dollars, no matter how
constrained our budget is, is to hire the counselors. But,
frankly, there aren't enough counselors out there. There is
incredible competition between us and the local communities for
these counselors. So we are continuing to work on our
recruiting efforts to bring them in so we have plenty of
counselors to deal with, not only the soldiers, sailors, air,
Marines, but their families, as well, who are affected by this.
So we absolutely are, we take this on as one of our most
important functions. And not a day goes by, as the commandant
said, that we are not aware of an individual case that might
not be going the way we want it to.
I will tell you, there are hundreds and hundreds of cases
that are going very well, but if one does not do well, that is
on us, and we have got to continue to work that together. So
this is a complex issue that is going to take a lot of time and
effort across a wide variety of areas. So am with you on this,
and we will do all we can to continue to work this and we will
work with you all as we come up with more issues----
General Amos [continuing]. Not only do the services have
all their issues of programs and how they are trying to care
for, and how they are all basically the same, I mean there is,
we best practices from each of the services. It is not
institutional prerogative. We have stolen best thoughts and
ideas from all our sister services to try to come up with the
best product and the best venue. The V.A. is doing exactly the
same thing. If General Shinseki was here, he would talk with a
great passion about----
HOMEGROWN ORGANIZATIONS
One of the things that has happened as a result of almost
12, 13 straights years of combat, is there are different
organizations; some of them are church-centered, but a lot of
them have grown up, they have become homegrown organizations
that have now great institutional impact, civilian-wise, that
touch the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, the Marine Corps
outside, and provide those extra bits of care, the money, the
capability, the capacity to be able to care for these young men
and women beyond what V.A. and beyond what the Department of
Defense can.
And there is goodness to that, and without getting into
some specific names of some of these organizations, because
that would probably be inappropriate, but there are some
wonderful organizations and institutions that care for them
beyond what we could ever care for what the V.A.----
POST-DEPLOYMENT ASSESSMENT
Admiral Greenert. Something I would add to my two
colleagues on my right and left, I have worked passionately--
there is an element of stigma that when the kids come back it
is okay to not be okay, and driving that home is sometimes
difficult. So we will do a post-deployment assessment, and they
don't want to, for fear of leaving the unit, they will say, no
I am all right.
We have to have the discipline, and there is a process to
follow up on everybody. So that is the part where somebody
says, ``Well, Billy said he was okay,'' you know, whatever. We
have to follow up on that. And as Jim and Ray both said, that
is incredibly important, and--process----
Mr. Nunnelee. Well, again, I do not question your
individual commitment to those young men and women. The only
reason I raise the issue is to request that you make sure your
organizations carry the commitment that you just expressed
here. Make sure that every returning young man and woman gets
the mental health care that they have every reason to expect.
Thanks----
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Our witnesses are coming up against a hard stop. I know
several of y'all have to leave. So I would ask the committee
members, if we could, any additional questions, we will
certainly submit in writing, but I, you know, have a brief
closing statement, but I would like to recognize my friend Mr.
Bishop for any closing remarks or questions he would like to
ask, and then we are going to need to conclude.
Mr. Bishop. First of all, let me just thank you for your
service, thank you for your hard work in dealing with the
challenges that we face. I do have some additional questions
for all of your gentlemen, but we will submit them for the
record. I understand that at this time there is great demand
for your time, because of the knowledge that you have and the
challenges that we are facing, there are others who want to
explore that.
So I thank you for coming. I thank you for the information.
And I thank you for your service. And we will submit some
additional questions for the record.
Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
I just want to reiterate how united the Congress is in
supporting you and helping you in every we that we can. We
recognize the--that this is a very dangerous world out there,
just very briefly looking at the headlines this morning, the
supreme commander of North Korea said that they are--intend to
cancel the 1953 cease fire, and that is an extraordinarily
dangerous situation in North Korea.
In the communist Chinese, they have announced that they are
going to raise their annual military spending by almost 11
percent a year. The Chinese gold reserves, in fact, Chairman
Young and committee members Chinese foreign sea reserves have
surged 700 percent since 2004, and they have got enough money
right now on hand to buy every central bank in the world's
official gold supply twice.
And I also saw this morning that there is a Chinese, a
communist Chinese military delegation visiting the Pentagon,
Hawaii, and the District of Columbia and the Pentagon, and this
includes a general who said they were prepared to do a first
strike nuclear attack against the United States. I mean, that
is of real concern. I hope we are limiting what those folks
have access to.
We face a very dangerous world. The committee is committed
as is the Congress to support you and help you in every way
that we can to make sure the United States military is the very
best in the world, and again, that you never have to look over
your shoulder or worry about the equipment, the supplies, the
support, the facilities and the health care that our men and
women in uniform receive.
We will continue to make sure that it is the very best in
the world. And we thank you very much for your service to the
country. And we will submit any additional questions in
writing.
Thank you, very much.
And the hearing is adjourned.
[Questions for the Record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]