[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2015
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
KAY GRANGER, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
KEN CALVERT, California TIM RYAN, Ohio
TOM COLE, Oklahoma WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Tom McLemore, Jennifer Miller, Paul Terry, Walter Hearne,
Maureen Holohan, Tim Prince, Brooke Boyer, B G Wright,
Adrienne Ramsay, and Megan Milam Rosenbusch,
Staff Assistants
Sherry L. Young, Administrative Aide
________
PART 2
Page
Defense Health Program....................................... 1
FY 2015 National Guard and Army Reserve...................... 135
Testimony of Members of Congress............................. 261
U.S. Pacific Command / U.S. Forces Korea..................... 333
Missile Defense Agency....................................... 381
U.S. Africa Command.......................................... 439
Overseas Contingency Operations Funding...................... 457
Public Witness Testimony..................................... 467
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2015
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
KAY GRANGER, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
KEN CALVERT, California TIM RYAN, Ohio
TOM COLE, Oklahoma WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Tom McLemore, Jennifer Miller, Paul Terry, Walter Hearne,
Maureen Holohan, Tim Prince, Brooke Boyer, B G Wright,
Adrienne Ramsay, and Megan Milam Rosenbusch,
Staff Assistants
Sherry L. Young, Administrative Aide
________
PART 2
Page
Defense Health Program....................................... 1
FY 2015 National Guard and Army Reserve...................... 135
Testimony of Members of Congress............................. 261
U.S. Pacific Command / U.S. Forces Korea..................... 333
Missile Defense Agency....................................... 381
U.S. Africa Command.......................................... 439
Overseas Contingency Operations Funding...................... 457
Public Witness Testimony..................................... 467
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
92-984 WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
TOM LATHAM, Iowa JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
KAY GRANGER, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho ED PASTOR, Arizona
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas SAM FARR, California
KEN CALVERT, California CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas TIM RYAN, Ohio
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2015
________
Wednesday, April 2, 2014.
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
WITNESSES
LIEUTENANT GENERAL PATRICIA D. HOROHO, SURGEON GENERAL, UNITED STATES
ARMY
VICE ADMIRAL MATTHEW L. NATHAN, SURGEON GENERAL, UNITED STATES NAVY
LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS W. TRAVIS, SURGEON GENERAL, UNITED STATES AIR
FORCE
JONATHAN WOODSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, HEALTH AFFAIRS
Opening Statement of Chairman Frelinghuysen
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good afternoon, the subcommittee will
come to order.
This afternoon, the subcommittee holds an open hearing on
the fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Defense Health
program. I would like to welcome Dr. Jonathan Woodson,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; Surgeon
General of the Army, Lieutenant General Patricia Horoho.
I always mispronounce that. I apologize.
The Surgeon General of the Navy, Vice Admiral Matthew
Nathan; and the Surgeon General of the Air Force, Lieutenant
General Thomas Travis.
Let me say particularly to Vice Admiral Nathan, thank you
for your special work with our friend and colleague, the late
Congressman Bill Young. You and your team did some remarkable
things, and I just want the record to show that on behalf of
all of us, we are very grateful. And all of you who were
interested and involved in it, let me thank all of you for the
high level of interest.
I thank all of you for your service and welcome you back to
the committee. As always, the committee remains committed to
providing the very best in medical care to our service men and
women, all volunteers as they put their lives on the line for
us each and every day. Whether at home or abroad, they deserve
the best physicians, nurses, healthcare professionals,
equipment and technology available to treat whatever wounds
they sustain, whether it be physical or mental. And that is for
the long term, whether they remain in the military, or whether
they become--they immediately become veterans.
For example, more than 1,600 personnel now bear
amputations. I have seen estimates that up to 400,000
individuals are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder,
or syndrome, and of course, there are many cases of TBI,
traumatic brain injury. Many of you saw the front page
Washington Post story on Sunday, ``A Legacy of Pain and
Pride.'' The piece reports that more than half of the 2.6
million personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan struggle
with physical and mental health problems stemming from their
service. They feel disconnected from civilian life and believe
the government is failing to meet the needs of this
generation's veterans.
Retired Army Staff Sergeant Christopher Steavens
crystallized the mission of this committee and the Department
of Defense. He said, and I quote, ``I raised my right hand and
said, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States of America. I gave them everything I could. I would
expect the same in return,'' end of quotation marks.
And he should expect the same in return. We recognize that
the Veterans Administration bears responsibility here, too. But
as far as the active, Guard and Reserve personnel are
concerned, your Department and this committee commits ourselves
to giving our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen everything
they need. We are keenly aware that the Department of Defense
faces a tremendous challenge with the growing cost and long-
term sustainability of the military healthcare system, a system
with about 10 million beneficiaries. Military healthcare costs
have risen from $19 billion in fiscal year 2001 to
approximately $47.4 billion in fiscal year 2015 in your budget
request.
This budget request assumes savings associated with several
controversial TRICARE benefit cost-saving proposals. I would
note that these recommendations must be ultimately approved by
Congress, and they have been rejected in the past. The
committee is interested in hearing more about them today.
Additionally, the committee remains distressed about the
unacceptably high rate of suicide and sexual assault and the
ability of the Department to provide mental health counseling
for servicemembers. It is imperative that the Department get to
the heart of these two critical issues.
We also remain concerned after years of substantial
investment over the continued lack of an electronic health
record that will help our servicemembers seamlessly--we have
been using that term for quite a long time--transition their
care from the Department of Defense to the Department of
Veterans Affairs. This is an issue with real world day-to-day
implications for our troops and our veterans.
The initial mandate for an integrative record was included
in the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.
Now, 7 years later, we have yet to see working interoperable
records between the two Departments. This is unacceptable. And
the committee needs to know that progress is occurring and that
this challenge will soon have a solution.
So welcome back. We welcome your testimony.
And at this time, I would like to turn to my ranking
member, Mr. Visclosky, for any comments or statement he would
like to make.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing as you
address questions as to how we care for our servicemembers and
their families. I also do want to thank our witnesses for their
testimony. Your remarks and frank answers to our questions are
essential to our deliberations on the fiscal year 2015 budget
request.
In order to preserve the readiness of our U.S. forces and
our ability to provide world class care, this year's request
proposes to control the growth of personnel and healthcare
costs that consume an increasing share of the Defense budget. I
recognize the need to address these problems, problems that
have proven to be some of the most difficult to resolve in
light of unsuccessful attempts in the past with plenty of, if
you would, responsibility resting in the Congress as well as
the current and past administrations.
As we proceed, I believe that all of us want to also
ensure, however, that these changes are equitable in their
impact. With that, I thank you for your service and your
testimony today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours. Your entire printed
statement will be put in the record, and we are glad you are
back. Thank you.
Testimony of Dr. Woodson
Dr. Woodson. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Visclosky, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of Defense request for fiscal year 2015 health
program funding.
Our national security and defense strategies must be
supported by a strong, relevant, agile, and forward-leaning
Military Health System. Our servicemembers deserve and the
American people expect excellent care delivered reliably,
effectively, efficiently, and compassionately anywhere our
servicemembers are stationed or deployed. Our fiscal year 2015
budget supports these efforts and supports our quadruple aim of
increased readiness, better health, better care at lower cost.
We are committed to sustaining the medical readiness of our
forces, the clinical skills of our medical forces, and the
world class treatment and rehabilitation for those who fight
battles today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
This budget also sustains our long-term medical research
and development portfolio, allowing us to continually improve
the care for the warfighter. The Military Health System has
performed well in 13 years of war, achieving historic outcomes
in our ability to reduce the rate of disease and nonbattle
injury in the combat theater and to increase the rate of
survival of war wounds.
We are proud of these outcomes, but in order to meet our
mission in the face of changing threats and limited resources
and working closely with the Surgeons General, I have outlined
six lines of effort for the Military Health System in support
of the Secretary's priorities. These include modernizing the
Military Health System's management with an enterprise focus,
define and resource the medical capabilities and manpower
needed in the 21st century, invest in and expand strategic
partnerships, assess the balance of our medical force
structure, modernize the TRICARE health program, and define the
Military Health System's global health engagement requirements.
For this hearing, I would like to focus on two of these
efforts that directly relate to our budget request for this
year. The Defense Health Agency, a designated combat support
agency, is an important first step in modernizing our common
business and clinical practices with accountability for
performances both to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
We have incorporated 7 of the 10 shared services into the
Defense Health Agency and we have made substantial progress in
achieving savings earlier than projected, as we consolidated
functions and we reduced redundancy and variation.
Our proposal for fiscal year 2015 budget also includes
efforts to modernize the TRICARE program. This proposal will
simplify and modernize the existing TRICARE program in ways
that provide incentives for wellness, decrease over-utilization
and allow beneficiaries to choose their providers. This
proposal includes modest increases in beneficiary out-of-pocket
costs. I fully recognize that any increase in out-of-pocket
costs for our beneficiaries introduces concern from those we
serve, the organizations that represent them, but I want to
make clear that the TRICARE benefit will remain one of the most
comprehensive benefits in this country, and it will modernize
the program for the first time in many years.
Mr. Chairman, we understand that the Department of Defense
must do its part in addressing the Nation's budget concerns and
that it must be done in a responsible and judicious manner. I
believe this proposed budget meets the test, and I am hopeful
that working collaboratively with Congress and our military
servicemember and the veterans organizations we can reach an
agreement on the budget proposals.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today, and I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement of Dr. Woodson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Testimony of LTG Horoho
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Surgeon General Horoho, the floor is
yours. Thank you for being with us.
General Horoho. Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member
Visclosky, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I
thank you for this opportunity to tell the Army medicine story.
On behalf of the dedicated soldiers and civilians that make
up Army medicine, I appreciate the support that Congress has
provided. I want to start by acknowledging America's sons and
daughters who are still in harm's way today. We have 32,000
soldiers committed to operations in Afghanistan and an
additional 120,000 soldiers forward stationed or deployed in
nearly 150 countries doing the work of freedom.
Since 1775, the Army's medical personnel have served with
our fighting troops and received them when they returned home.
We do this by focusing our efforts across four priorities:
combat casualty care; the readiness and the health of the
force; a ready and deployable medical force; and the health of
our families and retirees.
Just as the health of the Nation and the health of our Army
are not separate entities, the health and the readiness of our
Army are inseparable because health is a critical enabler to
readiness.
Today, I am proud to report that we are beginning to see
results in readiness, in health, in cost savings. To our
service lines and standardization of processes across the
medical command, we have synchronized our policy, programs, and
resources, and we are starting to see some very strong results.
Our medical and dental readiness is at its highest level since
2001. Our performance triad of healthy sleep, activity, and
nutrition is spreading across our Army and Army family. Since
embedding behavior health capabilities in the brigade
footprint, soldiers used outpatient behavior health care more
frequently, had fewer acute crises, and required approximately
25,000 fewer inpatient psychiatric bed days in 2013 compared to
2012. This brought a cost avoidance of approximately $28
million.
The Army wellness centers are seeing early indicators in
improved health. For the 2,400 individuals who were followed,
62 percent saw a 4 percent decrease in their body mass index
and a 15 percent increase in cardiovascular fitness and oxygen
consumption. Our patient-centered medical home led to a 6
percent reduction in over-utilization of emergency room visits,
which equates to a $16.3 million cost avoidance and a decrease
in polypharmacy of almost 50 percent.
I believe this is only the beginning as we continue towards
a system of health. Army medicine ensures that the Army
maintains a medically ready force and a ready medical force.
Our health care providers require professional and operational
development, which begins in our military hospitals. The Army
medicine operating force provided 70 percent of combat casualty
care in Iraq and Afghanistan. This valuable experience
permeates into our education and our training base of the
Uniform Service University, Army Medical Department (AMEDD)
Center and School and our Joint Medical Education and Training
Center at Fort Sam Houston. Our programs are outlined further
in the written testimony. So I want to take a moment to
acknowledge what is not in my written testimony.
And that is, this is a time of hard conversations and very
tough choices. For the first time, we are decreasing the size
of our Army before the longest war in our Nation's history has
ended. We are poised to transition to the interwar years, and
we must work aggressively to sustain our combat care skills,
nurture an environment of dignity and respect, and maintain
trust with the American people.
As a leader, I get asked what keeps me up at night. I worry
about the long-term repercussions of these wars on our
veterans. I worry about sexual assault and sexual harassment
occurring across our Nation and Department of Defense. I worry
about losing momentum towards building the health, resiliency,
and readiness of our armed force. I worry about the loss of
science and technology that has accelerated medical advances
that give the American public confidence to allow their sons
and daughters to serve.
Our Nation has the best military medical team in the world,
and there is no true equivalent within the civilian sector. We
are a combat multiplier. We are drivers of medical innovation.
What our men and women in military medicine do every day on
deployments and in garrison is what makes military medicine
unique, and it is what makes me very, very proud. This is both
a time of challenge and a time of opportunity. The nature of
war will always have medical threats. Our job is to be ready,
whenever, and wherever. Anything less will cost lives, and this
is not going to happen on my watch.
Though we live in uncertain times, one thing is certain: A
healthy, resilient, and ready Army will be, as it always has
been, the strength of our Nation.
I want to thank my partners in the Department of Defense
and the VA, my colleagues here today on the panel, Congress,
for your continued support. The Army medicine team is serving
proudly; honored to serve. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, General.
[The statement of Lieutenant General Horoho follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Testimony of VADM Nathan
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Admiral Nathan, welcome.
Admiral Nathan. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Visclosky,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for
the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the
dedicated men and women of Navy Medicine. We want to thank the
committee for your outstanding support and your confidence. I
can report to you that Navy Medicine and our team is mission-
ready in delivering world class care anywhere any time.
Navy Medicine OPTEMPO remains high, protecting, promoting,
and restoring the health of Sailors and Marines deployed around
the world, ashore, and afloat in all warfare domains above the
sea, on the sea, under the sea, and on the land. We exist to
support the operational missions of both the Navy and the
Marine Corps. These responsibilities require us to be an agile,
expeditionary medical force capable of meeting the demands of
crisis response and global maritime security.
Within Navy medicine, our planning efforts must always be
synchronized with the Navy and Marine Corps. Our way forward
reflects purpose and commitment to build on the work and
investments we made last year. Our strategic goals remain as
they did, readiness first, value and jointness. The goals are
critical to sustaining our readiness mission, remaining
flexible in the face of changing operational requirements and
fiscal challenges as well as effectively managing our
resources. They also leverage the use of technology and
telehealth, help standardize clinical and business processes
and improve alignment.
Throughout Navy Medicine, our leaders are achieving
measurable progress on these goals, and I am encouraged that
these priorities are taking hold throughout our enterprise. By
leveraging the capabilities of our patient-centered medical
home, Medical Home Port, and initiating our CONUS hospital
optimization plan, we are moving more workload into our MTFs.
We are growing our enrollment and we are rebalancing staff and
reducing overall purchase care expenditures. Just as
importantly, we are ensuring that our graduate medical
education programs remain second to none and that our provider
teams sustain the clinical currency to always be battlefield
ready.
The establishment of the Defense Health Agency is an
important milestone for the Military Health System and our
collective efforts to realize potential efficiencies and
savings. Navy Medicine is working with the DHA in conjunction
with our partners in the Army and Air Force, to ensure that
rigorous business case analysis is conducted and validated for
the shared services while we continue to focus on improved
integration of health care, benefits, and services in the six
enhanced multiservice markets.
Strategically, I am convinced that we are stronger as a
result of our work with the other Services, our interagency
partners, leading academic and private research institutions,
as well as other civilian experts. These collaborations are
essential. They are important as we leverage efficiencies and
best practices in clinical care, research, education, global
health engagement, and supporting our wounded servicemembers in
their recovery and ultimately in their transition.
Psychological health is an important component of overall
force health protection. We recognize that prolonged
operational stress can have significant and potentially
debilitating consequences. We continue to embed mental health
capabilities in operational units and primary care settings in
order to identify and manage issues before they manifest to
psychological problems. This priority extends to suicide
prevention efforts where we train Sailors, Marines, and their
families to recognize operational stress and use tools to
manage and reduce its effects.
As leaders, we have renewed our emphasis on ensuring that
we focus on every Sailor every day, particularly those in
transition, who may be facing personal and professional
adversity. We know that an increasing sense of community and
purpose is an important protective factor in preventing
suicide. We must remain ready and accessible to those who need
our help. These are transformational times in military
medicine. There is much work ahead as we navigate the important
challenges and seize the opportunities to keep our Sailors and
Marines healthy and maximize the value for all of our patients
and leverage our joint opportunities.
I am encouraged with the progress we have made, but I am
not satisfied. We continue to look for ways to improve and
remain on the forefront of delivering world class health care
anywhere, any time. Again, thank you, sir, and I look forward
to your questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Admiral Nathan.
[The statement of Vice Admiral Nathan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Testimony of LT GEN Travis
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Dr. Travis, thank you for being
with us again.
General Travis. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Visclosky, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thanks for inviting me to appear
before you today.
Our military forces in this Nation have benefited from the
vast achievements Army, Navy, and Air Force medics have jointly
made in deployed and en route care since the beginning of the
current war. With this war winding down, and it is not done,
even with our fiscal challenges, we now have a clear
responsibility to make sure military medics are well trained
and well prepared for whatever contingency the future brings to
include combat operations, stability operations, humanitarian
assistance, or disaster relief.
To enhance our core competency in the ground expeditionary
mission or, in our case, the Air Evac mission, we must ensure
that our providers continue to have robust opportunities to
practice their skills and that we continue to pursue critical
research and modernization initiatives for the future. We have
very successfully leveraged civilian partnerships to maintain
trauma skills readiness, and as this war subsides, I am
convinced we will rely even more strongly on these
relationships to help us train and conduct research.
As the way we fight wars evolves, the way we provide
medical support for operators must also evolve. Airmen who are
manning systems, such as distributed common ground stations,
space and cyber operations, or remotely piloted aircraft, and
those who operate outside the wire, such as security forces,
Special Ops, and explosive ordnance disposal specialists, just
as an example, all face distinct challenges. These types of
injuries or stressors, both visible and invisible, to members
and their families are also changing.
We must provide medical support in different ways than we
have in the past to address what we describe as an expanding
definition of operator and step up to our role as human
performance practitioners. Not only will access and care be
more customized for the mission, but so will prevention. For
example, we have embedded mental health providers with the
right level of security clearance in several remote warfare
units to be readily available at the duty location to provide
early intervention and care for those experiencing occupational
stress that could affect their performance. These important
operators may not otherwise have sought care.
The Air Force is committed to the Department's plan for
reorganization of the Military Health System to include the
establishment of the Defense Health Agency. There are many
changes in the works for how we will operate, and you have
heard some from my partners. We are excited to be fully engaged
with our partners in this very tough work, and it is tough
work, as we continually focus on providing trusted care and
maintaining a fit, healthy, and ready fighting force.
Personally, I have been in the Air Force for 37 years,
first as a fighter pilot, and now for many years as a
physician. In my career, I have never seen a time when it is
more evident how important military medicine is to the
operational capability of this Nation. We have learned much,
and our medics have performed magnificently. Even in the face
of budget challenges, we have to be as ready at the beginning
of the next war as we are now with the end of the current war.
I think our Nation expects that.
Your continued support of Air Force medicine, military
medicine, and our mission is greatly appreciated. Thank you for
that support and for having me here today.
[The statement of Lieutenant General (Dr.) Travis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay, thank you on all of our behalf.
Before I yield to Ms. Granger, we pay tribute to the joint work
that you have done in Afghanistan, but we still have 33,000
plus, actually, soldiers and Marines and Seamen, and you name
it, Air Force personnel, over there. And if the public only
knew what happens on the battlefield and the fact that those
medics are right there to provide immediate transport within
the golden hour to the incredible trauma hospital that does
amazing things, the genius and the courage of the people who do
that airlift, and then to land still where, you know, often
parents are there wringing their hands and worrying from home,
and then they are transported back to the Continental United
States, is an incredible achievement. And statistics are human.
The lives that have been saved, so I know on all of our behalf,
we feel very strongly about the work you have done, and it is
not over. We don't know exactly what our exit strategy is out
of Afghanistan, but that in some ways makes it even more
dangerous to be there. So it is good to know that you have
personnel on the ground that do some remarkable things in the
face of huge adversity.
Ms. Granger.
EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS FOR TBI AND PTSD
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Thank you all for being here.
Dr. Woodson, I have a question. I had the opportunity to
talk with Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell of all of the treatments he
has received for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic
stress disorder. He told me the only treatment that worked for
him he received at the Carrick Brain Centers, and last week, he
told me, he said that was the first time he had been able to
sleep all night since he was injured.
I went to visit Carrick and to see the treatment firsthand,
and the results were just amazing. Carrick is a
multidisciplinary brain rehabilitation center, and they combine
evidence-based diagnostics with leading-edge technology and
treatment to help people suffering from brain injuries due to
physical or emotional trauma, and they use a very innovative
approach that they explained to me retrains the healthy part of
the brain to take over the functions of the part of the brain
that has been damaged.
My question, when we identify successful treatments like
that, I think it is important that all of our servicemembers
have an opportunity to benefit from them. But unfortunately,
these treatments are labeled experimental, so TRICARE won't
cover any of the cost. My question is, what needs to be done so
that we can have those innovative treatments or treatments
outside of the military to be available to all of the military?
I think we are missing huge opportunities.
Dr. Woodson. Thanks very much for that question, and I
agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly.
Let me provide two brief answers to the question. Number
one, I do think we need to develop a more flexible approach to
bring evolving treatments and strategies more rapidly into the
TRICARE plan, if you will. And in fact, we have been discussing
this recently because of other issues that have come up
relative to new approaches to diagnostics.
One of the issues for TRICARE to deal with is that it is a
defined benefit that kind of looks like an insurance product,
and then so we are sort of limited sometimes by the Code of
Federal Regulation in terms of this business of proof.
Having said that, I think the issue is it is time to work
out a system where we can go ahead and provisionally cover
these evolving practices and create more flexibility in the
program, so I agree with you.
The second piece I would just say is that I agree with the
treatment strategy that you have outlined, and through the
National Intrepid Center of Excellence and additional sites
that have been generously funded by the Fisher Foundation, we
are incorporating just those same practices and making them
available throughout the military for servicemembers with brain
injuries.
Ms. Granger. Good. I think it is just very, very important.
And I would say to anybody else that isn't familiar with it, I
certainly was not familiar with it, but to visit that would be
certainly worth your time. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Ms. Granger.
Mr. Moran.
RISE IN HEALTH CARE COSTS
Mr. Moran. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Woodson, as you know, the costs--I have a little cold,
so excuse me--the cost of military healthcare has more than
doubled over a little more than a decade now from less than $20
billion, to almost $50 billion. Now, the fees for TRICARE
beneficiaries were set almost 20 years ago, and they haven't
changed, even as the cost of health care has increased
dramatically over time.
Over the last decade, CBO reports that DoD healthcare
funding is far outpacing inflation, and costs are going to rise
even further in the coming years. So what we see now is
something that is beginning to squeeze our defense budget, is
going to become ever more pronounced in the years ahead as we
have more and more uniformed personnel returning from combat
and the like.
You have proposed changes to TRICARE that are intended to
incentivize a more effective and efficient form of using health
care. Now, it is my understanding that the Department has
substantial data that show that it is actually a fairly small
percentage of TRICARE users that are termed super users of the
system. They have much higher costs because they tend to use
the most expensive forms of health care and do it far more
frequently. For example, instead of seeing a nurse when their
child has a cold, they go to the emergency room. That is done
in civilian life, and it is done with DoD hospitals as well.
Now, could you share some of this data with the committee
so that it may be possible to gain a better grasp of what is
driving this dramatic increase in healthcare costs?
Dr. Woodson. Sir, thank you very much for the question, and
you have outlined a lot of very pertinent issues nicely. So, in
1990, the early 1990s, the Defense Health Program budget was
about 4 percent of the base budget of the Department of
Defense. And as you have outlined, since the year 2000, 2001,
we have more than doubled from $19 billion to a height of about
$54 billion in 2012. We have made some management changes and
some program changes to save about $3 billion per year, and our
current budget that we are proposing of $47.5 billion is about
4 percent below what the height was, basically, so we have made
changes. But the issue is that we have still grown from about
9.5 or so percent of base budget, to just about 10 percent of
base budget. So we are pedalling harder, but we are not
catching up. And the reason is that over the course of TRICARE,
of course, the fees have not gone up. Some fees have actually
gone down, so the catastrophic cap which was $7,000 when
CHAMPUS was originally instituted when TRICARE came on board is
now $1,000, and there have been adjustments in other fees. And
if you take it in real 2014 dollars, they have actually gone
down.
So we are doing, I think what we should be doing in terms
of management to make it as efficient as possible, but we do
need to readjust the program to provide the incentives for the
right utilization of care. Right now, particularly in the
retiree, the working-age retirees who are in our TRICARE Prime
program, they actually consume more resources, health care than
sort of age-matched folks who have a civilian HMO program. So
we do have substantial data that we need to revise the system
to incentivize the right utilization of care but provide the
access. It is really important that we bring a lot of these in
line.
The other thing I would say is that as it relates to
TRICARE, I think all of the stakeholders have tried to provide
a very robust product for the beneficiaries, and they deserve
it. But these have added costs, so TRICARE for Life, for
example, was introduced and probably represents about 30 to 33
percent of the increasing cost over the early decade of the
2000, is a robust product but carries with it no cost share and
no enrollment fee. And so what we have tried to do is not bring
in draconian changes that produce a lot of out-of-pocket costs,
but bring in modest costs that in fact will help produce a more
enduring and efficient program.
WORKING AGE MILITARY RETIREES
Mr. Moran. I appreciate that Dr. Woodson, but in Medicare,
for example, we find that less than 20 percent of the
beneficiary population incurs more than 80 percent of the
costs. And I was just wondering if that doesn't apply to
TRICARE as well.
But I have a followup question on this. I wonder if you
have considered alternatives that increase the cost sharing for
working-age military retirees because when I look at what you
are doing, it is not going to relieve the pressure on the rest
of the budget. It is going to affect force personnel and any
number of other priorities. But often working-age military
retirees will retire from the military but very quickly find
work in the private sector, which is what we expect them to do.
But they hold on to their TRICARE health plans because they are
so much cheaper than any civilian health plan. So you have to
wonder, wouldn't it make sense to have a tiered approach to
cost sharing so as to protect the more vulnerable and younger
less established beneficiaries?
Dr. Woodson. Sir, that is a very good question and
proposal, and you know, in years past, we have offered up
tiered approaches to the cost share. And, you know, we
certainly can look at that. I think what we have offered up
this year is a proposal that modernizes the product, but also
provides a better cost share. You know, when the program
originally went into place, there was about a 27 percent cost
share for working-age retirees. That now has fallen to about
9.3 percent.
Mr. Moran. So it has dropped from 27 percent to 9 percent?
Dr. Woodson. Yes, 9.3, yeah. And under our proposal, we
readjust the fees so that they have about an 11 percent cost
share. So we have moved in the right direction, and I
appreciate the CBO report that you have mentioned in your
statement, but we have tried tiered approaches before. We think
that the proposal this time around gives the beneficiary
something as we are asking them to pay a little bit more, which
is a modern approach with fewer encumbrances. So the proposal
this year removes this authorization of referrals, which has
been a major dissatisfier for folks using the program. So they
get something, even as we are asking them to pay a little bit
more.
Mr. Moran. I have used up my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. He needs an answer, I think a better
answer to his question. If there are super users, is it a
family with multiple issues? I think we need a better handle on
that. But you will provide that information for us, or will
follow up with some questions.
Mr. Kingston.
INCENTIVES IN HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Woodson, I wanted to continue along these lines that
Mr. Moran brought up. I am wondering, and maybe you have done
this, but have you ever looked at the testimony of, say, your
predecessors as far back as 10 years ago to see what they did,
what they said, because I don't say this critically because we
are all a little bit guilty, but it is always this forward
thinking, if we are going to do it robust, we are going to have
the best quality healthcare. We are going to do this and that.
And you know, I mean, your testimonies could have been written
by Madison County ad people, and I just say that, again, not
trying to be critical, but that is what we would have been
hearing 10 years ago, regardless of who the administration is.
And I am wondering if there were some lessons that you can
have somebody reach back and say, well, what is it they did?
Because one of the things you said to Mr. Moran is that you are
looking for ways to incentivize inside the VA. Why hasn't that
been done? We have been hearing that, and as I understand,
there is now legislation that allows people who have been less
than performing to be fired. There is nothing revolutionary
about that. But apparently, it takes legislation on it. And
last year, this committee put on an amendment, and it passed
the full floor of the House, that said if the VA did not clean
up its backlog, there would be a 25 percent reduction in salary
on the administration level.
So we are all, you know, united together to find that magic
incentive, but I am just wondering what are the--what is
keeping it from happening? And again, I am not directing this
towards you, but towards all of us who have sat in these chairs
over the years.
Dr. Woodson. I don't know that I can speak for the Veterans
Administration, but I do--would respond by saying that we have
looked at all of the incentives and where the industry goes to
try and promote wellness and modify behavior and trying to
encourage the right use of health care. And those are
incorporated in the proposal that we have put forward.
Mr. Kingston. And along that line, have you sat down with
the VSOs, because I know that, in terms of the health care in
the VA, it is still the same kind of issues that we are facing,
but have you sat down with the VSOs to discuss this, and can
you get their buy-in?
Dr. Woodson. Well, we have engaged repetitively with the
VSOs, and we know that they are not happy about increasing
fees.
I will say that over the last few years as we have talked
to them, one of the things that they have repetitively told us
is that we needed to produce a more efficient administration to
wring costs and inefficiency out of that. And I think we have
responded to that with the establishment of the Defense Health
Agency, which I think is historic, in trying to make sure that
we have the most efficient, most effective, lowest-cost
administrative organization as possible. So I think we have
responded to it.
Mr. Kingston. And would you say that, say, 2 years from
now, 3 years from now, there will be a difference that you can
say, I did that, I have bent that cost curve, which Mr. Moran
has mentioned? And again, it is astounding that since 2000,
military personnel has decreased 10 percent, but the costs have
doubled. And so I think that is why we are all frustrated about
it. Because we all share the same goal. We want the quality,
the best healthcare. It is extremely important to take care of
our military personnel, but also this cost issue is just----
Dr. Woodson. So in answer, direct answer to that question,
yes, I can say that in the future, and actually now, we have
started bending the cost curve. As I mentioned before, we are
saving about $3 billion a year, so we have Federal ceiling
pricing. We have prospective payment system, readjusted
programs to save millions, if not billions, of dollars. The
pharmacy changes alone have yielded $7 billion in the last 4 to
5 years. So we are working very hard, and that is why I
mentioned before we are pedalling pretty hard, but even when we
are doing that, because the top line of the Department of
Defense is coming down, we become a greater percentage of the
cost, and we compete in terms of training, manning equipment,
and modernizing the force.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Kingston.
Ms. McCollum.
MALARIA AND TROPICAL DISEASES
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I am going to switch
the topic here a little bit. You work with so much, you cover
so much, but one of the things that I have been interested in,
and I mentioned with you my father had malaria, so kind of
paying attention to those kinds of long-term diseases, and the
effects that they have on people not only when they are serving
but when they come home can be pretty impactful.
So what is going on with the tropical diseases is what I
would like to focus on a little bit? U.S. service men and women
are often deployed to tropical disease epidemic regions. We
have, with the extension of AFRICOM now, the look to the
Pacific, with some of the islands and where we are going to
find our service men and women. I think this becomes very
impactful.
In 2003, malaria impacted Marines deployed to Liberia, and
it affected 80 out of 220 Marines. The number of days lost
among U.S. military personnel due to malaria, just malaria,
during every military campaign fought in malaria epidemic
regions during the 21st century, is alarming. Humanitarian
missions are often in some of these regions, too, that place
Americans at risk of infectious diseases, evidenced by several
Americans contracting malaria while supporting the Haiti and
Philippine efforts.
So reducing the risk of malaria is one thing in which, you
know, you have a proud history of working on, but there are
many, many other diseases that are being presented to service
men and women. And it is critical in your mission to succeed in
finding ways to either prevent, or to treat.
So, you know, I can't stress enough our role, your role,
the government's role in what we have done on diseases in the
past. So we know we have problems with drugs and prophylactics
used to keep our men and women safe from these tropical disease
regions, and sometimes they are not reliable. Sometimes they
don't exist, and sometimes the side effects are such that it is
very hard to get people to comply with correct usage and
dosage.
So I am going to ask you a couple of questions here, but
for folks here, Dengue fever is something that is spreading
throughout. It is just not in Asia anymore. It is in Africa. It
is in Central America, not too far from our doorsteps, and
maybe possibly in Texas and in Florida, with climate change. I
am not going to say this right, but I am going to give it a
shot, chikungunya.
Admiral Nathan. Chikungunya.
Ms. McCollum. All right, you guys got it. But it is
another, as Dengue fever, it is another mosquito, and you know,
you look at the charts. It is all over in Africa. It is in
India, and it is all over in Asia. It seems to somehow as of
yet have missed Australia, but, you know, they are probably
paying attention to what is going on, too.
So in what you were talking about with, you know, getting
right sized, making the decisions on how to make sure that
medical costs are given in a way that is strategic, that treats
the illness, that treats the disease, but isn't overtaxing the
taxpayer, with our world change and with our climate changing,
you are still confronted with a lot of these tropical diseases.
So what are you doing to, you know, continue to prioritize
the R&D for the tools to combat these neglected and tropical
diseases to ensure that we are prepared, that our service men
and women are prepared? I mean, you cannot lose that many
people down with--when you have Dengue fever, you don't move,
and there is no treatment for it at all. And if it was to have
an outbreak on a military ship or some Marines or some Army
folks in AFRICOM deployed, you know, what are we going to do
about it? So what do we need to know about what you have to
continue moving forward in your R&D on these diseases?
Dr. Woodson. Let me make one comment and then I am going to
turn it over to the Surgeons General who can really speak to
this. We do have a robust program in infectious disease to
include all of those diseases that you mentioned, and we have a
network of overseas labs. But I think the Surgeons General
really can speak to this effect.
General Horoho. Okay, thank you, ma'am, for the question.
I just recently returned from Thailand looking at one of
our labs that really has tremendous focus in the area of
malaria, and disease preventions within the Asia area. And
right now, we are in Phase 3 clinical trials for a vaccine
prevention for malaria, which is looking very, very promising.
We are spending and focusing our efforts on not just prevention
but also looking at the oral prevention and trying to find
other alternative medications that have less side effects than
some of the ones that are there today and so I know we are
working very collaboratively with the Navy where they have got
research and I will allow Matt to comment.
Admiral Nathan. Yes, ma'am, your point is very well taken
because we are putting people on ventilators in the United
States that started from an infection in poultry in Southeast
Asia. And so this is a worldwide threat. Regarding globally
emerging infections, and we are front and center on the
readiness aspect of it, of the deleterious effects to our
troops. We quiz medical students, and we ask them what is the
deadliest animal in the world? And they come up with snake, or
bear, or tiger. However, it is the mosquito. It kills more
people per year than any other animal on the planet. As General
Horoho said, there are amazing strides being made in vaccines.
Hopefully, within the next few years, we will have a viable
vaccine for malaria, especially as drug-resistant malaria is
now starting to emerge in Southeast Asia, which has no known
treatment.
The bird flu avian influenza, the H1N1s and the H5N5s are
starting to emerge. We are on scene with the Army in this
research. I just got back from Singapore, Cambodia, and
Vietnam, where we have very robust epicenters of study going on
collaboratively. These not only proffer global health
engagement and partnerships and diplomacy, but we are also
creating world class science that perhaps can nip these in the
bud.
The Navy has the only military base in South America. It is
a Navy research center in Lima, Peru. We also operate in Cairo,
Egypt, which has been running uninterrupted for the last 50
years. We are in Singapore, Cambodia, and Southeast Asia. The
Army also has a very robust research in Thailand.
To answer your question, I think we are leaning forward on
this issue. We recognize the threat not only to our personnel
but to the world citizenry at large, and we are very interested
in trying to make headway on this and gain partnerships and
trust of other nations as we do it.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
Mr. Crenshaw.
MALARIA VACCINE
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just following up on that, when you mentioned you are doing
research for vaccines, and I know you have been working on
that, but you mentioned in a couple of years. Do you have any
idea, I mean, more specifically when you think you might have a
vaccine? Because I know it is being tested. Is that a year or 2
years, or what?
Admiral Nathan. Well, we have just recently come up with a
vaccine that provides for the first time 100 percent immunity.
The challenge is that malaria, somewhat like viruses, can morph
and there are four distinct types. Finding one that that will
reach the necessary titers and the efficacy and field testing
it. We have already used it on human subjects, and it has been
proven to be effective in our human lab subjects. We will see
what happens as they expand now to the more native areas.
To answer your question, sir, I am told by our research
experts--and Patty, correct me if I am wrong--but they really
think they are within a few years of finding one that may be
commercially----
Mr. Crenshaw. We are talking about healthcare costs and how
that is a big part of our personnel and how the personnel costs
are kind of impacting readiness. It is an important
conversation to have. I think you all are essential. And we
talked from the outset about how you share the cost, but I
think we are talking more about how we can lower the cost of
health care and one of the things I would think if you had a
vaccine as opposed to some antimalarial drug, there probably is
a quantifiable cost savings if you could deal with that,
because it is preventable. You can have a net and all those
kind of things and you can take drugs--but if you could
actually have a vaccine, it seems like that is something that
would be a way to save money in the big picture in terms of
health care. Is that right? I mean, I don't know if you tried
to quantify that.
Admiral Nathan. Absolutely, sir. An ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure.
I would add, as you know, administratively and the
bureaucracy of putting new medications or novel medications out
into general use go through the wickets, often which are
protective, but it can also be substantial. And that is where
some of the time comes from in order to meet all of the
requirements of testing.
COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH EFFORTS
Mr. Crenshaw. Because let me follow up on that. I mean, I
know that there are some partnerships that you all have--I
don't know if you are all familiar with it. I met with Colonel
Craig Shriver. He is a director of the Murtha Cancer Center at
Walter Reed, and I think John Murtha, who we all know and love,
his legacy lives on in cancer research. And that is one of the
areas that I was talking to Colonel Shriver about, they have a
partnership with what is called the Moffitt Cancer Center, and
they are doing a lot of research, working together to deal with
prostate cancer and lung cancer. And one of the major benefits,
as I understand it, they were explaining to me, they can take
the--you have got a great reservoir of populations in
centralized medical systems, and they have got the doctors. And
as you work together, you can figure out what cancers require
treatment and what cancers are more benign and don't need
treatment, and then that knowledge can reduce not only
treatment costs, but it can improve the quality of life of the
people involved. And so I don't know how familiar you all are
with that partnership with the Moffitt Cancer Center.
Maybe, Dr. Woodson, if you can talk a little bit about how
that is bringing down the overall cost, if you are not familiar
with, specifically, what is your view of this leveraging
taxpayers' dollars in terms of medical research using, you
know, outside groups like that to work with you, to ultimately
lower the cost for everybody?
Dr. Woodson. I couldn't agree with you more. And if you
remember back to my opening statement, I talked about one of my
six lines of effort is defining and investing in strategic
partners. It is absolutely necessary. And so one of the ways we
have gone recently is consortium, to bringing the best and the
brightest, best talent, wherever it might be, into the picture
to solve the problem.
I don't know, General Horoho, do you have anything?
General Horoho. Thank you, sir.
There is much that is being done in the area of
partnerships. So as we look at what is the military relevancy
of different scientific research that needs to be done, there
are government dollars that are put towards it, but a majority
of the dollars really are from the partnerships that we have
with civilian institutions.
There is usually a civilian relevancy along with our
military relevancy when we are looking in the area of health
care. You could look at what is being done with regenerative
medicine. We are now on the second consortium. Much of the
transplant, both the hands and our face transplant, has come
out of that consortium. There is tremendous work that is being
done in cancer research, in autism, in neurotrauma, just across
the board. And also with Melinda Gates, Bill Gates, their
foundation.
There is no way, I think, in the environment that we are
in, that we can do the relevancy of the research that needs to
be done without the partnership within the civilian community.
I think it is vital.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
General Travis. Could I add one more comment just on the
partnership thing? And I alluded to this in my opening
comments, as well.
For years, we have been doing trauma training with
university partnerships--University of Cincinnati, St. Louis,
Baltimore Shock Trauma right up the road. We have provided
trauma training for folks who were just about to deploy,
hundreds of them, so that they get the trauma experience,
trauma exposure.
But the side effect of that is, because we have persistent
presence and staff in those trauma centers, there is also
tremendous research going on with our university partners that
could not occur just on our own budget.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are assuming--and Mr. Crenshaw's time
is up, but let me put my oar in the water here--that you are
intimately aware of these investments from congressionally
directed medical research programs. So we assume you are.
Mr. Owens, thank you for your patience.
SHORTAGE OF MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for coming today to testify.
Dr. Woodson, does DoD suffer from a shortage of mental
health professionals, whether it is psychiatrists,
psychologists, or psychiatric social workers?
Dr. Woodson. So, our fill rate for our psychiatrists is
about 91 percent. Overall, for all behavioral specialists, we
are tracking at about 102 percent, but that is because we are
able to fill certain behavioral specialists in excess, like
clinical psychologists at 124 percent.
The short answer is that we do have deficiencies in certain
areas, and these tend to be the hard professionals to recruit
because they are in demand throughout the Nation.
Mr. Owens. And are you recruiting primarily for civilian
participation as opposed to servicemember participation in
those occupations?
Dr. Woodson. So, yeah, I think it is both. We want to make
sure that we have the right professionals to provide services
to our members.
Mr. Owens. In rural areas, in which many military
installations are located--I happen to have Fort Drum in my
district--is that an issue that is more prevalent in those
geographic areas than it would be in an urban or suburban
setting?
Dr. Woodson. Absolutely. And to try and mitigate and deal
with this, as we talk about what should be our 21st-century
capabilities, we are trying to invest heavily in tele-behavior-
health so that consultation can be provided even in rural or
more austere environments.
FORT DRUM REGIONAL HEALTH PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
General Horoho, are you familiar with the Fort Drum
Regional Health Planning Organization?
General Horoho. Yes, sir.
Mr. Owens. What is the Army's position relative to that
organization?
General Horoho. Back in 2010, I believe, the funding
stopped for that organization. So part of--in the past, it was
a very close relationship with the Army in looking at how to
maximize the civilian health care around the Fort Drum
community to meet access to care and ensure continuity of care.
And so what we rely on right now is really looking at the
TRICARE partners within the Fort Drum community to ensure that
we are trying to meet those needs.
Mr. Owens. And that is because Fort Drum does not have a
hospital facility on the post.
General Horoho. We don't have in-patient. We have a
hospital facility, but we don't have in-patient care. That is a
subspecialty.
Mr. Owens. My ultimate question is, is there something that
we can do to get the Army or DoD to reengage with the Health
Planning Organization and to provide funding for it?
General Horoho. I would have to refer over to DoD.
Dr. Woodson. We would be happy to look at the affiliation
and the need for services. Yeah, I mean, if there is a need,
yeah, absolutely, we will talk.
Mr. Owens. I think the--certainly my perception is, I think
those folks at Fort Drum clearly think that there is a need for
that assistance.
And New York State is going through, and in particular in
my region, a healthcare redesign commission. I happen to be an
advisory member of that group. And for us, this has a regional
impact, as well. So I would hope that we could facilitate both
military health care and the local communities' health care.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
The ranking member of the full committee has joined us,
Mrs. Lowey from New York. And I know she has something to say,
and we always value what you have to say.
Mrs. Lowey.
MENTAL HEALTH AND SUICIDE PREVENTION EFFORTS
Mrs. Lowey. Well, you are very, very kind.
And I apologize that we seem to be having three or four
hearings at the same time. And I know that your presentation
has been invaluable, and it is my loss. I am sorry that I have
not been able to be here for the entire hearing.
One of my concerns, and, I know it is a concern of many of
my colleagues, but it hasn't been discussed as yet, is, after
13 years of war, the invisible wounds have been among the
hardest to comprehend and to treat. I would be most
appreciative if each of you could share your efforts to treat
these invisible wounds over the past two wars and in a post-war
climate.
The committee has added funding above the request dating
back to 2004. If you could focus on how the funding has helped
advance treatment in the areas of psychological health,
traumatic brain injury.
If you could each give a brief description of your
respective Service efforts to reduce the number of suicides.
What program is the most effective? What would you do
differently if you had more funding dedicated to suicide-
prevention efforts?
And what are you doing to help your servicemembers cope
with the anxiety of the personnel drawdowns and the anticipated
slower tempo?
Maybe I will stop at that. But I think this is an issue
that we are all dealing with in our communities. And when I
have seen families distraught from this, I can just imagine the
personal pain that they are enduring themselves.
So if you could each discuss that, I would be most
appreciative.
General Horoho. Thank you, ma'am, very much for that
question. So if I could start first in, kind of, the strategic,
and I will narrow it all the way down.
So the overall culture change that we had across our Army
has been over the last couple years, and we have really made a
culture shift of focusing more on readiness and resiliency. And
what we have found is, over the start of the war and
throughout, with the robust funding, is that we had many
programs that were developed because the funding was there, and
these programs were developed to meet the needs. And what we
needed to do is to look and start evaluating the effectiveness
of the programs and get more proactive than reactive. And so
that has been a fundamental shift.
And we have started to synchronize Installation Command, as
well as MEDCOM, as well as our personnel community, to look at
policy, programs, and resources, and actually have metrics
where we evaluate the programs. So that is the overall
readiness and resiliency campaign plan.
And we also looked at synchronizing, within the readiness
and resiliency, our performance triad of looking at sleep,
activity, nutrition, with a focus on brain health and having
that synchronize with Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness,
with ArmyFit, so that our efforts are not a medical effort but
it really is an effort that is pushed into the line community
to look at health and wellness. Because there is so much that
is connected in that area, if people are having Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) and are using alcohol to maybe fall
asleep because of the nightmares and you start having all of
those bad outcomes.
So we are trying to be very preventive and proactive in
that area. So we have ongoing studies at Fort Bliss, Fort
Lewis, Fort Bragg, and also in Afghanistan, looking at health
outcomes associated with the performance triad.
Then we have also stood up a behavioral health service
line, which has standardized behavioral health across every
platform and touchpoint in which we provide behavioral health
care. We started out with 211 programs. We narrowed them down
to 11 enterprise-wide behavioral health programs. And then we
rolled out a behavioral health data portal, which is the first
time ever we are looking at health outcomes to truly evaluate
how effective our behavioral health is. And then the Air Force
and the Navy are actually adopting that behavioral health
portal, as well.
And then we have combined that with the use of tele-
behavioral health. So we provide behavioral health care using
tele-behavioral health over 19 different time zones. That has
allowed us to actually double the amount of behavioral health
being provided.
And so we are starting to see, with embedded behavioral
health, and we have actually pushed our behavioral health
providers into the garrison footprint, we are seeing a decrease
in in-patient behavioral health admissions, we are seeing an
increase in health outcomes in the area of behavioral health.
And then we have trained all of our primary-care providers in
behavioral health.
So it is truly a system moving into that area.
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD
Mrs. Lowey. Just if I can pursue that for a moment, you are
talking about identifying the problems while they are on active
duty. One of our concerns--I am sure when I was gone you were
talking about the lack of an integrated medical records system.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have yet to get into it, but we are
definitely going to get into it before we leave here, I can
assure you. They are on alert, Ms. Lowey, I can assure you.
Mrs. Lowey. Okay. So I will leave that for someone else.
But on this particular area, what we have found--and
although it seems to be getting better, but I know many of the
problems occur after the person is transitioned, after the
person is a veteran. And most of the problems are blamed on
Secretary Shinseki.
However, no matter how many times we bring it up, no matter
how many times we talk about it--it has been months, Mr.
Chairman. Is that correct? We still don't have----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is about 7 or 8 years, actually.
Mrs. Lowey. All right.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It has been too long. But we are going
to focus on it and we are going to get some answers before they
leave here.
Mrs. Lowey. So what I wonder about in this particular area,
if these problems are identified before the person leaves
active duty, are they followed into the next phase of their
life? Are they continuing to get this service?
I hear ``no,'' but I would be most appreciative if you can
tell us some good things, as would the chair.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are going to extract those answers
out of them before they leave here. Is that all right?
Mrs. Lowey. That is fine.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Lowey.
Mr. Womack.
CONTAINING HEALTH CARE COSTS
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So many questions, so little time. And I want to thank the
panel for their service to our country and what they are doing.
Earlier in the testimony, in the Q&A, there was reference
made to what we are doing, given the increased cost of having
to treat those that have been so courageous, have gone
downrange and served their country in uniform.
A simple question: No matter what you do, no matter what
best management practices we use, no matter what we do to
leverage technology, do we still have a simple math problem, in
that there are more people that have served our country in
uniform that are going to be subject to the promised care that
we have made to our service men and women? Do we just simply
have a math problem right now?
Dr. Woodson.
Dr. Woodson. In part, it is a math problem, because people
live longer and so they will utilize the benefit for a longer
period of time.
In part, it is a math problem because 5, 6, 7 years ago the
number of eligible beneficiaries that took advantage of TRICARE
was about 62 percent. It is now about 84 percent, and we expect
some rise to around 90 percent.
And then, in part, it is----
Mr. Visclosky. Excuse me, what were the percentages of?
Dr. Woodson. Sir?
Mr. Visclosky. What was the whole of the percentages?
Dr. Woodson. About 84 percent of eligible beneficiaries are
in TRICARE.
Mr. Visclosky. Oh.
Dr. Woodson. So, in part, it is a math problem, but also it
is a delivery of care strategy, as well. So, both, yeah.
READINESS
Mr. Womack. This committee has had a number of briefings
and hearings, and at the very core of our concern is our
Nation's readiness in uniform. And so we have, in kind of
descending from this long period of time where we have had an
elevated state of readiness because of the multiple deployments
of our men and women in uniform, as we start to descend from
that operational tempo, are you a bit concerned about our
capacity to keep our men and women in uniform ready medically,
and specifically our Guard and Reserve folks, who have had
unprecedented levels of medical readiness in this timeframe?
General.
General Travis. Sir, great question.
I am very concerned about it. I think we all are. We talk
about it all the time.
I say frequently in public forums, war is a hell of a
readiness platform. Because you stay trained, you focus on war.
It is a great motivation to get training and be out there and
doing the job. As we come home from this war--and it is not
done, as the chairman alluded to--I think the opportunities to
really have that exposure are going to be waning, diminishing.
When I go into an MTF these days and I say, ``How many of
you deployed?'', 70 percent of the hands go up. In 5 years, it
is not going to be that many. And then that is why I made a
comment in the opening that I am worried about us not being as
ready at the next one as we are right now for this one.
So the issue is, even as we are trying to find ways to save
money and we are looking within our own direct care system to
do that, frankly, we don't need to be chopping the direct care
system that much, because we still have to have the opportunity
to practice, not just doctors but nurses, technicians, and the
rest.
With regards to the Reserves, as you may know, for us, the
air evac system, 60 percent of our air evac mission is Reserve.
And they are performing magnificently. So how do you keep them,
number one, clinically engaged, as this war winds down, but
then also exposure to care in the air?
And, of course, whatever we do in the future, because we
have be proven now that it is not just how many beds you have
in theater--in fact, it is not how many beds you have in
theater; it is actually how quickly you can transit people back
to the right level of care. We have transformed how we do
medical care in war these days.
So I am just, all I am doing, I guess, sir, is endorsing
your worry. And we have all, to include the Secretary, kind of
strapped this on and tried to think of transformational ways
that we can keep our folks clinically engaged--and, again, our
partners will be very important in that--but, also, you know,
figure out how to, you know, leverage each other's strengths,
as we are doing now more in an interoperable way than we have
ever done.
SERGEANT BRENDAN MARROCCO
Mr. Womack. Well, far too often, we consider readiness to
be more of a move, shoot, communicate, and prosecute war, but
so much of it is based on a platform of medical readiness from
the get-go.
And if I could, for just a couple of seconds. Last year, I
consider the testimony or the example, General Horoho, that you
gave regarding Sergeant Brendan Marrocco which is one of the
most incredible things I have ever witnessed in life. And so
maybe a little bit later on you could, kind of, update us on
that young man's situation, who became, I think, the first
soldier who had quadruple amputations, to be the recipient of
double-arm and/or double-hand transplant surgery. And I will
leave it there. It is an incredible, riveting story, and I
thank you for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. None of us will ever forget it, but you
will update us a little before we leave here.
The gentleman from Alabama, and then Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Aderholt.
TRICARE FEE TIERS
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for all being here this afternoon.
Dr. Woodson, in your submitted testimony, it appears that
cost-sharing fees have been split between the ranks of E-4 and
below and E-5 and above. The concern is an E-5 would pay the
same cost share as an O-6, when the difference in base-pay
salaries between the two ranks is about $7,000 per month when
you factor in typical service-years.
Can you elaborate to us on how the Department determined
that the cost-share program should be split at the ranks of E-4
and E-5 and why there are two cost-share categories, given that
there are a total of 24 ranks in the military and the base-pay
salaries range from $1,500 a month to $15,000, depending on the
rank?
Dr. Woodson. This is an excellent question. And the reason
it is excellent, it gets to the issue of fairness and how you
make it equitable and then how you actually administer a
program if you have to constantly check grade, status, income,
et cetera.
I think that the Service chiefs and the senior enlisted
folks, who had great input into this, looked at it--and I would
remind you again that in last year and the year before, when we
made proposals, we tried to break out even in greater tiers,
looking at, sort of, ranks and the, sort of, categories you
have indicated. The bottom line is, at some point, you come to
a decision about what you think is fair, equitable, and doesn't
produce an undue burden.
So, for example, with the E-4 and below, the majority of
those individuals, including their family members, have access
to MTF care, which means that they could have extremely low-
cost and no-cost care. So if you look at the numbers of folks
in that grade that use TRICARE Prime Remote, which would be an
indicator that they are away from the MTFs, it turns out to be
an extraordinarily low number, less than 2 percent.
So when you look at, sort of, the distribution of folks and
then you try and devise a program that you can administer and
you get the input of the Service chiefs and the senior
enlisted, this was the proposal that we came up with. But your
point is well-taken.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. That is all I have.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. That is an excellent question. It
concerns all of us.
Mr. Ryan.
MINDFULNESS TRAINING
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
late. I was in the Budget markup, and, as you know, that can be
a marathon, and not a good one, if there is such a thing----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You serve on the Budget Committee?
Mr. Ryan. I do.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Our sympathies to you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Two topics, two questions. One is regarding mindfulness-
based relapse prevention, which is an approach that the
military is implementing.
And I want to share with you a study that has just come out
with regard to cognitive behavioral relapse prevention and
mindfulness-based relapse prevention. Both techniques were
shown to reduce substance abuse treatment. The cognitive
behavioral relapse prevention went about 6 months and was still
effective. The mindfulness-based relapse prevention went up to
a year, to be found as extremely effective in reducing
incidents and reducing drug-use days and heavy drinking.
I think these are effective techniques. I have been
researching them for a long time. I think they are something
that we need to continue to promote within the military but
also in the VA.
And, coincidentally enough, Monday, I got a letter from a
woman who said her husband is an E-5 in the Army, receives
behavioral health treatments in the form of counseling,
medication for depression, anxiety, PTSD symptoms, and sleep
disturbances. Long story short, he couldn't get into the
mindfulness-based relapse program, but then got into the
program, and saw significant improvements, and a reduction in
medication.
And so I just want to encourage you to help push down
throughout the bureaucracy of the military these types of
techniques. They are working. It is not medication. It is not
as easy to just put someone--as this--to put someone on a
prescription to try to help them, when these other techniques
are extremely effective in dealing with their brain chemistry,
their nervous system, helping them become more aware of
incidents. And it is a huge issue. And so I am asking you to
please look into these mindfulness-based techniques.
There is a mindfulness-based mental resiliency training
that the Marines are doing on the front end to help build
resiliency, which I think is as important for helping the men
and women in our military to deal with this, but then, also, if
they need the help, they can get this kind of treatment.
And then, hopefully, you can work with us. We have an Armed
Services Health Promotion Act, which is both the Defense side
and the VA side, to push out further integrative health
techniques. I think it is extremely important. It can save us a
lot of money in the long run. It is not about medication.
OBESITY AND DIABETES
The other issue that I am very concerned about with the
military is the issue of obesity. Fifty-nine percent of the Air
Force personnel are classified as overweight. Seventeen percent
of sailors are obese, while 62 percent are overweight.
And you know as well as I do that being overweight and
being obese leads to diabetes. We have one in four vets that
are diabetic today. And I have been to different facilities,
and I see the food. A lot of this is caused by the processed
food that our men and women are eating. I am just thinking, if
we can find certain issues as a committee, Democrats and
Republicans, that we can agree on--diabetes is going to cost
our country $245 billion. That is up from $174 billion just 4
or 5 years ago. And to think about--that is as a society, not
in the military. But to think of a common-ground piece of
legislation that we can work on with you.
I know the NIH is doing a very big, comprehensive healthy
communities initiative. I know there is a Healthy Base
Initiative. But I think there needs to be a partnership and
this needs to be accelerated. It is a great opportunity for us
to come together on the front end to do prevention.
So I know I took up a lot of time here, Mr. Chairman, and I
don't necessarily have a question, other than, can you help us
maybe piggyback on the NIH study and help us expand the Healthy
Base Initiative program and, I think, drive down costs? You
talk about the food, talk about mental health promotion, and
all of the like.
So take a shot at it in the minute that we have left,
General, if you could, or----
General Horoho. Sir, you just hit my passion. And that is
exactly what we have been doing over the last 2 years, is
really moving towards improving health outcomes. And so we have
seen, with the wellness centers that we have been rolling out,
we have seen a 4 percent decrease in body mass index in 62
percent of those that have gone to the wellness centers.
That is just one touchpoint as we partner with the Healthy
Base Initiative that is occurring across the Department of
Defense. But really looking at educating on nutrition,
educating on the value of sleep, because that is tied to
obesity and weight gain as well as other stress indicators, and
then really looking at activity.
And so our pilot programs that we have going on right now
are also being done with the research study to evaluate not
just health outcomes but also where we are having cost savings.
Mr. Ryan. Well, I would like to work with you on the food
piece, maybe on the ships and on the bases and what is even
available.
And then, in the wellness centers, I think these
mindfulness-based techniques could be extremely helpful. And do
you do that in the wellness--can you talk about that for 30
seconds?
General Horoho. Yes, sir. That is part of--what we have
integrated in our wellness centers, as well as what we are
doing with our performance triad and in our patient-centered
medical homes that are rolled out across, is alternative
integrative medicine. We are using mindfulness, acupressure,
acupuncture, cognitive therapy.
And so we are looking at multiple tools that individuals
can choose from to kind of help them improve and decrease their
reliance on pharmaceuticals. And we have already seen a 50
percent decrease in our pharmaceuticals just out of our
patient-centered medical homes that have this integrated
approach.
Mr. Ryan. Nice.
Mr. Chairman, I know I mentioned to you about the armed
forces bill----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. That takes both Defense and the VA.
I think this is an opportunity for us to, you know, amplify
what you are doing and talk a little bit about how we have this
continuous coverage into the VA and drive down costs. I think
there is a great opportunity here, Mr. Chairman. I look forward
to working with you to make it happen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you, Mr. Ryan.
I was alarmed by those Air Force figures, General. Can't
have many wings up if we have that many people that are
overweight.
I am going to deny you a chance to have equal time.
General Travis. I have no comment.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good.
General Travis. Yeah.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. But Mr. Ryan is on his game.
And we turn to the gentleman from Texas, who probably has
more of our fine service men and women in his congressional
district than any other, Judge Carter.
ABOLISHING TRICARE
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to ask you the question that I get asked
constantly. It is the number-one question I get asked by
privates and generals, active duty and retired. It is a tough
question.
As you look down the corridors of the future in medicine,
military medicine, considering our rising debt and the rising
cost of medical care, do you foresee a time in the future when
TRICARE or TRICARE for Life or VA or all of the above medical
care will be abolished or converted into such a manner that our
active duty military and retired military and their families
will be moved into the Affordable Care Act or Medicare or
Medicaid or a combination of the above as a substitute or
replacement for their current health care?
Dr. Woodson. Thanks for that question.
The short answer is ``no.'' The nuanced answer is that, of
course, 65-year-and-older retirees use Medicare and TRICARE for
Life, so they are in Medicare.
I think that Congress and the American public want to
always ensure that those that raise their right hand and
promise to protect and defend get a robust benefit in terms of
health. I do think, however, that as we go forward,
collectively, we have to rationalize the program.
So, right now, for a retiree, the American public pays for
three different types of access to care. They pay for the
TRICARE benefit, they pay for the direct care system, and they
pay for the VA system. And so, at some point, I think we need
to look at making sure that we ensure that they have care. Two
of those are free now, at this time. But we are going to have
to rationalize it a little bit to make sure that we can sustain
it.
But I don't see a draconian way of going to the Affordable
Care--because, remember, that is a premium-based system anyway,
and that is not what this benefit is all about.
Mr. Carter. Anybody else want to answer?
Admiral Nathan. Sir, we get that question a lot.
One of the reasons that we have had an orbital improvement
in combat casualty care is because of the organic, standalone
Military Health System and the trained personnel who operate
within it. We could never buy as many providers, nurses,
technicians as we can train and cultivate in our own MHS
system. And that includes the direct care system and
partnerships with our academic--sometimes very pristine
academic partners.
In order to be able to maintain, train, and keep the skills
currency to provide the kind of care that the American public
has come to expect from the battlefield or from the sea or from
the air, we have to continue to see and treat that patient
population.
Without these older patients, our training programs would
go fallow. Many people ask, well, don't you just need combat
trauma personnel for war? We do, but in order to provide for
these, they must be integral to programs that have internal
medicine, pediatrics and OB/GYN specialties.
We run the full gamut of care in our facilities, not only
to take care of our families and maintain family readiness, but
also to field the kind of team that right now is, as General
Travis mentioned, is a little bit tired, a little worn out, and
getting ready to take a knee. These personnel are nonetheless
the best and highest professionally, trained, quality medical
force the country has seen. So we are greedy to hold on to that
talent.
Mr. Carter. And I understand those people who are currently
serving, that I think the future is what they are worried
about, when they are no longer currently serving in the
military, they have retired from the military, but they feel
like they have contracted for the future with TRICARE for Life
and with Medicare. I do recognize Medicare----
Admiral Nathan. If we don't take care of the retired
population in that age group, we can't train and maintain the
critical mass of our graduate medical education training----
Mr. Carter. So I am waiting for the answer ``no.''
Admiral Nathan. The answer is, from my perspective--I think
I speak for all of us--no. We will not----
Mr. Carter. Because that is the answer they want, and I am
asking you to help me give it to them.
Admiral Nathan. We are not going to disenfranchise that
population.
General Travis. I agree with ``no.''
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS
Mr. Carter. Okay. Then I am going to tell them ``no.''
I have one more question, Mr. Chairman.
I have been in Congress for 12 years, and in that 12-year
period of time we have talked about the issue Mrs. Lowey
raised, the communication between the DoD and VA. So I want to
ask a question.
In the effort to allow DoD and VA medical records systems
to communicate, DoD and VA are now developing different systems
and attempting to develop applications that will work between
them.
Has the DoD and VA considered, rather than focusing on the
system themselves, focusing on the basic operating parameters,
a database language?
With a standard like this, DoD, VA, and any other
applications running on the same standard would be able to
easily communicate. This is a model used frequently in the
private-sector software and platform development.
Has that been considered?
Dr. Woodson. So let me answer that. And, again, the short
answer is ``yes.'' And, in fact, we have done a lot within 2013
to actually do that.
One of the problems with electronic health records is, in
fact, there wasn't common nomenclature and standards. And so we
have been working with the Office of the National Coordinator
to create and enforce those standards. So we made great
progress in 2013 in mapping between DoD and VA the common terms
and standards so that we can create interoperability.
And we have deployed to nine sites where we are actively
taking care of DoD and VA patients this new--well, this Joint
Legacy Viewer to integrate the record. And I would be happy to
show any of you a demo video of how this works.
So the other thing we have done, we accomplished by the end
of 2013, is we are no longer transferring paper--the service
treatment record and paper to the VA, because we have an
entirely electronic means of transferring those records.
So it has been slow, but we made great progress in 2013.
And in 2014 we are looking at the scaleability. So the answer
is definitely ``yes.''
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Carter. Yes.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Is currently the Department of Defense
and the VA using separate medical databases that can neither
translate nor communicate their data in a functional way?
Currently?
Dr. Woodson. So we are mapping all of the----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No, I understand. Are you using separate
databases?
Dr. Woodson. We are mapping all of the data to the health
database. So the VA is mapping all of their data to our
database at this time.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So you are, indeed, making some
progress?
Dr. Woodson. We are making progress.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have invested so much money in this.
I mean, the whole issue of raised expectations. One year we
blame the VA; then the next year we blame the Department of
Defense.
I mean, you all, with wonderful, you know, records and
dedication to country, must be enormously frustrated and to
some extent embarrassed by this situation here. I mean, you
don't have to--I can look at your responses, which are not
recorded. But let me say we need to make some progress on this.
Back to you, Judge Carter.
UNDIAGNOSED DISEASES DATABASE
Mr. Carter. Well, if I have time for one more question,
this is kind of personal.
NIH maintains the database of undiagnosed diseases. And you
talked about some today that I have never heard of. I have
legislation that would encourage them to open that database to
third-party physicians to increase the catalog of symptoms and
provide resources to the medical professionals who are trying
to identify an unknown illness.
Does DoD have any similar database? And is there a way you
can think of that DoD might be able to contribute to this
effort?
We have an awful lot of mothers who have come to me and
said, my baby is dying, there is bound to be somebody else with
these symptoms, I sure would like to talk to them.
Dr. Woodson. So, again, I think you are spot-on. And across
the Federal space and to some extent in the civilian space, in
the research community, we are opening these databases and
contributing to the same databases to drive more effectively to
answers to some of these desperate problems.
Mr. Carter. So you are saying DoD would be associated with
NIH's database?
Dr. Woodson. Yes. And we already are, several right now.
So, yes, absolutely.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Epitomizing patience, Ms. Kaptur.
MENTAL HEALTH CARE FOR GUARD AND RESERVES
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
I could say the same of you. You have to listen to all of
us. Thank you very much for your service to our country and for
coming today.
As with our other colleagues, Mrs. Lowey and Congressman
Ryan and others, Congressman Womack, I have a deep interest in
psychological behavioral health and human performance. Over the
past several years, the Congress has added substantial
resources for psychological health research and traumatic brain
injury.
And one observation I have of all of your testimonies is
that, understanding the incredible role that the Guard and
Reserve have played in our warfighting over the last decade,
the absence of significant mention by each of you in your
testimony is troubling to me. They are an understudied, most
vulnerable, less supported subgroup within our military.
And the first homework I am going to suggest is that you
take a very close look at something called the Ohio Army
National Guard Mental Health Initiative.
Obviously, we each come from different places. I don't have
a big base like Fort Hood, but I have soldiers that have fought
nobly.
And my questions--and I would like to make some further
clarification for the record, but my questions really are: How
are you managing the research, diagnosis, and treatment of the
psychological health of our warriors and veteran population?
Dr. Horoho, on page 8 of your testimony, you reference on
August 2013 a national research action plan that the White
House released, and you mentioned various entities of our
Federal Government involved in that. And then, on page 21, you
talk about suicides, and you used the words several times
``Active Duty,'' ``Active Duty,'' ``Active Duty.''
I am very, very concerned about what I see happening in
Ohio. And my concerns may be misplaced. But for a number of
years, we have been trying to help our returning soldiers. And
we have developed a 3,000-person-minimum database with DNA
samples and so forth. But what has happened inside the
Department of Defense is unbelievable.
In trying to help our Guard and Reserve, first we started
out in something called the Military Operational Medicine
Research Program. And, somehow, as the research progressed--and
I believe it to be the only longitudinal study that I have seen
in the country of what actually happens to these individuals on
rotation out. They have been switched to something called the
Warfighter Account.
And I am really perplexed and not understanding the plan of
the U.S. military for a comprehensive approach to diagnosis and
treatment and long-term observation of these individuals and,
also, invention of new methodologies to help them lead a more
normal life.
So I am asking each of you, can you explain to me what this
shift in placement within DOD means? Is it more helpful to the
Guard and Reserve or less helpful? And how do we embrace the
Guard and Reserve across this country who did not return to a
home base? And, over time, these behavioral issues continue to
come up.
Dr. Woodson. Thank you for the question and pointing out
the concern.
And I would say for the record that I think each of us is
deeply appreciate of the Reserve component and that we pay
attention to the Reserve component. And, in fact, in my opening
statement, as I talked about the medical force, it is about
understanding the balance in the Active and the Reserve
components and what we need to do to reform policies and
procedures to promote, protect, and support them. And I am a
Reservist who has been mobilized many times, so I have felt it
in many different ways.
Now, to get to your point about support for psychological
health, we have a number of activities--and I am sure the
Surgeons General will elaborate--that looks at pre-deployment,
post-deployment, and a series of follow-up examinations to
ensure that we are capturing those that might have
difficulties.
We have invested with the VA in a longitudinal integrated
mental health strategy to provide the best clinical practice
guidelines and a warm handoff to the VA for those individuals
who have psychological, traumatic brain, or other mental health
issues.
We have invested with the VA in tele-behavioral health so
that we can extend our capability to Reserve components and
folks who are remotely located. And we have invested, with the
VA and the National Guard, in State coordinators to help
arrange for the needs of the Reserve components.
And then there are a number of other programs, like Yellow
Ribbon and the like.
So I will stop there, and I will let----
Ms. Kaptur. Dr. Woodson, could I just mention something
here? We are having a separate fight over in the Veterans
Committee of the House to work with our State veterans homes--
there are only two in Ohio, but many around the country--to
allow empty wings to be used for some of these individuals.
Guess what? The VA fights us every step of the way at the
national level.
The local people know it is needed. We have homeless vets
all over the place. Can't get it together. We can't get it
together. All of these roadblocks. And so people are under
bridges, they are in jails, they are in all these horrendous
conditions.
And I am just making you aware, because maybe if you talk
to the VA you can help them see a way forward. We are going to
get through this, we are going to do this, we are going to
provide decent shelter to these vets. But they need behavioral
health care.
General Horoho. Thank you, ma'am, for the opportunity to
comment.
And so, if I could go back to the first statement of not
including or mentioning directly the Reserve and the National
Guard, throughout my statement when I use the word ``Army'' or
``total Army family,'' that includes the Reserve component (RC)
and the National Guard. And so I try----
Ms. Kaptur. When you say ``Active,'' you are including
Guard and----
General Horoho. No. So that is what I want to explain. So
that is in the first part, is talking about that.
When I talk about the Active and the specific programs in
there, we had a phased approach as we have looked at changes
within the behavioral health community and looked at improving
health. We started first with the Active component to see if
the program worked. We are now in the phase of rolling that out
within the Reserves and National Guard.
So I would like to take a moment to talk about that, if
that is okay. Okay?
So the first part of that is we are actually, within the
Reserves and the National Guard, now rolling out our
performance triad. We have tested it in the Active component.
We have now had agreement with the Reserves and the National
Guard. They have given us three units each to be able to do
pilot testing to see how this works. And so we are in the
middle of rolling that out.
We have also included them in--there is a myPRIME, which is
an online computer database, where our Reserve and our National
Guard can actually go online when they are having difficulties
or challenges so that they can reconnect into the community and
we can direct them to resources and help.
We have now actually worked with the National Guard and the
Reserves, and they have hired psychological health promotion
officers so that every State has one, and then the Reserve
units are having that. So that is then one dedicated individual
that is looking at the psychological health for our Reserves
and our National Guard and then being able to have consistent
programs of the same that we have been trying to roll out
across the Active component.
We have also partnered with Give An Hour and the National
Guard, and I went to the kickoff for that, where Give An Hour
is actually providing psychological help to partner with the
National Guard to help through tele-behavioral health. And so
that has been rolling out across the National Guard States.
We are also working with the Reserves and the National
Guard in resiliency training. And they are part of our
readiness and resilient campaign plan that has been rolled out
across our Army.
And so we are looking at all of those touchpoints, from the
treatment aspect but, more importantly now, to the prevention
and the long-term aspect of really providing the psychological
health and the support.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, could you explain to me, what does it
mean, then, when the Ohio Guard is shifted from the Military
Operational Medicine Research Program to the Warfighter Fund?
What does that mean?
General Horoho. If I can take that one for the record,
because I don't have the right answer for you, but if I could
take that, I will dig into it.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank you very much for that.
[The information follows:]
Above all, Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG) Mental Health
Initiative remains fully funded under Joint Warfighter Medical Research
Program (JWMRP). It was originally funded as a Congressional Special
Interest project as part of Military Operational Medicine Research
Program (MOMRP). As the OHARNG Mental Health Initiative progressed, it
met the requirement for full funding through the JWMRP. Congress uses
JWMRP funds to augment and accelerate high priority Department of
Defense and Service medical requirements and to continue prior year
initiatives that are close to achieving their objectives and yielding a
benefit to military medicine. The OHARNG National Guard Mental Health
Initiative met these requirements.
HEALTH CARE FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS
Ms. Kaptur. And I wanted to say also that some of the
results of the work that has been done relate to the largest
amount of DNA that has been collected in the country for
individuals presenting with these conditions. That, in itself,
is a valuable national resource.
In addition to that, we have learned many things. We have
learned, on enlistment, one of the top factors for those who
ultimately develop these conditions is preexisting experience
with violence, more than 10 episodes. And so it has an impact
on recruitment and on trying to make soldiers resilient for
whatever they might deal with in the future.
There is a lot of information that has come from this. I
don't get the sense that it necessarily bubbles up. And so I am
appreciative of your taking a look at that.
And I would be interested, for Air Force and Navy, if there
is any information that you could give us today on what your
branches are doing.
Admiral Nathan. Yes, ma'am. One of our greatest challenges
is trying to connect both the Reservists and the individual
augmentee with continuity of care, especially that of
psychological health from either traumatic brain injury (TBI)
or post-traumatic stress (PTS).
There are many programs out there, and many of them are
joint. They can come from Military OneSource, and that is how
people can find them. They often transcend the Army, the Air
Force, the Navy programs.
The challenge is getting the Reservist, who then leaves the
fold, to remain engaged or understand what is available to
them. We have a couple of mechanisms for doing that.
One is the Returning Warrior Workshops. This is where
Reservists come back, they deactivate, and then they are given
per diem and transportation to go to a city where we hold
symposiums for 2 days at no cost to them. We encourage the
entire family to participate, or at least the spouse. They are
given 2 days of psychological assessments, support groups, and
mostly information on what is available to them online through
the telephone, and through local Reserve centers, to get the
care they need.
It has been my experience that our biggest challenge is,
when we go to the Reservists and they say, we are failing, our
family is failing, we are not doing well, we are having issues.
They don't know what help is available to them. So this is a
mechanism, which has been highly successful and been highly
praised by the Reservists, who said, this has armed me with
what I need to know to follow up, even though I may be doing
okay right now. But, as you know, one of the challenges is, 2
years from now or 3 years from now or 4 years from now, as
people start having issues, how do they trigger help?
We also have a program called FOCUS (Families Overcoming
Under Stress) for activated Reservists and families as well as
active component personnel. FOCUS provides myriad of services
that are run out of our family services centers. Service
members can come in, see counselors, they can be given
materials, they can be given referrals.
And then, to get to the larger question, is how do we--and
this gets to the chairman's point of a connected medical
record--how do we provide a warm handoff from the DoD system to
the VA system so that somebody is not lost in the process?
We are working very hard on trying to maintain databases
now that we share with the VA. We are using lead coordinators
for people who can--and Federal healthcare coordinators, who
can not only watch the care as it is being given in our DoD
system, but then they maintain the continuity of that patient,
of that individual, as they leave our system and go to the VA
system so that there is somebody who is aware of their
existence in both systems.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, it is very interesting, one of our local
sheriffs--and I represent several counties. He is a veteran, a
Vietnam veteran. And he said, you know, Congresswoman, he said,
on every given day, I have a minimum of 6 percent of my inmates
who are veterans. He said, we have learned something
interesting in the jail. We say to them, are you a veteran?
They say no. But if we ask, have you ever had any military
service?
It is just so interesting how we work with people so that
we are able to help them and we can unlock whatever is blocking
sometimes their own ability to get care. I would just place
that on the record.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay.
Ms. Kaptur. And we have one more reply, Mr. Chairman----
General Travis. I will keep it brief. I know we are running
short on time.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are going to be here until I get a
few answers, so----
General Travis. Okay. Admiral Nathan's comments, I would
mimic those.
But I would also tell you that, for the Air Force, and we
are a total Air Force. You know, the Guard and the Reserves
actually have established some of their own programs that are
very good. There is a Wingman Toolkit the Reserve Command--I
think it is the Reserve Command--has put out, where you text
``WGTK'' to a number, and there is an app that will show up on
your phone or a website that shows up on your phone. It is very
accessible, works very well. The Guard has wingman.org.
On the active duty side, those of us who have more assets,
mental health assets, at our disposal, we actually have made a
point in our lay-down of the extra uniformed mental health
providers that we are laying in as a result of NDAA section 714
between now and 2016--it started in 2012. We influenced our
lay-down of our mental health providers to bases where they
could become reach-back for what the Guard has now established
as directors of psychological health at each of their wings.
And so we have influenced where we put these, I wouldn't
call them extra assets, but the assets that were mandated by
law to make sure we were providing the reach-back support to
Guard units which may be more remote.
And, of course, I don't think we have quite the burden of
PTS in our Reserve forces as does the Army, but we recognize
that there is a gap, and we are trying to address that gap.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, General.
Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have been, as a committee, concerned
about connection and continuity and the warm hand since 2008.
So I have a few questions to Dr. Woodson.
What is the medical database that the Department of Defense
uses now?
Dr. Woodson. The electronic health record is AHLTA.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Which stands, I may add, for Armed
Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application. I am not
sure what that tells us, but it is certainly a mouthful. It is
not a acronym that I can remember.
How does that system work?
Dr. Woodson. It is based on a series of databases that
archive and redistribute information. And, of course, we have a
worldwide network, so it is about archiving and redistributing
the information----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, tell me if I am wrong. In February
of last year, both departments, the Department of Veterans
Affairs and the Department of Defense, announced, instead of
building one integrated health record, they would continue with
their separate systems. Is that accurate?
Dr. Woodson. No, not quite. What I think the statement was,
instead of trying to build de novo a single record, what was
going to happen is that the Department of Defense was going to
do a competitive solicitation and acquisition of an updated
electronic health record and the VA was going to modernize
their VistA system.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, there is a feeling that there are
two systems here, and it seems that maybe the systems are sort
of competing to subsume the other. Am I correct?
Dr. Woodson. I don't--it is a good question, but I don't--
--
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is a good question. We----
Dr. Woodson. I don't see that that way.
One way to look at this is that, again--I think I made this
point some time ago--that if we were to ask everybody to hold
up their cell phone, we would have a variety of different cell
phones, but we could all text each other, call each other, and
mail each other. We could work documents and then send them to
our fellows.
Electronic records are like those platforms, and the
barrier to sending information and developing that
interoperability has to do with the standardized way of
handling the data. And so----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. What we would call a common language,
right? A dictionary, right?
Dr. Woodson. Yeah, exactly.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Why has it taken us since 2008 to come
up with this common thread here?
Dr. Woodson. So, this is a national problem. It is not----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, it is not a national problem. It
is a national tragedy that this has taken so long here. There
is no partisan divide here.
Dr. Woodson. Yeah. And as I mentioned before, we have gone
a long way between the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Defense last year to map a lot of that data.
But one of the things that I think the committee should
know is that the majority of our interfaces are with the
private sector. So 70 percent of our dollars----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, actually, the private sector might
offer up some, you know, competition to some of the systems
that you are employing yourself. They might have some ideas
that might ease up the symbiosis of whatever we are talking
about here.
Dr. Woodson. And so I think you are exactly right, and that
is exactly why we took the tack of looking into the commercial
market. The issue is that, as I mentioned before, we are
working with the Office of the National Coordinator to push
the----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The office of the who?
Dr. Woodson. National Coordinator.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. National Coordinator of what?
Dr. Woodson. That is through HHS. They are the ones who set
the standards.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So we are going with HHS. Have we always
used HHS?
Dr. Woodson. HHS sets the standards relative to this.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So they set the standards for the
language?
Dr. Woodson. For meaningful use of electronic health
records.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And so, we didn't tap them before this?
Dr. Woodson. We have been working with them. The issue is
that it has really been since 2009 that this has really become
a national focus to develop----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It has been a focus of this committee,
regardless of who runs the committee. And, you know, this is
pretty disappointing. This has real-life consequences here.
And since we are the Appropriations Committee, what is the
estimated cost of your new records system? I won't ask what the
VA is doing to update theirs, but what is the cost of your new
system here?
Dr. Woodson. I think to acquire and fully implement the
record, the lifecycle cost is going to be around--and this, you
would have to ask Mr. Kendall, because he is really in charge
of----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I am asking you if you have a
ballpark figure.
Dr. Woodson. It is about $11 billion.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. $11 billion. This is just for you.
Dr. Woodson. Yeah.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And this is the tail, like we would say,
for aircraft, or, you know, a ship that has a tail.
Dr. Woodson. Right. This is the lifecycle.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So maybe we can focus on targets. The
target date for the initial operating capability is the first
quarter fiscal year 2017 and the full operating capacity,
fiscal year 2023 practical. What do you feel is the realistic
timetable for this year?
Dr. Woodson. So we have already put out two RFPs and so
that process is going along very well. We intend to begin
fielding capability last quarter of 2016.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So what happens if the parties you are
dealing with here, there is a protest here?
Dr. Woodson. Well, that is a possibility.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. There is a possibility.
Dr. Woodson. Yeah.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I just, you know, I think it is
enormously frustrating. It makes us angry that we have made
these investments here. I don't know who has clean hands, but
we have an issue of expectations that we might be able to get
across the finish line here. This is way beyond the claims
backup that the VA has. This is pretty damn important. What
sort of level of assurance can you give here that we can meet
these deadlines? That is a lot of money.
Dr. Woodson. Yeah. It is a lot of money. I feel more
confident today than clearly even last year, that we will meet
those deadlines because the acquisition process is going along,
and more importantly, what we have learned from the commercial
market about what is out there is encouraging.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, the commercial market has been out
there for quite a long time. I know there is a tendency, and I
am respectful, but in reality, sometimes we don't take a look
at things that are off the shelf. We try to be inventive on
communication systems. God only knows the amount of money we
have invested in communicating. I won't say which Service is
the worst, but coming with communication systems. But this is
pretty important.
Mr. Visclosky.
ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I do have a number of questions and I realize you may
have additional ones and Mr. Womack. So I would ask for some
brevity. I have got all day, but I think other people do not.
I would associate myself, first of all, with the remarks of
the chair. On more than one instance, as a Member of Congress,
I have referenced World War II. We fought and won a world war
in 4 years. We are talking about interoperability of medical
records from 2008 to 2017, and I am appalled. And I just would
hope that going forward there is a sense of urgency and that if
something isn't done by Friday, that people don't have the
attitude, we will get to it on Monday. I just can't believe
that given the wealth of talent and knowledge we have in the
United States of America, that it would take a minimum of 9
years to make medical records interoperable.
So I would just associate myself with everything the
chairman said and hope that people going forward have a sense
of urgency.
TRICARE FEES
I would like to return to the issue of TRICARE and as I
said in my opening statement, I realize just the demographics,
if you would, and the math involved both on a civilian and
military side are driving a significant budget problem. But I
also, in my opening remarks, mentioned equity. And I understand
that currently active duty members in TRICARE Prime or TRICARE
Prime Remote have no copays as long as they follow Prime rules
requiring consultation with a primary care manager, to access
specialty care or to use the medical treatment facility
network. It appears a new plan would treat active duty families
as somewhat differently if they do not reside near or have
access to a medical treatment facility or if their medical
treatment facility does not have a capacity, for example,
pediatrics.
These families don't have control over their assignments.
Will they--how will DoD address the issue of equity based on
availability and assignment?
Dr. Woodson. So, as the plan is rolled out, we recognize,
again, that there will be some individuals who may pay more
because of location. We looked at it, and as I mentioned
before, we looked at the numbers as it affected the junior
enlisted, and I won't repeat that. On average, their out-of-
pocket costs will rise from about 1.4 percent to 3.3 percent,
an average of about $244 a year.
Now, that is an average, and I understand that there may be
some folks that need to consume more health care, and if they
are in a remote area, it could introduce a larger burden. And
the issue is that when you look at the, again, the numbers,
particularly for junior enlisted, the impact appears to be
small because most of them should be near an MTF and could get
free care there. But let me give you an example of--so it is
pretty clear.
So, for example, young enlisted, they utilize less care but
they do use, let's say, OB services. And let's say there is a
family that is not near an MTF. The way the system would work
is that all preventative care is free. What would happen is
that if they needed--they were having a child on the economy,
because the payments are bundled, they would be responsible for
the one-time admission fee and so the difference between
delivering in an MTF, and let's say in the--on the economy,
would be $60 to $80 depending on the geographic area you are
in.
So, in short, yes, there are some families that might
experience elevated costs. I would say, as a final comment,
that that is why we have catastrophic caps so a family could
utilize $1.5 million of care, and they--their only financial
liability would be $1,500 under the proposal.
EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF MTFS
Mr. Visclosky. There have been efforts to increase the use
of military treatment facilities on the theory you have
facilities you want to maximize your utilization and decrease
care received from private providers, so that was emphasized
last year. Is that still an emphasis in the Services, and is
that consolidation, if you would, of services in medical
treatment facilities continuing?
Dr. Woodson. I will let the Surgeons General respond, but
the answer is yes, that we do need to protect and utilize our
military treatment facilities effectively. The financial
arrangements under the proposal emphasize lowest cost when they
use the military treatment facilities. So there is an incentive
to use the military treatment facilities. But I will let the--
--
Mr. Visclosky. If I could, I don't want to be rude but I
really do have other questions. I am assuming from your answer
that it is still an emphasis.
Dr. Woodson. Absolutely.
AUDITABILITY
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. And just a statement, when the
Secretary of Defense was in, and I think it is because I
majored in accounting, I do hope that the 2017 goal of
auditability is reached, and apparently, that is still on
track, and obviously, medical services have a role to play, and
I would encourage you on that.
Dr. Woodson. Yes.
FOREIGN MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS
Mr. Visclosky. On manning of the medical force, and Mr.
Owens had a question, and you mentioned that for some of the
specialties and occupations, it is hard to recruit and there
was an emphasis on those in rural areas, which, again, I think
would probably mirror some of the problems the civilian
population has. But the Department of Defense had a report that
reviewed procedures for accessing non-U.S. citizens with skills
vital to National Defense, and among them were pharmacists,
psychologists, and nurses. There are not enough U.S. citizens
being treated that can be encouraged to participate, do you
know? It is not your report. It is a Department-wide report,
but some of the skill sets they were talking about accessing
noncitizens, were nursing, pharmacy, and psychology. Is that a
problem for you in getting enough citizens?
Dr. Woodson. Again, I will let the Surgeons General
respond, but in general, we know that the American medical
system has been augmented by foreign medical graduates, and
that has been in place for some time.
Mr. Visclosky. Half of the physicians in my district are
foreign born. I understand that.
Dr. Woodson. So that is going to be a persisting issue.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay, I will defer for the moment, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. That means he may have more questions.
Mr. Womack.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. Womack. Thank you.
I have got a couple of items in my binder that I need to
get to, and I apologize up front if you have covered these in
any depth at all. I know we have talked about mental health
access for servicemembers. But particularly to kind of drill
down on the separating servicemember, the person who has got
some kind of mental health therapy going on but is separating
the Service, and that potential for a disconnect between when
they leave and when they pick up treatment once again, what are
we doing to ensure that we don't have a break in services?
Because I know, that if these servicemembers have even a
short break between treatment and therapy it could manifest
itself in a very tragic way. So help me understand what we are
doing to ensure that we can keep them consistent in their
treatment programs. I will flip a coin if you would like.
General Horoho. I will start out first. Sir, part of what
we are doing is, first is making sure that we keep our
servicemembers going through their treatment to the point where
they really are ready to transfer. So we are not transferring
them out before their behavioral health therapy is done. We
have 80 percent of those that are diagnosed with PTSD actually
remaining on active duty. So we are talking about that 20
percent. So those 20 percent that have a diagnosis, that go
through the disability system, we focus on care coordination,
to a warm handoff to the VA.
We also coordinate with the care coordinators that they
have nationally, where they oversee the personnel and so making
sure that there is a warm handoff that is there, and then if
they are going back into a Reserve unit, National Guard, or
Reserve, then there is that warm handoff from the behavior
health providers to the providers in those units.
Mr. Womack. In the interest of time, Admiral Nathan,
General Travis, is your program similar in that there would not
be a transition until the servicemember is ready?
Admiral Nathan. That is correct, sir. In all of our
facilities, and any patient who has a significant issue is
generally followed by a case manager. That assigned case
manager also works with VA liaison personnel. The challenge, to
be honest, and this is opening the wound the chairman was
talking about, is that often, we can get the individual to the
VA, but when they get there sometimes, it is not easy for the
VA to see what has happened unless they bring their paper
record.
As Dr. Woodson alluded to, we are working on trying to
increase the interoperability of the medical record so that
there won't be that lag in clinical understanding, but that is
still a challenge for us.
General Travis. I have nothing to add, sir.
CONCUSSIVE INJURIES
Mr. Womack. Okay. Last month, the Journal of Head Trauma
Rehabilitation suggested that a blast, an IED blast, as an
example, can affect a soldier, even if he doesn't have
manifesting symptoms right away. This means that veterans may
go quite a while before they have some kind of an issue like a
PTSD or depression. What are we doing to reach out to these
veterans and some of these occurred well before we got better
at this game. So back in the early part of the new millennium,
when the war was first starting, so are we going back and
reconnecting and drilling down on those particular members?
Admiral Nathan. I will take a stab. This is, I think, a
fairly good news story. We are not ready to hang the ``mission
accomplished'' sign up yet, but we now treat concussions and
blast injuries in a radically different way than we did at the
start of the war. Number one, you are entered into a concussion
registry so that we can follow you longitudinally and maintain,
just as we do in trauma and cancer. In addition, when you
sustain a blast injury or any hallmarks of a concussion, you
are pulled out of the battle. You are pulled out of the busy
system. This is onscene in theatre Camp Leatherneck in
Afghanistan our concussion restoration care center, treats mild
to moderate to severe concussion, you are now pulled out and
sent to Camp Leatherneck and given reactive tests until you are
deemed ready to return to duty.
This protocol has been so successful it has been
transferred now to sports, both college and high school. So I
think, to answer your question, sir, a patient who sustains a
concussion today or in the recent years is going to be followed
via a good registry. We will be able to document. The
individual will be able to go to the VA and with documentation
to show the affliction. Prior to the war, we weren't likely
doing that complete a job area.
General Horoho. And, sir, if I could just make one quick
comment. Eighty-five percent of our concussions are actually
attributed to garrison, either, you know, injury, car accidents
and sports and those types of things. So we learned from the
protocol that we had a joint protocol in theater. We have now
standardized that across the garrison footprint, and then we
are actually putting those individuals into the registry as
well.
Mr. Womack. I am sure it would be safe to say that society
has benefitted from the tragedy of having some of those head
trauma happening in our conflicts over the last decade plus.
Finally, General Horoho, I mentioned in my first round,
Brendan Marrocco.
SERGEANT BRENDAN MARROCCO
General Horoho. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to be
able to continue to tell his story. He is actually doing well.
He is still at Walter Reed right now. He has actually been
fitted with two prosthetic legs. His brother, who was giving
24/7, you know, support, now doesn't have to do that because he
is able to do more himself. Both of his transplanted arms are
actually functioning, and probably I think the best way to say
how this has made an impact is that when the National Anthem
was being sung, he himself realized in the middle of it that he
had his hand on his heart.
So, to me, if that doesn't strike to why it is important
that we preserve our military healthcare capabilities, support
research, and keep that warfighter mentality and that spirit, I
don't know anything else that does.
So thank you, sir.
Mr. Womack. It is an amazing story. And I am just so very,
very thankful for the things that we have been able to do, and
credit goes to a lot to the leadership espoused by the people
sitting at this table today.
And Mr. Chairman, I truly appreciate their service.
DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I echo your comments and relative to the
issue of research, we get visited by many who support the
congressionally directed medical research program, and they
perform, I think, very well, some innovative things. They do
things that are highly risky but obviously substantiated before
they initiate them. The Services, the three of you, as Surgeons
General, are currently responsible, and I mentioned that you
have intimate knowledge of these investments. However, there is
a transition, isn't there, to moving some of that
responsibility over to the Defense Health Agency? Isn't that
true? That occurred in October of last year.
So tell me what the Defense Health Agency does. It is the
policy maker for the military healthcare system, but are they
going to substitute their judgment for your individual and
collective judgment? What is the working relationship by the
creation of this new agency? Or are you the three pillars of
that agency? Or is there somebody else that is----
Admiral Nathan. If you ask us, we are the three pillars of
the agency.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am not going to mention anybody else's
name, although I am aware of other names.
Admiral Nathan. As a user of the system and as a member of
the club, Mr. Chairman, the Defense Health Agency is designed
to shoulder some of the services that we provide, ranging from
facilities, acquisition, logistics, pharmacy, information
management.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I mean, they are involved in the, dare I
mention it, the electronic medical records, too, or are they
separate from that?
Admiral Nathan. They are involved in a very big way in
that.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay.
Admiral Nathan. Because it is an example of something that
should be standardized and useful across all of the Services.
We in the Services have some very capable but yet redundant and
sometimes working at cross purposes. We are fans of trying to
standardize those, remove redundancies, create efficiencies,
and allow those to be provided to us and guided to us in the
same way the Defense Logistics Agency does for logistical
support of the three Services.
So we look at them, or I guess I speak for myself, and
perhaps the others, I look at it as an organization that is
going to support me in my requirements. I have requirements for
information management, pharmacy and others. I have
requirements in order to execute my mission. I look to the
Defense Health Agency to support me in those requirements.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I have confidence in all three of
you, and I am not sure I need to have you all respond, but I
just, if we look to the future, sometimes at some point in time
after so many years of dedicated service, you may not be on the
scene. You may be replaced by equally able men and women. There
is a tendency sometimes for people to migrate, agencies to
migrate and sort of subsume, you know, your traditional, your
traditional remarkable roles, and I just sort of thought I
would raise the question. You are giving me a level of
assurance at least for this generation of leadership, that that
is not going to happen.
Anything further, Mr. Visclosky?
INVESTING AND MAINTAINING MEDICAL PERSONNEL
Mr. Visclosky. Chairman, two lines of question if I could.
One, talking about having been at war for nearly 13 years,
could you explain any investments you think we need to make
today to ensure that the skills and knowledge that have been
gained at a great price, are, if you would, institutionalized
and remain in place? Do you have any current state of manning
problems as far as some of your specialties or units? Do you
need incentive programs or other intangibles to make sure that
some of that medical force personnel maintains that readiness
you have today?
And then I have one more question. But just, how do we keep
that energy and expertise that has been purchased at such a
high price? How do we maintain them? Do we have a role here as
far as any program you are concerned about?
General Horoho. Thank you, sir, if I have the opportunity,
and I am sure my colleagues would like to comment as well. I
think it is, first, vital that we recognize that our military
treatment facilities are our readiness platforms and that it is
not the same as, say, civilian healthcare. We have got to make
sure that we are investing in the infrastructure, the
capabilities, and the programs that allow our graduate medical
education programs to remain at the tip of the readiness spear
on how we attract, I think, some of the best and brightest
scientists across our Nation and healthcare providers. I think
that is important.
They are the platforms that allow us to maintain that
combat capability and knowledge that we had on the battlefield.
We have got to be able to take care of our retirees, which is
the complex care that allows us to maintain some of the skill
sustainment. I think it is important that we continue to invest
in technology so that we can use all of the capabilities that
are emerging out there for skill sustainment and then look at
those partnerships within the civilian community where we need
to.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
General Travis. I had a brief comment, sir, if you don't
mind.
Mr. Visclosky. Sure.
General Travis. I would echo everything Patty said, but I
would also add, with the budget pressures we have had in the
last couple of years, research dollars are sometimes the first
to go. That, and facility sustainment, restoration,
modernization. And on the other hand, and you say, gosh, you
know, it makes sense if we are just trying to provide good
care. But to really take advantage of all of the data that we
have been able to collect in this war, thanks to the trauma
registry, and a lot of our experience, you really do now have
to use the research dollars to mine that data, to really get
the lessons out of that data because we have been collecting
it.
We continue to collect it, but that research has to
continue for years to really understand what you have collected
and to learn the lessons. We are doing something on Air Evac,
saying, what is the timing of really getting people back? Can
you move them too fast? We are going to learn a lot by mining
the data. But I would just tell you that protecting research
dollars is just so important. Patty mentioned it. I would echo
it.
Mr. Visclosky. Is there a specific line item that would be
related to that observation as far as research? Because
obviously, there are a lot of research dollars being spent.
General Travis. I think we could all probably come up with
some line items.
WOMEN IN COMBAT
Mr. Visclosky. Final issue is with the increased
participation of women in the military, and particularly more
active combat roles, if you would, are there any medical
developments as far as women who have been deployed in areas of
combat that have evolved and changed? And also, are there
positions that may have been closed to women in medical
services that are being opened now?
General Horoho. I can start, sir. We stood up a Women's
Health Task Force over 2 years ago getting feedback from a
sensing session, over 200 women from all Services in
Afghanistan, and we took their feedback. It is now a tri-
Service and we included the VA in this task force. It has led
to changes in body armor. It has led to educational changes in
the predeployment, deployment, and redeployment, changes in
behavior health, how we actually manage and provide a little
difference in the way that we support our women versus our men
because the experience is different. It is coming out with
actually some tests where for urinary tract infection and other
female types of illnesses, so that they don't have to go to a
provider. They can actually do self test and get the medication
in theater because that was one of the concerns. And then it
came out with a urinary device that has already been deployed,
based on comments that came in the field.
So I think we have stood up a women's health service line,
so that we standardize and really look at the care to women
across every aspect of the provision of care. And then lastly,
there is work going on with the Natick Labs that is looking at
not just females, but what is the standard for men and women to
participate in any one of our military occupational specialties
so that we have a common standard that is there.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Let me just add another point. You know, often the focus is
half of the people that are homeless on the street every night
are veterans, and often the assumption is that it is men, but
in reality, some of those are women. So I don't mean to put a
point on this issue of electronic medical records, but in
reality, we need this relationship to come together sooner
rather than later.
But on behalf of the entire committee, I want to thank you
all for your military service and for representing the best of
America, those men and women in uniform, and many in civilian
capacity who have served our country as well. We are enormously
proud. Your job is, you know, so important, and we know you do
it well. We are proud of you. We stand adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Cole and the
answers thereto follow:]
Integrated Disability Evaluation System
Question. With the majority of the troops being soldiers, How many
troops have proceed through IDES, what is your goal for servicemember
to process through the system and have you improved on your goal of 295
days for getting servicemembers through? What funding is included in
the FY15 budget request for IDES and what will it be used for?
Answer. From the inception of the IDES in 2007, through the end of
February 2014, the Army has completed 46,758 cases, with 38,586 from
the Active Force, 2,976 from the Army Reserves, and 5,196 from the Army
National Guard. Although it took Active Component Soldiers an average
of 402 days to complete the IDES process in February 2014, this is an
improvement over the 433 day average in February 2013. Approximately
20% of cases were completed within the 295 day standard.
Significant progress has been made in the medical evaluation board
phase over this past year. The Medical Command (MEDCOM) established the
IDES Service Line (SL) which centrally standardized processes across
the command by developing a comprehensive IDES Guidebook, streamlined
case processing, increased collaboration at the Military Treatment
Facility level, and established MEB remote operating centers to
increase capacity and address the RC Case backlog, while creating
scalable solutions for surges in IDES referrals. As a result, MEDCOM
was able to reduce the number of days spent in the MEB phase from 168
days in November 2012 to 86 days in February 2014--a reduction of over
80 days. Currently both the Army and VA are meeting the medical
evaluation standards of 100 days for Active Component and 140 days for
Reserve Component Soldiers in over 80% of cases; a significant
improvement from 40% in November, 2012. The Army continues to partner
with VA to resolve the surplus of cases waiting for rating
determinations, but the Army fully expects to meet the 295 day goal for
all Active Component cases and 305 day goal for Reserve Component cases
by 2Q of FY 2015.
The Army's total IDES funding request for FY 15 is $144.2M.
MEDCOM's portion is $131M and the Army Human Resource Command (AHRC)
portion is $13.2 M. The MEDCOM budget request funds for personnel
costs; OCONUS IDES travel for Soldiers overseas who travel to CONUS for
the process; and supplies and equipment. The AHRC budget request funds
personnel costs, travel of Temporarily Retired Soldiers for Temporary
Disability Retirement List re-evaluations, IT application support,
supplies and equipment.
Tricare
Question. Only about 40 percent of civilian mental health providers
take these patients compared with 67 percent of primary doctors and 77
percent of specialty patients. With a decade of deployments, even in
the best of circumstances there will be a demand for mental health
care. With the impact deployments have had on servicemember's families
and those that have served, how do you plan to work with providers to
ensure the benefit is available to those that need it?
Answer. For the Military Treatment Facility (MTF) direct care
system, the Services have robust staffing models, including the
Psychological Health Risk-Adjusted Model for Staffing (PHRAMS), which
was developed as a tool for the Services to define the appropriate
number and mix of mental health personnel to meet the needs of Service
members, retirees, and their families. PHRAMS enables the Services to
make adjustments in planning assumptions to meet the mental health
demand of individual beneficiary communities. Additionally, the
Department's staffing of behavioral health providers (psychologists,
social workers, and psychiatric and mental health nurse practitioners)
in the Patient Centered Medical Homes in the MTFs will allow
beneficiaries to access mental health services in the primary care,
where they most often go to seek care.
In the purchased care system, TRICARE has implemented many
initiatives to ensure psychological services meet current and
anticipated demand for our Service members, retirees and their
families. TRICARE, through the Managed Care Support Contractors
(MCSCs), has established networks of civilian providers world-wide and
has flexibility in expanding or changing the composition of the network
in response to changes in MTF capability and capacity. Ongoing efforts
by the MCSCs to ensure provider availability include: monitoring of
mental health network adequacy; on-line invitation and education for
clinicians on becoming a TRICARE provider; local initiatives to
outreach to mental health providers to build the network when shortages
are identified; and quality monitoring and reporting of claims
processing times as measured against benchmarks, which demonstrate that
TRICARE is a timely payer and therefore an attractive network to join.
The Department also works with professional organizations to increase
awareness of the TRICARE benefit. For example, the Department met with
representatives from the American Psychological Association on March
27, 2014 to discuss strategies to increase civilian psychologist
awareness of and participation in TRICARE.
Additionally, increasing familiarity and competence when working
with military beneficiaries, DoD and the Department of Veterans Affairs
have jointly developed and disseminated four online training modules on
military culture with free continuing education credit (available at
http://www.deploymentpsych.org/online-courses). The release of these
modules will increase VA, TRICARE-network, and non-network provider
knowledge about military ethos and its impact on psychological health
and treatment.
The Department has also developed criteria for licensed mental
health counselors to practice as independent mental health providers
under TR1CARE, and the anticipated publication of these criteria in the
Federal Register will positively impact the pool of available mental
health providers under TRICARE in the years to come.
Finally, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), via the
National Defense Authorization Act for 2014 (Title V, Subtitle C,
``Mental health counselors for service members, veterans, and their
families'') Committee Report, has directed the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a joint report that
describes a coordinated, unified plan to ensure adequate mental health
counseling resources to address the long-term needs of all members of
the armed forces, veterans, and their families. As part of this
request, the Department is conducting a formal review of current mental
health staffing and resources against future demand. This report will
be submitted to Congress in September of 2014.
Question. How can you prevent a decrease in the number of private
medical providers who accept TRICARE? What specialists are least likely
to accept TRICARE and what plans are in place to fix this gap in care?
Answer. Like most civilian health insurance plans, the Department
of Defense has experienced limited gaps in children's subspecialists,
certain select medical subspecialists, and certain mental health
services (Residential Treatment Centers, Partial Hospitalization,
etc.). When sufficient providers cannot be recruited to join the
TRICARE network, the TRICARE contractors ensure access to these
services by coordinating with and authorizing reimbursement to non-
network providers when necessary to ensure care is routinely available.
TRICARE has multiple contract vehicles and tools (such as locality-
based waivers) to ensure access to both primary and specialty care.
The Department maintains civilian provider networks in Prime
Service Areas (PSAs) under the TRICARE Prime Program around active
military installations and former Base Realignment and Closure sites.
Our regional TRICARE contract partners ensure sufficient numbers of
primary care and specialty network providers to meet the needs of the
beneficiaries living in each PSA. The contracts include specific
network adequacy requirements. If needed services are not available in
the network, the Managed Care Support Contracts (MCSCs) must find a
non-network provider to provide the required services.
The network is developed based on population, eligible
beneficiaries, need/demand and claims data. To ensure network remains
adequate, the MCSC is required to monitor the network, provide
performance reports and corrective action reports in the event there is
an indication of any network concerns.
In non-PSAs, Congressionally mandated civilian provider surveys
show 8 out of every 10 civilian physicians accept new TRICARE patients
if they are accepting any new patients. Beneficiaries who are not
enrolled in TRICARE Prime can seek services from any TRICARE authorized
provider. Each of the regional contractor websites' has a look-up tool
where beneficiaries can locate non-network providers that have treated
TRICARE beneficiaries in the past.
Drug Policies
Question. What is being done to ensure that medications given and
prescriptions written in theater are being adequately recorded in a
servicemember's medical file?
Answer. We have developed an interface between the Pharmacy Data
Transaction Service (PPTS) and the Theater Medical Data store (TMDS) to
receive ambulatory prescription information on Service members in
theater via a weekly data feed. The DoD Pharmacy Data Transaction
Service (PDTS) is a centralized data repository that records
information about prescriptions filled worldwide for Department of
Defense (DoD) beneficiaries through Medical Treatment Facilities
(MTFs), TRICARE Retail Network Pharmacies and the TRICARE Mail Order
Pharmacy. The PDTS integrates theater prescription data into the
medication profile of each Service member, which also contains
prescription information from Military Treatment Facilities, Retail
pharmacies, the DoD Mail Order program, and VA pharmacies. On April 17,
2012, PDTS began capturing weekly files from the TMDS for prescriptions
that were dispensed in theater. As of April 6, 2014, PDTS has captured
over 1.3 million theater prescriptions, which includes historical
prescriptions dating back to April 2011. This enhanced interface
capability, 1) enhanced patient safety by including theater
prescription data into the PDTS Prospective Drug Utilization Review
(i.e. Drug-Drug interaction checks) processes and, 2) improved
visibility and reporting of medications that are dispensed in theater.
Question. What is being done to ensure that all prescriptions, from
both Military Treatment Facilities and private sector care physicians,
are being tracked? What do you need in terms of authority to implement
a Drug-Take Back program?
Answer. The DoD Pharmacy Data Transaction Service (PDTS) is a
centralized data repository that records information about
prescriptions filled worldwide for Department of Defense (DoD)
beneficiaries through Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs), TRICARE
Retail Network Pharmacies and the TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy. PDTS has
processed over 2.1 billion transactions since it was fully implemented
in 2001. The PDTS conducts on-line, real-time prospective drug
utilization review (clinical screening) against a patient's complete
medication history for each new or refilled prescription before it is
dispensed to the patient. The clinical screenings identify potential
patient safety or quality issues such as potential adverse reaction
between two or more prescriptions, duplicate prescriptions, therapeutic
overlaps and other alerts which can be immediately addressed to ensure
the patient receives safe, quality care. In addition to the over 100
million prescriptions processed real time in FY2013 through retail,
mail and MTF pharmacies, the PDTS also captures member submitted claims
(paper claims) for reimbursement, claims from the VA for dual eligible
members via information sharing processes, as well as Theater
prescription data from weekly feeds from the theater medical data
repository since April 2012.
The DoD has been closely working with the Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA) on the Disposal of Controlled Substances rule. Recently, DEA
informed DoD that they will update their proposed rule that will allow
DoD hospitals/clinics with a pharmacy on site to receive ``collector''
status, with authorization to conduct drug take back programs. The DoD
will establish policy and coordinate it Service-wide for implementation
of a prescription medication take-back program after publication of the
DEA final rule.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Cole.
Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the answers thereto
follow:]
Cost Sharing Fees
Question. During the hearing, a question was raised that it appears
that the Cost Sharing fees have been split between the ranks of ``E-4
and below'' and ``E-5 and above.'' It is concerning that an E-5 would
pay the same cost share as an 0-6, when the difference in base-pay
salaries between the two ranks is around $7,000 per month when you
factor in typical service years.
Can you elaborate on how the Department plans to rectify this
situation?
Answer. TRICARE currently differentiates some of its cost shares by
this same break--E-4 and below, E-5 and above. The PB 2015 proposal
continues that practice.
TRICARE Participation Fees
Question. TRICARE Participation Fees for military retirees are
inflated annually based on the cost of living adjustment percentage.
Recently, there has been much discussion about ``freezing'' the COLA
increases for military retirement pay.
Would the department oppose ``freezing'' the TRICARE Participation
Fee for retirees, if the COLA increases for retirement pay become
``frozen?''
Answer. The Department's proposed legislation ties the TRICARE
Participation fee to the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) percentage
increase. If COLA was to be ``frozen,'' the Participation fee would be
also.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt.
Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and the answers thereto
follow:]
Joint Lab Working Group
Question. Dr. Woodson, in January 2013, TRICARE discontinued
coverage of over 100 laboratory developed tests (LDTs) when performed
by providers outside the Military Treatment Facility (MTF) system. This
change in coverage came amidst efforts to reduce Defense Health Care
costs by encouraging TRICARE beneficiaries to use MTFs. The result,
however, was a sweeping lack of coverage for basic, non-invasive
laboratory tests that allow early diagnosis and monitoring of acute and
chronic illnesses, including Cystic Fibrosis and certain cancers. While
beneficiaries retain coverage for such LDT5 at MTF5, TRICARE no longer
covers these same tests when conducted by civilian providers.
Obviously, this places TRICARE beneficiaries who do not live near MTFs
at a distinct disadvantage. They must decide between the price of
travel to the nearest MTF and the price of the routine LDT at their
local civilian provider. Regardless of the situation, they must pay for
their care.
Dr. Woodson, I understand that a ``Joint Lab Working Group'' is
considering this issue, and that some LDT5 have been reinstated for
coverage. What further progress has the working group made with regards
to restoring these laboratory tests to TRICARE beneficiaries?
Answer. In January 2013, new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT)
codes were adopted. These codes provided payers, including the DoD,
greater transparency on specific LDTs that (1) have not been approved
or cleared by the Food and Drug Administration, and/or (2) failed to
meet TRICARE criteria for coverage (e.g., demand genetic testing that
is not medically necessary and does not assist in the medical
management of the patient). Consistent with these changes in CPT
coding, those LDTs moved to the government's ``no-pay'' list, could not
legally be reimbursed by TRICARE.
It came to TRICARE Management Activity's (TMA now DHA) attention
that some of the lab tests on the no-pay list were FDA cleared and met
coverage criteria in certain circumstances. As a result TMA updated the
no-pay list and removed those tests.
For the LDT Demonstration Project, the Lab Joint Working Group
(LJWG) met in March and reviewed a significant number of LTDs. The LJWG
prioritized a list of LDTs and systematically evaluated them for
safety, efficacy, and clinical indications. Many of the LDTs assessed
are being ordered by providers at military treatment facilities. A
significant number of the LDTs reviewed were recommended for coverage.
Those LDTs approved will be covered under the demonstration.
Question. If the working group determines these LDTs will
permanently drop from TRICARE coverage, how will TRICARE compare to the
coverage offered by other government healthcare or commercial health
insurance plans with regards to LDTs?
Answer. Under the demonstration project, the Lab Joint Working
Group has reviewed a significant number of LDTs for safety, efficacy,
and clinical indications. The Working Group will review coverage
polices of other government healthcare and commercial health insurance
plans for comparison purposes.
Question. Will this working group conduct analysis on how many
TRICARE beneficiaries will be forced to travel distances of greater
than 50 miles in order to have these LDTs performed at the nearest MTF?
Answer. Those LDTs approved under the demonstration will be
available to beneficiaries and providers in the purchased care network.
As a result, beneficiaries will not have to travel to MTFs to have LDTs
done. Tests can be ordered by the beneficiary's physician and obtained
through locally available resources.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Visclosky.]
Thursday, April 3, 2014.
FY 2015 NATIONAL GUARD AND ARMY RESERVE
WITNESSES
GENERAL FRANK J. GRASS, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
MAJOR GENERAL JUDD H. LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
LIEUTENANT GENERAL STANLEY E. CLARKE, III, DIRECTOR AIR NATIONAL GUARD
LTG JEFFREY W. TALLEY, CHIEF OF THE U.S. ARMY RESERVE
Opening Statement of Chairman Frelinghuysen
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The meeting will come to order.
This afternoon the committee holds a hearing on National
Guard and Army Reserve readiness. We will focus primarily on
near-term readiness issues related to personnel, training,
equipment, modernization, reset, and the effects of fiscal
constraints on readiness.
The committee is very concerned about the readiness of the
National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve following over a dozen
years of war. Your soldiers and airmen have performed
magnificently in Iraq and continue to perform with distinction
in Afghanistan and, may I say, have done multiple deployments,
and we recognize that. And they have done incredible work
throughout the world. And we also recognize the sacrifice of
their families and, may I say, your families.
We are pleased to welcome four distinguished general
officers as witnesses:
General Frank J. Grass is the chief of the National Guard
Bureau, a permanent member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
represents more than 460,000 citizen-soldiers and airmen in the
Army and Air National Guard. General Grass has appeared before
this subcommittee in his capacity as chief on several
occasions.
So special welcome to you again, General Grass.
Lieutenant General Stanley E. ``Sid'' Clarke, III, is the
director of the Air National Guard. This is General Clarke's
second year to testify before the committee.
General, we appreciate the experience and expertise that
you bring to this hearing.
Major General Judd Lyons is the acting director of the Army
National Guard. This is General Lyons' first year to testify
before the committee.
We welcome you, General Lyons.
And, finally, we are pleased to welcome the Chief of Staff
of the Army Reserve, Lieutenant General Jeffrey W. Talley. He,
too, has previously testified before the committee.
Gentlemen, all of you are welcome. We are eager to hear
your testimony, which will assist the committee to better
determine the needs of Guardsmen and Reservists, whether at
home stationed or deployed around the world. The subcommittee,
with the benefit of your testimony, will gain a better
understanding of the material needs of the services.
Additionally, at the request of the Army, the Secretary of
Defense recently approved a plan for the Army aviation
restructure. This plan, billed as a Total Army solution,
appears not to have considered Reserve component alternatives
as a solution, thus leaving the Army Guard with no attack
helicopters.
This initiative appears to be driven by financial
constraints on the part of the Army. We will seek further
clarification and clarity regarding this initiative. Still,
given limited resources, this committee will continue to do
everything possible to ensure adequate funding for the
equipment, modernization, and readiness for both your homeland
and wartime missions.
Generals, we look forward to your testimony.
But, first, I would like to yield some time to the ranking
member, Mr. Visclosky, for any comments he may wish to make.
Mr. Visclosky. Chairman, I appreciate you holding the
hearing.
And, gentlemen, await your testimony. Thank you very much
for your preparation and your participation.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Grass, good afternoon.
Summary Statement of General Grass
General Grass. Good afternoon, Chairman, Ranking Member
Visclosky, members of the committee. It is an honor and
privilege to be here today.
And before I start, I would just like to ask that we all
continue to keep in our thoughts and prayers the Fort Hood
community, who suffered the tragic loss yesterday.
With that, I have with me today General Clarke and General
Lyons. They will go into more detail. I will try to stay at the
strategic level, but they have great detail about the Army and
Air Guard today. They are great wingmen here with me.
The National Guard does three things very well. We fight
our Nation's wars, defend the homeland, and build enduring
partnerships, both overseas and at home with the Army and Air
Force. The National Guard is accessible, ready, and capable
and, I might add, it provides a significant value to the
taxpayers.
None of this is possible without the support we have
received from this committee and our parent services. The
investments made in the National Guard as an operational force
have served the Nation well over the past 12-plus years. Also,
the support we have received in the form of the National Guard
and Reserve equipment account has been invaluable.
Today, the uncertain fiscal environment we face is
impacting the Guard. Congress provided some relief with the
Bipartisan Budget Act, but the Army National Guard fiscal year
2015 budget is projected to decrease by 7 percent from fiscal
year 2014 levels. This reduction degrades readiness of the
operational force, which General Lyons will address in more
detail.
With the return of spending limits in fiscal year 2016 and
beyond, the Budget Control Act will further impact the National
Guard. This will diminish Army and Air National Guard combat
power as a result of our inability to sufficiently train,
modernize, and recapitalize our force.
We also face the prospect of a reduction in the Army
National Guard end strength to 315,000 by 2019. This is below
the minimum-level risk, and it places at risk the Defense
Strategic Guidance.
Also very concerned about the future of Army and Army
National Guard rotary wing aviation. I agree with the Total
Army that the divestiture of the TH-67 training aircraft and
the OH-58 Scout helicopter is required to meet future funding
levels and a viable rotary wing fleet for the future. However,
I do not agree with the proposal to take all of the Apaches out
of the National Guard.
We have provided an alternative solution that would
transfer about 40 percent of the Apaches from the Army National
Guard to the active component while retaining sufficient
Apaches to maintain six attack battalions in the National
Guard.
This provides strategic reversibility and maximizes cost-
effectiveness with our combat-tested attack aviation capability
that exists today in the Army National Guard.
Our alternative plan affects just the Apache, and our
assessment is that it still achieves most of the savings needed
under the aviation restructure initiative introduced by the
Army.
I would like to end by stating at the very heart of the
National Guard is our most important resource, our people. The
well-being of the soldiers, airmen, their families, and their
employers remains the top priority for every leader throughout
the Guard.
We will continue to aggressively work to eliminate sexual
assault and suicides across the force and maintain faith with
our people, the very same people who have put their faith in
us.
In summary, our national security demands the capacity and
capability that the National Guard provides both at home and
overseas. At one-third the cost of active component
servicemembers during peacetime, the National Guard is a hedge
against uncertainty in this turbulent security and fiscal
environment.
Today's unprecedented National Guard readiness posture
offers options to preserve both capability and capacity rather
than choose between them.
Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, General Grass.
[The written statement of General Grass follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Summary Statement of General Clarke
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Lieutenant General Clarke, welcome.
General Clarke. Thank you, sir.
Chairman, Ranking Member, Committee Members, appreciate the
opportunity to address you. And I am honored to be a
representative of the 106,000 Air National Guard members across
the Nation.
Last year when I appeared, I acted like I knew what I was
doing as far as the director of the Air National Guard, but I
had only been on the job for about two weeks. So I only told
you what I thought from field experience I had and previous
experiences.
But in that time, over the last 12 months, I have gained a
greater appreciation for the people we have out there. All of
us should be really impressed with the generation that is
coming behind us. Remarkable individuals, highly resilient,
very passionate about wearing this uniform.
It makes my job easy when I get out there and visit the
units, get an opportunity to talk to them, get a sense of what
they think about their service.
As long as the American people keep patting them on the
back and shaking their hands in airports and things like that,
you are going to have a tremendous force coming forward.
I also wanted to let you know, over the last year, as a
part of the Total Force, working with General Welsh and
Secretary James, what an outstanding partnership we have.
Clearly, there is nothing that is off the table as far as
discussions with the leadership--senior leadership of the Air
Force.
They have been very forthcoming, very engaging, a lot of
collaboration, and we continue to focus on things as a total
force and not as individual components out there. So they are
looking for best solutions, best ideas, and it has just been a
wonderful experience over the last year working with both of
them.
And, of course, Secretary James just started 3 months ago,
but I have to tell you she hit the ground running. She is doing
a great job.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. She sure is. Excuse me for interrupting.
General Clarke. Yes, sir.
So, with that, I also want to tell you the partnership
extends in many places, and I wanted to extend our appreciation
for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account accounts
that General Grass was talking about.
The flexibility, the speed of which we have done some
modifications and everything, have brought us up to a
capability that we never had before. So I wanted to express my
appreciation for that, with the NGREA funds that we received.
And, also, I just wanted to conclude with we really do have
a balanced strategy going forward with the opportunity to look
at ourselves as a first choice for homeland operations.
We look at ourselves as a proven choice for warfighting
operations, and we look at ourselves as an enduring choice for
security cooperation. It is a wonderful team to be a part of.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, General Clarke.
[The written statement of General Clarke follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Summary Statement of General Lyons
General Lyons. Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member
Visclosky, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
honored to appear before you today. I represent more than
354,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard.
Let me start out by echoing Secretary Hagel, General Grass,
and many other senior leaders in saying that our thoughts and
prayers go out to the victims and families that are affected by
the terrible tragedy at Fort Hood yesterday. We are all one
Army family, and we all grieve this morning at the losses we
have suffered.
Every member of the Army National Guard can look back over
the last 13 years with a shared sense of pride, accomplishment,
and sacrifice. Since September 11, 2001, we have mobilized
soldiers more than 525,000 times.
As part of our Total Army, Guard units have performed every
assigned mission, from counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, to maintaining the peace in Kosovo and the Sinai.
Our soldiers have repeatedly heard from the most senior
leaders in the Army that they are indistinguishable from their
active Army counterparts.
Furthermore, Guard soldiers have forged lasting
relationships with 74 nations, and they have deployed alongside
these partners to Iraq and Afghanistan nearly 90 times in the
past decade.
At home, our Guardsmen and -women continue to answer the
call whenever and wherever they are needed, as the responses to
Hurricane Sandy, the tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, the record-
setting wildfires in California, devastating floods in
Colorado, and, most recently, the mudslides in Washington State
all attest.
Thanks to the firm and committed support of Congress and
the Army over the past 13 years, our Army National Guard has
transformed from a strategic reserve to an operational force.
It is a force that is manned, trained, and equipped to
serve where and when America needs us. It is a force with
experienced leaders who are ready. Given the current global
climate, there can be little doubt that the Guard is more
important than ever.
Now, I have had the distinct privilege of serving in the
Army National Guard for over 34 years both in the enlisted and
the officer ranks, and I have witnessed this positive shift to
an operational force firsthand.
I have gained perspective on the Federal and State missions
that the Guard performs while deployed abroad and during
emergencies here in the United States.
So if I could summarize my testimony today, it would be
this. We must be very careful to ensure that we preserve the
operational force that we have built. The Army National Guard
provides our country with flexible military capability and
capacity that cannot be easily replaced once it is gone.
The fiscal year 2015 budget submission required hard
choices and has significant impact in personnel and our
operations and maintenance funding.
The base budget request for these two accounts is just
under $1 billion below what was appropriated for fiscal year
2014. So this will require the Army Guard to accept risk in
fiscal year 2015.
Our brigade combat teams will be limited to achieving
individual-, crew-, and squad-level proficiency in their
training, and their personnel will have fewer opportunities to
attend schools and special training.
Our depot-level overhaul of our trucks will be deferred,
and our armories, which average 44 years in age, will lack
funding for repairs beyond those that will ensure health and
safety.
However, as General Grass notes, this reduction pales in
comparison to what will be required when Budget Control Act
levels of funding return in fiscal year 2016.
With committed citizen-soldiers in our formations, the Army
National Guard presents tremendous value to our Nation and to
the communities where we live, work, and serve.
The last decade-plus of war has demonstrated our strength
as a combat-tested, ready operational force, a role that, with
your support, we will proudly continue to perform for the Army
and for our Nation.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Lyons, thank you for your
testimony.
[The written statement of General Lyons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Summary Statement of General Talley
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Talley.
General Talley. Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member
Visclosky, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you
very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is
an honor to represent America's Army Reserve, a life-saving and
life-sustaining Federal force for the Nation.
I would like to begin by thanking the committee for your
steadfast support that you have provided to all the members of
our Armed Forces and their families. Since 9/11, more than
275,000 Army Reserve soldiers have been mobilized.
And as you are aware, I have provided the committee a 10-
page statement that outlines the capabilities and challenges
that the Army Reserve has and some specific ways that this
committee and the Congress can assist in keeping us viable and
strong in service to others.
Therefore, I would like to use the few minutes that I have
now to share some real stories and experiences to you about
your Army Reserve.
On 9 November 2013, a typhoon struck the Republic of
Philippines. The Army Reserve has almost 4,000 soldiers
permanently assigned to the Pacific. Most of those are
organized under the 9th Mission Support Command, a one-star
general officer command commanded by Brigadier General John
Caldwell, a proud resident of the great State of Tennessee and
a huge Tennessee Volunteer fan.
I got a call the same day from John and General Brooks--
Vince Brooks commands U.S. Army Pacific--about the crisis and
the need for immediate assistance relief for the Philippines.
I authorized and supported the immediate use of one of my
logistics support vessels, an LSV-7, stationed in Hawaii, to
provide mission relief for an active-duty vessel and, within 48
hours, I had 13 crew members, traditional Reservists from 11
different units, on active duty, preparing to set sail.
The LSV-7 sailed over 1,225 nautical miles and transported
230 pieces of equipment. That is 1,660 long tons with four
lifts to transport equipment and Strykers to the 25th Infantry
Division from the big island to Oahu.
I also called to active duty Brigadier General Gary Beard,
an Army Reserve individual mobilization augmentee, who
immediately left for the Philippines to assist in leading
coordination on the ground in support of PACOM.
We conducted many more missions, but this illustrates the
ability of the Army Reserve to act immediately. We are the only
component of the three components in the Army that is also a
single command.
I am not only the chief for the Army Reserve, I have the
privilege of being the commanding general for the Army Reserve
Command. I exercise that command authority every day in service
to requirements at home and abroad.
On 29 October 2012, Superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast,
resulting in an immediate need for assistance in New York and
New Jersey. I authorized to active duty the same day our
emergency preparedness liaison officers. We call them EPLOs.
EPLOs are embedded in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA, and they provide direct linkage to the Department
of Defense for support in times of crisis.
The Army Reserve provides the Army 100 percent of its EPLOs
and 50 percent of all the EPLOs within the Department of
Defense.
Requirements for military assistance were quickly
identified. Within 24 hours, I had alerted multiple Army
Reserve units to be prepared to go on active duty to assist
their fellow citizens.
When Sandy hit New York, I had multiple units on active
duty and en route to the East Coast. Specifically, I had three
logistics pumps and dewatering units that eventually located at
Breezy Point, where they executed significant dewatering and
relief missions to the residents and others in need.
In addition, I had two Chinook helicopter teams activated
to provide immediate support to Joint Task Force headquarters
that the National Guard had established.
These are just some of the examples how the Army Reserve
immediately reached out to assist and support our Americans in
need during a complex catastrophe.
As the commanding general of the Army Reserve Command, I
have the authority to order immediate help when and where it is
needed to assist our first responders, our police, and our
firefighters, and our State force, our great 54 Army and Air
National Guards.
In the case of Sandy, I ordered troops to active duty via
annual training for 29 days initially. And that gave us time to
convert those orders to 12304(a) mobilizations authorized under
the National Defense Act of 2012, with specific requirements
being asked for by General Jacoby, the commander of NORTHCOM.
The Army Reserve routinely provides this type of support to the
various States within United States in their need.
My last story is a short one about an Army Reserve family,
the Henscheids, Don and Janet Henscheid. Like so many military
families, they love their country and they are proud to have
their most precious resource, which are our sons and daughters,
serve in the military.
But what makes Don and Janet extra special, in my personal
opinion, is the fact that they had three boys serve in combat,
Iraq and Afghanistan, as Army Reserve soldiers. Their names
were Landon, Cody, and a son-in-law named Jacob.
All three became wounded warriors. The wounds and
experiences of war were very severe to each of these three men.
In fact, they were so severe that they would no longer be able
to do what they wanted most, to continue to serve as a soldier
in America's Army.
The many months of multiple surgeries and treatments,
physical and mental, took a tough toll on the family,
especially when they found out that Landon, who had finally
recovered from his war wounds, had developed cancer.
Eventually, Landon died.
As Cody and Jacob continued to struggle with their own
wounds and grieving associated with losing Landon, my wife and
I got to know this family very well. In fact, my wife visited
them every single week at Walter Reed during these many months.
But this story has a happy ending. Normally, what I would
see in similar circumstances is you end up with a family that
hates the military and resents America. But not here.
Don and Janet and that whole family appreciated the
tremendous support that the Army Reserve and the whole Army
family gave them under this most difficult situation.
Their courage, their commitment to our Army, and to the
Nation make my contributions and those of so many others pale
in comparison. Don and Janet represented to me the very best of
what it means to be Americans.
I will certainly miss Landon, especially our talks in the
hospital room about my Jeep J10 pickup truck and Duck Dynasty,
which he liked a lot. But he taught me, an old soldier, a lot
about giving and about dying.
In closing, the Army Reserve is a community-based force of
almost 220,000 soldiers and civilians living and operating in
all 54 States and Territories and in 30 countries.
As a component and a single command, we are embedded in
every Army Service Component Command and every Combatant
Command, and we currently have almost 20,000 soldiers serving
around the globe, with over 6,000 still fighting in
Afghanistan.
We provide a unique linkage to America's industry and
private sector, as most of our troops work in a technical
career in the civilian sector that directly correlate to what
they do in the Army Reserve as enablers.
I own most of the lawyers, the doctors, the nurses, the
full-spectrum engineering, civil affairs, logisticians for the
Total Army. And like all of our Reserve components, we have de
facto become part of the operating force.
In fact, the Army Reserve has unique capabilities that are
not found in any other service or any other component,
especially as it relates to the opening and closing of our
theaters.
A life-sustaining and life-supporting force, we provide
almost 20 percent of the Total Army Force structure for 5.8
percent of the budget. I think that is great return on the
investment. I ask for your continued support for all of our
services and components as we keep America strong and
prosperous.
I look forward to your questions. Army Strong.
[The written statement of General Talley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Talley and gentlemen, thank you
all for your testimony.
On behalf of the committee, we extend our sympathy to the
Army family. A horrific situation to think that it has been
repeated twice at Fort Hood. We are mindful of that, and we
hold those who have lost loved ones and were injured in that
horrible situation--we hold them close to our hearts. And
please extend to your brothers and sisters at Fort Hood and the
citizens of Texas our strong feelings.
Absent from our gathering today is Judge John Carter, who
represents perhaps the largest mass of heroes of those who
serve in the Army. He would be here. And I know that our
thoughts and prayers are with him as well.
And to all of you, the men and women who represent a
remarkable number of deployments, we don't forget that part of
the force is in Afghanistan today.
And part of our committee is looking at, you know, what the
exit strategy is. There is still people serving over there. You
are part of that team, and you, too, want the best for that
country.
But we obviously need to make sure that--not only that
their needs are served and that they are well protected, but
that, as they come home, their needs are focused on and their
needs are met.
We had, coincidentally--and thank you, General Talley, for
putting a human face on the level of sacrifice.
We had the surgeon generals in from the Air Force, the
Army, and Navy yesterday. And I think we emphasized to them,
and would do to you, that we will do anything we can to make
sure that those who have suffered physical wounds--I think the
number was 1,600 that have suffered amputations, and well over,
I think, 450,000 have suffered a variety of physical wounds,
goodness knows, a lot of mental wounds, post-traumatic stress,
TBI--that we don't forget the obligation.
But thank you very much, all of you, for your testimony.
And now it is my special pleasure to recognize the chairman
of the--well, I will recognize him even if he doesn't want to
speak at the moment, the arrival of the big chairman, Chairman
Hal Rogers from Kentucky.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Let me yield the floor to--I get to say
one of your own, the gentleman from Arkansas, Congressman
Womack.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AVIATION
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And my thanks to the gentlemen for their great service to
our country. It is noteworthy what our Guard and Reserve
components have done in prosecuting the war on terror and for
the great service they have extended our country long before
our country was ever a country. So it is a great deal of
respect that I have for these folks.
And it will not surprise any Member, any of my colleagues
on this panel, that I am going to go directly to attack
aviation because it is a concern of mine, and I think it is
shared by many of the members on this panel.
And just a couple of really quick questions out of the box
for General Grass.
Before deploying, Guard aviation units are certified by
their active-duty counterparts to be proficient at the same
standard their active-duty counterparts have to be before
deploying in the theater. Correct?
General Grass. Congressman, that is correct.
Mr. Womack. Did any National Guard units alerted for duty,
mobilized for duty, ever not deploy?
General Grass. We had one that was off-ramped just about a
year ago.
Mr. Womack. Was it a training issue? Was it a certification
issue?
General Grass. No, Congressman. It was a reduction in
force.
Mr. Womack. Reduction in force.
Can you tell me if any of our National Guard, Apache units
particularly, ever performed poorly in theater?
General Grass. No, Congressman. And I was just there last
week and I talked to some of our active-duty counterparts that
our Apache pilots worked for, and they said they were truly up
to the task--of any task.
Mr. Womack. General, it is logical to conclude that the
Guard units, Reserve component units, bring a lot of value to
the structure of our Army in that these are not, for the most
part, full-time soldiers.
They are men and women who have other jobs and are able to
manage that delicate balance between job, between family, and
between their military duties to serve their country in a very
honorable way.
So is it not logical to assume that we can train, equip,
man, and even deploy National Guard and Reserve component units
for a fraction of the cost of what we do with our active
component folks, trying not to necessarily divide us or become
divisive in this discussion, but just to prove a point?
General Grass. Congressman, as we alert a unit, there is
additional training required, and that is because of the number
of days that we train PREMOB. So there is always tasks to be
accomplished. And we save about one-third the cost in
peacetime.
But it is all about time to deploy, time to train up and
deploy, and, also, then what tasks you want that soldier to do.
And they are going to do the same training and certification
that an active unit will do before they deploy.
Mr. Womack. So back to my original thesis that the decision
in the aviation restructure program that the Army has advanced
and that we drilled down on with Secretary McHugh and General
Odierno that--I have concerns that taking all of the attack
aviation out of the National Guard for budgetary purposes and
putting it in the active component is--I think it is a flawed
proposal because it robs the National Guard of any of the
strategic depth that the Army would have in the event that all
of its assets were committed.
So you offered an alternative--or you talked about this in
your opening statement, but you offered an alternative
proposal. Can you elaborate just briefly on it.
General Grass. Yes. Congressman, I looked across the board.
We have 8 attack battalions today with 24 helicopters, mostly
modernized Delta models.
Mr. Womack. Modernized as a result of the generosity of
this committee.
General Grass. Yes, sir.
Mr. Womack. Sorry to interrupt.
General Grass. And we had mostly Alpha models, outdated and
pre-9/11. And so we deployed those Alpha models a certain
number of times either at the battalion or company level.
And then there was a period about the mid-2000s where the
policy decision was made not to send Alpha models any longer
and convert to Delta. We converted to the Delta models, which
we have today.
We deployed 12 battalions in 5 company-level deployments.
We were ready to do more. But now we have those modern aircraft
with experienced pilots with--you know, battalion may have
12,000 combat hours in it today.
Our other concern and why we put this proposal together
was, when people come off of active duty--when pilots come off
of active duty today, we won't even be able to capture that,
you know, over $800,000 to get a pilot into the cockpit--so we
feel that that is a great opportunity in the future--and
retain, as you said, sir, you know, that strategic hedge there,
that strategic capability, that is not easily replaced.
Mr. Womack. I will come back when I have my next round of
questions. I know I am out of time right now.
But, again, my thanks to the panel for being here today and
their great service to our country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Chairman Rogers.
Remarks of Chairman Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I
apologize for being late, but we were marking up another bill
just now.
Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. Thank you for
your service to your country.
In this fast-changing world in which we live, there is no
question that those who serve under the flag are doing so in a
very critical period of our history.
As we have seen a nation's sovereign power come under siege
in Ukraine over the past several weeks, tragedy, unfortunately,
once again hitting at Fort Hood, Texas, we are constantly
reminded that our country, our freedom, and our way of life are
not to be taken for granted. There must be vigilance, and you
are providing that.
I, therefore, want to associate my remarks with those of my
colleagues in recognition of the fine service, dedication,
sacrifice of the men and women that you represent here today,
including yourselves.
The soldiers and airmen of the Guard and Reserve have time
and again answered the call to serve in some of the most
difficult conditions domestically and abroad.
And as this subcommittee has done in the past, we stand
ready to try to provide you with the tools, the training, the
equipment, and whatever support is necessary to carry out your
vital security mission.
There is going to be some changes to the structure of the
force as we transition in this new post-war time. The question
we hope to answer in this committee is: Is the Department of
Defense being strategic, efficient, and properly aligning
funding to mission requirements and results? That is the
question.
Undoubtedly, DoD is still reeling from the impacts of
sequestration. And the choices that we must make to fund our
military within the Murray-Ryan budget caps are difficult.
For this reason, I am eager to hear your plans as you
strike the delicate balance between readiness, force structure,
and modernization during these difficult budgetary times.
Mr. Chairman, if I may ask a couple of questions,
especially--are you having trouble hearing me?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. A little bit. You have two mikes now to
double the trouble.
COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM
Mr. Rogers. You are probably better off not hearing me.
In my home State of Kentucky, we have an incredible drug
problem, as I guess most of the country does. And since 1998,
the Kentucky National Guard has been an instrumental partner to
our State and local law enforcement units in the fight against
illicit drugs and transnational threats.
Its joint support operations task force has eradicated 13
million marijuana plants and seized over 76 bulk pounds of
marijuana, 4,500 illegal weapons, to the tune of $25 billion.
I fear that, as certain people in this country continue to
spew falsities about the dangers of marijuana, demand is only
going to increase. That is why the National Guard's counter-
drug program and its military-unique support is now, I think,
more important than ever.
General Grass, the fiscal year 2015 budget request was
greatly reduced from the fiscal year 2014 level from $200
million down to $89.5 million.
What is being done to ensure that this program continues to
be adequately funded?
I have flown on some of those raids in the choppers, and it
is an amazing heroic act that these Guardsmen are doing,
rappelling down in terrain that can't be accessed any other
way, cutting the marijuana, and being lifted back up with a big
net sack back into the chopper and dangling as they fly across
country to a place where it can be disposed of. This is hard
work. It is great training. But I need to know where you are
coming from.
General Grass. Chairman Rogers, I will ask General Clarke
and General Lyons to talk about the resources versus how we are
going to prioritize against readiness and modernization here in
a few minutes.
Let me talk about--and I will answer your question on the
counter-drugs, sir. One of the problems we have experienced,
close to 50 percent of our counter-drug money has disappeared
in the last 3 years. And thanks to the Congress, money is added
back in each year.
The problem that the States are dealing with is trying to
build a long-term program in hiring, you know, the Guardsmen
and -women that do this mission across the States, trying to
get some stability, so that, you know, we can give them a
career path for this work they are doing for us.
But when you only get a portion of your budget each year to
start the year, it makes it very difficult, that we end up
having to basically lay off people and hire them back later in
the year. So it has created huge disruptions.
Not only that, we now are under instructions for next year
to close down our five counter-drug schools, which have been so
productive across the map. But, you know, tough choices are
being made in those accounts.
And I know that every State has talked to me. The adjutants
general and the governors are very concerned about this, but
Department of Defense, with their budget coming down, had to
make some tough choices.
Mr. Rogers. Well, to reduce that account from $200 million
to $89.5 million in one year doesn't match the ratio of other
spending cuts in other parts of the budget.
This one took a disproportionate hit. How come?
General Grass. Sir, the other issue that we are dealing
with--and it deals with the southwest border mission. That
mission, which the Guard's been involved with for probably 3, 4
years now, every year there is money set aside for those four
States, and we are running close to 200 soldiers and airmen
that support that mission.
But that money has to come out of defense's hide every
year. And we have been working to try to pass that mission back
to Department of Homeland Security. So that money has to come
out of our defense budget as well.
Mr. Rogers. I am not sure I followed you on that.
General Grass. The four States was an add-on mission about
3 years ago, sir, and it just tapped. It came on top of a
budget that was already declining. The intent was for us to
help train up agents along the border and then step back from
the mission.
Mr. Rogers. In Kentucky, as the Guard transitions from the
OH-58 helicopter to the UH-72, I understand that the cost per
flight hour will increase by over 100 percent. That will reduce
flight hours for marijuana-spotting by 40 percent, even with
good luck in getting the budget back.
What can we do to mitigate that dramatic reduction in
surveillance and eradication of marijuana?
General Lyons. Chairman Rogers, as you mentioned about the
change in the platform from the OH-58 Delta, which would be
removed under the aviation restructure initiative to the UH-72,
I would like to take for the record the cost per flight hour,
sir, because I want to give you an accurate response on that.
The airframe itself, the UH-72 helicopter, is suited for
domestic missions. It is configured for those missions. The
cost per flight hour is greater.
But I want to get you the answer on what that Delta is. So
if that is okay, I would like to take that for the record.
[The information follows:]
For the UH-72, the reimbursable rate cost per flight hour is
$2,527.
For the OH-58A/C, the reimbursable rate cost per flight hour is
$1,165.
Note: The intra-Army cost factor rate does not include Contractor
Logistical Support, which is a major cost driver for the UH-72. For
this reason, we are using the Department of Defense reimbursable rate
instead.
But that is a fact of the aviation restructure initiative,
which will remove all of the OH-58 Deltas, Charlies, and Alphas
from the Army National Guard. We agree with that aspect of the
ARI.
There are cost avoidances that come with that plan in
reducing the number of airframes, but that does have the effect
of placing that particular mission that you are talking about
into a new platform.
CLOSE AIR SUPPORT
Mr. Rogers. General Grass, will these five regional
training centers just be simply closed and locked and that
mission done away with?
General Grass. Chairman, that is the plan right now, that
we have been directed to close them.
Mr. Rogers. Has there been discussion about transferring it
maybe to another agency to operate?
General Grass. Not that I am aware of yet, but I am sure
that will come up.
Mr. Rogers. You don't sound very upset about this.
General Grass. Chairman, I visit them. They are outstanding
facilities. In fact, there is many of our local jurisdictions,
whether it is hometown America or a county police force, that
will not receive training without those facilities. We provide,
basically, the logistics and the administration of a facility,
and then local law enforcement and--they come in and train
there.
Mr. Rogers. How much money would it take to keep them
going?
General Grass. Chairman, if I could take that for the
record, I will bring it back for you. I will get the breakdown
for you.
[The information follows:]
The Counterdrug Training Centers (TC) have historically been funded
at $25M ($5M per TC) through the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Counternarcotics and Global Threats' Central Transfer Account. The
$4.9M appropriated in FY 14 was intended as funding to close the TCs.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moran.
IMPACT OF PHASING OUT THE A-10
Mr. Moran. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have two areas of inquiry. The first is probably best
addressed to Lieutenant General Clarke. But it involves the
Warthog and its retirement in this budget.
It used to be the primary close air support aircraft, but
we find that the Air Force has determined that it is not
survivable in current or future conflicts. And then, in fact,
80 percent of close air support in the Afghan war was provided
by other platforms.
So of the 343, the intent is to retire 283 of them over--
virtually the vast majority of them over the next 5 years. That
is going to save--$4.2 billion is, again, the estimate in the
budget.
What happens to the personnel that have been assigned to
the A-10? Are they separated from service? Do they go to other
missions? What happens to them, General?
General Clarke. Sir, I can speak on behalf of the Air
National Guard, and then I will give you my suspicion of what
will happen with the regular Air Force airmen.
For the Air National Guard, wherever we were losing an A-10
mission, we were picking up a different mission that the Air
Force had assigned to four different locations where we had the
airplane.
For the regular Air Force airmen, I would think, in their
ability to retrain and put people against other requirements
that they have, which they have plenty, they will find another
job somewhere in the Air Force.
Mr. Moran. Well, okay. But the Air National Guard has been
using them. I mean, it is a relevant question, is it not, to
the Air National Guard?
General Clarke. With regard to where the airmen are going?
Mr. Moran. The impact of phasing out the A-10.
General Clarke. Yes, sir.
REDUCTION IN CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
Mr. Moran. Yes.
Let me ask the question here, Mr. Chairman.
And this goes to the civilian workforce. And the reason I
am asking is because it turns out that a great many Reservists
also serve their country as civilian employees at the
Department of Defense.
Now, in last year's defense authorization, there was a cut
of 5 percent. In other words, the civilian workforce has to be
cut by the same amount as the uniform workforce. It was dubbed
the McCain cut thing.
In addition, now, we have got a suggestion. And, in fact,
our very good friends, Mr. Calvert and Ms. Granger, have
suggested that we cut the civilian workforce by another 10
percent. So it is basically a 15 percent cut.
Now, what I want to know is: What would be the impact on
Reservists? And do you think that is going to have to be picked
up by more contract personnel?
Because that is actually where the most significant
increase in personnel has come, is the contract workforce, more
than uniform and civilian.
But what would be the impact on the Guard and Reserve,
particularly the Reserve, if we were to have a requirement of
as much as a 15 percent reduction in civilian personnel over
the next 5 years?
General Clarke. Congressman, the personnel that you are
talking about, what they call dual-status technicians, that
serve the Air National Guard----
Mr. Moran. They are dual status. Exactly.
General Clarke. I get your point. Because if you brought in
airmen who are dual-status technician AGR traditional
Guardsmen, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in who
they are. In fact, if you stood a regular Air Force airman next
to them, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between
them.
So these full-time technicians have an important duty.
Mostly, their concerns are ensuring that the part-time force is
well trained and able to do their job when they are tasked
either at home or overseas.
So if we were to lose a good portion of those in our force
structure, it would be devastating to the Guard, because they
provide such an important function of training and
administrating the part-time force, which is the real strength
of the Air National Guard.
Mr. Moran. So it is interdependent, you are telling us,
this civilian workforce?
General Clarke. Yes, sir. We are very keenly aware of the
issue if we weren't able to retain our dual-status technicians.
And last year's furloughs significantly impacted us because
we were unable to conduct our normal training, which we took a
little deficit in training because they were furloughed and
during the government shutdown.
So our interest is in keeping them actively employed all
the time, because the way the Air Force works, the way the
Total Force works for the Air Force, we have to have those
individuals doing their jobs throughout the week to ensure that
our weekend training and other training opportunities go
without a hitch.
Mr. Moran. I see. Well, that is important to understand. I
appreciate that testimony, General.
Does anybody else want to comment on the civilian workforce
reduction?
General Lyons. Congressman, I would add our full-time
manning, specifically our dual-status technicians, really are
the foundation of our formations. They account for our
property. They maintain material. They provide administrative
support. So they generate readiness in our formations. So they
are absolutely vital to what we do.
I would also offer that reductions in those dual-status
technicians are accompanied by reductions in force structure,
because the two are tied together. So there would be a
corresponding effect there, also, in further reductions as
well.
Mr. Moran. General.
General Talley. Sir, thanks for the question. It is
particularly relevant.
In the Army Reserve, we are a traditional force. So without
our full-time manning, whether it is 12,700 military
technicians or almost 3,000 Department of Army civilians or our
AGRs, we might as well just shut down the Army Reserve and go
home.
And the reason being is they keep everything running. A lot
of folks don't realize that you want to process pay to get your
soldiers paid, just like a private company would. That has to
be done by those full-time manning after the battle assembly is
over.
We have an all-volunteer force. We have to make sure that
the training is planned well and ready to execute so, when they
come in for battle assemblies and collective training events,
we are not wasting their time. Otherwise, they won't stay in
our all-volunteer force.
The biggest way that you can generally save money is to cut
your full-time manning. The Army Reserve is only authorized
13.1 percent full-time manning, the lowest of any service or
component. The average for the Reserve component for the DoD is
19.4 percent. And, yet, I am the largest three-star command in
the DoD and the second largest command in the Army.
So as we start talking about budget cuts and how to pay
certain bills and there is discussion of reducing full-time
manning, it will have an incredibly negative impact on the Army
Reserve. I would de facto no longer be able to operate a
functional unit or functional capability if they significantly
reduce my full-time manning.
Mr. Moran. Okay. Thank you. That is very helpful to get on
the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
Ms. Granger.
C-130
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Thank you all for your service and for being here today. We
appreciate it very much.
General Talley, thank you for sharing that story about the
family. I know everyone here has had the same experience. I
have lost 37 from my district in these two wars, and I always
go out and visit the families.
And with not a single exception, without a single
exception, the families tell me how proud their son or brother
was in serving. And so that says a lot about what you are
doing.
I am concerned about the future of the Air National Guard
C-130 fleet. At this time I understand there are only two units
that are currently operating the new J model aircraft while 15
other States are operating the legacy H models.
And, as I understand the crew size, the training
requirements are different with the H and the J with
considerable difference in operating costs, also. So perhaps
most troubling is the possibility that all the legacy C-130s
will be grounded by 2020.
General Clarke, it seems to me like we are running out of
time to fix this issue. So what recommendations do you have to
continue to keep the very relevant C-130s going forward?
General Clarke. Congresswoman, the C-130s right now--they
are still in production. The C-130Js are coming off the line.
The Air Force is recapitalizing with the C-130Js. That is
one pathway, is to go after recapitalization with new airplanes
to replace the older H model airplanes.
But, in the meantime, as you pointed out, the time to do
that is short. And, yet, we also have other concerns with being
able to operate the aircraft in airspace that is going to
require some modifications.
So there are desires to have modernization to the H model
C-130s, which would be the second pathway, in order to ensure
that we can get to the recapitalization.
The current plan is, from my perspective, best if we find
what minimum modernization dollars are required to ensure
safety, reliability, and compatibility of those aircraft to
comply with combatant commander requirements, which requires
flying through international airspace and our own domestic
airspace.
If we can meet those with the dollars required to do that,
we can then move on to the recapitalization with newer C-130s.
That would be my true path of how we would make this a healthy
fleet.
Ms. Granger. Good. Would you keep us informed how that is
going forward?
General Clarke. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming in to testify.
General Lyons, good to see you again.
General Lyons. Good to see you, sir.
EQUIPMENT
Mr. Owens. We just had a nice recent visit.
In the testimony, you indicate that at the current time
your equipment readiness looks to me to be in the range of
about 90 percent, on average.
Is that, in fact, a true reading of where you are? And what
is the projection going out 5 years, particularly if we go back
into a sequester mode in fiscal year 2016?
General Lyons. Thank you, Congressman.
So there is two pieces to this. There is the equipment on
hand and then equipment readiness, and both of those are at
their highest levels that they have ever been.
And much of that is directly related to the work of the
committee in providing funds for us to modernize our equipment
and improve our equipment on hand through NGREA. So we are at
historic highs right now both in equipment on hand percentage
and equipment readiness.
So you asked about projecting out 5 years. My concern is,
as we look at--taking, for example, fiscal year 2015 and the
reduction in O&M dollars specifically that allows us to
maintain that equipment and creates an additional backlog on
maintenance and repair specifically, that readiness level that
we are at is going to degrade over time as a result of
reductions in those funding levels.
So it is difficult to project out 5 years. I do think it is
safe to say, though, that, at reduced funding levels in our O&M
accounts, that those readiness levels that you mentioned are
going to come down proportionately.
MENTAL HEALTH AND REINTEGRATION
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
As you have seen units deploy and return, are you being
adequately--or are the troops being adequately provided mental
health services in the communities in which they live as they
return from deployments?
General Lyons. Congressman, we are focused very hard on
that, about the effects of deployments, about the reintegration
of our men and women into our formations.
We try and approach this over the deployment cycle, what we
call it, so maintaining touch points with our men and women as
they are getting ready to deploy, staying in touch with their
families and the soldiers while they are deployed, and then,
when they return home at the 45-, 60-, and 90-day window,
having the opportunity to get face to face with those men and
women and do an assessment.
So we have dedicated full-time resources to that in the
form of directors of psychological health in the 54 States,
Territories, and the District. We have 78 of those hired today.
With thanks to the Congress and this committee, we have an
additional $10 million that has been made available to us. We
anticipate that that is going to allow us to double the number
of behavioral health providers in our formations. These are
master's-level, credentialed behavior health providers.
So we remain focused on it, Congressman, and we use every
opportunity that we have to interact with our men and women in
a geographically dispersed force during drill weekends, annual
training, and when they return home.
Mr. Owens. Are you having any difficulty recruiting
providers?
General Lyons. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Mr. Owens. The reason I ask that question is we had the
surgeons general in the other day for testimony, and certainly,
in rural areas, that issue of lack of providers is found both
in the civilian and the military population.
General Lyons. Yes, sir. And that is probably a fair
observation.
You know, as I mentioned, the directors of psychological
health that we have right now are in our Joint Force
Headquarters, which is the State headquarters.
It does stand to reason that, as you get out into more
remote communities, that that pool to draw on may, in fact, be
reduced.
But what I will do, sir, is I will take that for the record
and I will come back to you on the population that we are
drawing on to hire those personnel and get an answer on that.
[The information follows:]
The Army National Guard (ARNG) Psychological Health Program has 54
contracted Directors of Psychological Health (DPHs) and 24 additional
DPHs for identified high risk states. The DPHs are located at ARNG
Joint Force Headquarters, Offices of State Surgeons and other areas
deemed necessary by the respective state's adjutant general. This
program's approach is to leverage community capacity and access to care
in every state and territory to include rural areas. Because the ARNG
has only 78 DPHs to cover the entire nation, they must rely on local
community support agencies to assist and serve our ARNG population.
Access to qualified psychological health providers can be an issue
in rural areas not just for Army Guard Soldiers, but for the general
population as well. The ARNG's priority has been to focus our limited
hires in densely populated areas so that DPHs may be embedded as part
of multidisciplinary teams. Travel funds are provided so that they can
visit or serve our geographically dispersed population as needed.
Aside from face-to-face and telephonic support, the DPHs provide
crisis intervention, prevention, education and case management as part
of a larger multidisciplinary team. The contractor takes provisions to
ensure that the requirement is fulfilled to the quality standards set
forth by the contract and that services are provided on time and within
funding limits.
The ARNG is also in the early stages of building an information
technology infrastructure, to include a tele-behavioral health network,
to improve service to more rural areas.
Mr. Owens. And where they are geographically dispersed
would also be helpful.
General Lyons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Owens.
Mr. Crenshaw.
DOMESTIC REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here and for your service.
I want to ask about the size of the National Guard.
General Grass, I am sure you are aware that, when you talk
about restructuring and reducing the size not only of the
active services, but the Guard and the Reserve, that causes a
certain amount of consternation back in the States.
And I can tell you, in a State like Florida where you have
an unusually active Guard not only in terms of defending us
abroad, but, also, meeting some of the needs--there was a time
when we had four hurricanes in a three-week period.
And so you couple that with the fact that, in a State like
Florida, it actually has the lowest ratio of Guardsmen to
population. I think we are number 54 out of 54.
And so my question is: When you meet with the Army to
decide about this restructuring and reduction, do you take into
consideration the different needs, the different States, the
different sizes, in terms of ratio to population? Questions of
readiness? Some States are more ready to go than other States.
Talk about the factors that went into those decisions.
General Grass. Congressman, two things that occur here when
we go through the analysis. And both my partners here could go
into great detail.
But the first one is, when we have to make a reduction
across the board, we work with the adjutants general. And we
have developed a model that we plug the numbers in on what the
reduction is, and it takes in the recent deployments, it takes
in the readiness accounts, it takes in the demographics.
But we always realize there has to be a baseline of command
and control units in place, because just having soldiers and
airmen in there doesn't accomplish the mission when it is time
to respond to a hurricane or any type of a disaster.
The second part, though, in addition to the model, that we
are taking a serious look at right now--and my plans chief has
been working on this for a year and a half with FEMA and with
NORTHCOM--is we have never been able to model for the States
what we call the worst night in America, you know, something
well beyond a Hurricane Katrina.
One of the exercises we are getting ready to run right now
is on the West Coast of the United States and California, an
8.2 earthquake, you know, in downtown Los Angeles or on the New
Madrid. So now we are modeling it.
We brought in the State plans, which are synchronized
between the National Guard and the local responders, and we are
looking at where the gaps and seams are in that. And that
should generate for the future the plans that we will build to.
And Administrator Fugate has been great supporting us on this,
giving us the ideas of the response time.
And we have 10 essential functions that we look at that we
use in just about every disaster. So we will be looking at how
those are positioned across the country. So a lot of work to do
to get to that.
Right now what we are working at is with the current round
of cuts and the number I mentioned under the Budget Control Act
and sequestration, of going down to 315,000 from--you know, by
the end of 2015, we are going to be down to 350,200 Army Guard
and about 105,000 Air Guard.
When we drop that low, I am very concerned about the
response times. We will still have people, soldiers and airmen,
that can move. We will have reduced command and control. And
the response times to get in and help is going to be longer.
COUNTER DRUG PROGRAM
Mr. Crenshaw. Quick follow-up maybe to what Chairman
Rogers----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Absolutely. Would you yield to me after
you are through the course of your questions, I have another
few questions.
Mr. Crenshaw. Absolutely.
Chairman Rogers talked about the counter-drug program, and
what is interesting is, I think we all agree it is a great
program, and while you don't always ask for the money, Congress
always puts money in. But the last couple years has been like a
hundred million dollars that expires, because it wasn't spent
and it wasn't transferred to another account.
Can you explain that?
General Grass. Congressman, one of the problems we deal in,
and most of that money comes in, in pay-in allowances, so like
last year we got the money in June. Our fiscal year ends at the
end of September, so we had to cut back at the start of the
year because we didn't have the money to keep people on duty.
Then when we got the money, now you are looking at trying to
hire people to come in, and you got to get them trained up, and
we ended up running out time to spend the money. It was hard
to--it was about 130 million I think last year that we had to
try to use, and we didn't want to waste it in any way. We
wanted to make sure it was used effectively out in the
communities with each state.
But it is that up and down that makes it very difficult.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Would you yield to me? I just want--my
predecessor told me once, and tell me, General Clarke, does the
Air Force Guard have any C-130s in Florida?
General Clarke. I'm sorry sir, does the Air Guard have?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Any C-130s in Florida.
General Clarke. No, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. That is pretty amazing. I don't want to
add on to your anxiety, but that workhorse would be, I think,
pretty valuable in a state that has faced you know so many
incredible crises.
Ms. McCollum.
DUAL STATUS
Ms. McCollum. First off, on the dual status I am really
glad Mr. Moran asked the question. It is something that has
been on my mind to kind of get out on the table because I am
intimately familiar even as a young child what dual status
meant, to a family, what it means to our military, and what it
means to our Department of Defense. And I bring that up because
right after 9/11, there was a lot of confusion as people were
getting called up in the Guard, you know, with dual status.
Which health care plan is my family on? Which health care plan
am I on? And it was a real mess, and a lot of people when we
called up and picked up the phone and started talking to
people, even in the Pentagon, didn't know what we were talking
about, so I hope that that protocol or whatever got put in
place that has finally been working for those dual status
people, remains in place and remains refreshed and kept up to
date.
Because if they are called up again, I would hate for us to
have to go back and have those families go through the struggle
that they were and have that service man or woman being
deployed wondering whether or not when they were leaving if
their family had health insurance or if they were going to be
in an insurance gap which many of them were afraid they were
going to be.
READINESS
And, Mr. Chair, I hear the committee loud and clear; and to
kind of sum up I think what we are going to be working on is,
as my grandmother said, when you borrow or use something, you
return it in good condition, maybe even better condition; and
so I think we want to make sure that our guards are at that
point and then to make sure that our guards are equipped.
I know when Minnesota's National Guard wasn't any different
than any of the other National Guards when they didn't have
enough equipment, when they didn't have enough body armor, when
they were being deployed and our men and women tend to have
either white for snow training or green for forest training, so
they weren't the right camouflage color when they were leaving
and so those kinds of things I hope that this committee working
with you will keep up on.
SEXUAL ASSAULT
What I would like to ask the National Guard about is
military sexual assault because the Guard has a very, very
unique role as well as the Reserves do with the people who are
involved in your units. The Pentagon has reported about 5,400
instances of sexual assault or unwanted sexual contacts were
reported in the military last year, which was a 60 percent rise
from 2012. This is a disturbingly high number, and there is
ongoing investigations and new revelations of misconduct and
sexual assault within the ranks, and that is the very issue
that this committee takes very seriously and wants to see
addressed.
The Guard, because in many ways the way people enroll; it
is families, it is friends, it is cousins, it is neighbors, it
is people you went to high school with, people you work with, I
mean, these really are family, community-based units.
So one of the questions I had asked Mr. Lyons is kind of
like how does the Guard address this, and has this been a
problem in the Guard? Speaking to Guards women who have been
activated and one reservist, the attack that was perpetrated on
him was not by a fellow guards person or a reservist. It was a
person in quote-unquote ``traditional active duty.''
So could you tell me what kind of programs you are looking
at. What do you think you need to do to better to address
sexual assault, but foremost, I would like you to answer a
question. How do you treat sexual assault? Because you don't do
things within the command and within the ranks, do you not? Do
you not turn them over usually to outside prosecutors?
Who would ever like to go first?
General Grass. Congresswoman, let me start by saying that
this is a serious problem that we all take extremely, extremely
seriously. And I would tell you that as a member of the Joint
Chiefs, we spent quite a bit of time on this topic, and one of
the things we have done within the National Guard is I have
made it clear to my counterparts on the Joint Chiefs that we do
have some issues that are different, and we have to address
them differently.
So if we have someone on a drill status on a weekend and a
sexual assault occurs and the state does not have a uniform
code of military justice, their only tool may be to turn to a
local prosecutor, and we find that unless there is strong
evidence, if alcohol is involved, they will normally not take
the case. So what we want to do is provide a better legal
framework for that, so we stood up about two years ago and
started training, and it is our Office of Complex
Investigations. They are trained legal members from the Guard,
and they are from other states. We are up to 92 now that have
been trained at Ft. Leonardwood. All it takes is a call from
the state, and we will send them in.
The nice thing about our team is that they can come from
another state. They can walk in. The victim doesn't have to
know the person, where inside the state the victim may know the
legal framework there, the legal representatives.
So, we are very, very committed to doing this, the 92. We
sent the teams out to states, we write the report. Some states
do have a Uniform Code of Military Justice under the governor
and under the adjutant general, and they are taking action as
these cases come forward.
Soon, within probably two weeks, I will be able to sign off
on a special victims council program that the Army is going to
be giving us approval for. I know the Air Force has already
given the Air Guard, so you have a special council for the
victim in hometown America. So, we have a lot of actions
underway, and we need to continue to hammer this home.
What we are seeing right now is possibly an increase in the
number of reporting, but what we are also seeing is some of
those reports were two, three years ago, or even before the
person got in the military. So we think we are making a
progress toward people being comfortable to report so we can
get after the problem.
Ms. McCollum. Would you say in those states where you turn
it over to the state, it is outside of the quote-unquote that
what being is discussed here, the ``traditional chain of
command'', has that influenced or weakened the Guard in any
way?
General Grass. Ma'am, I would have to go back and look at
the statistics on it.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Lyons.
General Lyons. Ma'am, I might offer that in those
circumstances where you are talking to is, the commander of the
unit will still take action based on the results of the
civilian prosecution. So a unit commander, if a perpetrator is
convicted in civilian court, the unit commander is going to
take action on the military side as a result of that
conviction, so there still is involvement.
You know, we have applied full-time resources towards this
issue. We have 95 special--I am sorry, sexual assault response
coordinators and full-time victim advocates in the states,
territories and the District. We have also trained 2,400
collateral duty victim advocates to push down advocacy for
victims to the lowest level that we can across our formations.
So, you know, it is kind of the three lines of effort here that
General Grass talked to which is prevention, making sure that
we are ensuring that we have a culture of dignity and respect
in our formations where our men and women feel safe and secure
and can participate to their fullest potential.
We use the Office of Complex Investigation, we partner with
local law enforcement, and then we hold accountable through the
mechanisms that General Grass talked about.
Ms. McCollum. So to sum up, would it be fair to say in
areas where you know, these acts are committed within the
United States, within a state, turning it over as a criminal
matter, to the state, in doing the dual track, and still doing
the discipline within the military, that that has not affected,
weakened, or diminished your chain of command?
General Grass. Ma'am, I can tell you that, again, going
back to the Joint Chiefs, we have had many conversations about
this.
Ms. McCollum. I am not asking the Joint Chiefs. I am asking
you folks. I am asking the Guard, and I am asking the Reserve.
I have heard from the Joint Chiefs.
General Grass. Yes, ma'am, and taking the commander out of
the loop is the wrong thing to do. We need to hold them
accountable for this and give them the tools.
Ms. McCollum. Sir, I didn't say to take the commander out
of the loop. I still said that the military can go forward and
do its thing. I asked if prosecuting this in a criminal court
in any way, I mean, that is what you are doing now in most
cases, so are you saying your chain of command has been
weakened over these past years in the way that you have
conducted your sexual investigations and turned things over?
General Grass. No, ma'am.
Ms. McCollum. Okay.
General Grass. We have not.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
SEXUAL ASSAULT
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just for the record if you will yield,
we put $25 million in there, not only for the regular military,
but for the Guard and Reserve, and we assume that part of that
money is being used towards making sure these situations do not
continue.
Let me associate myself with Ms. McCollum. I think all of
us do. We are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I mean, my point simply was, is
that right now the Guard, if there is a crime committed, they
prosecute it when they can in the regular, traditional criminal
court system, and then they still have their ability to punish
and to discipline within the military system; and so that is a
system that has worked well for women all across this country
and for men who have been assaulted as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
Mr. Cole.
STRATEGIC U.S. OPERATIONAL RESERVE
Mr. Cole. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank you gentlemen for your service.
And I apologize for arriving late, but as we all know, the
committee schedule is pretty hefty right now.
You may have covered some of this in your testimony. I want
to direct my question to General Grass and also General Talley
at least initially.
When I first came to Congress, it was in January of 2003
and before Iraq but just before, and I was really incredibly
impressed with the Guard and the Reserve and the manner in
which they responded. The assumption at that time was very much
that the Guard and Reserve were just that, a strategic Reserve;
but to watch them transform themselves into an operational
force as quickly as they did and over the amount of time that
they have is pretty amazing.
And it is clearly, you know, an extraordinarily important
part of when we go to war now as to whether or not the Guard
and Reserve are capable of doing that with that kind of speed.
What concerns, if any, do you have if we were to revert to
the sort of 2001, 2002 strategic Reserve model as opposed to
being what I think you are today, which is an exceptionally
capable operational force?
General Grass. Congressman, it would be very unfortunate
for the United States of America and the governors of the
states. I have had a chance in the year and a half on the job
to visit 27 states, 7 countries, where our men and women were
serving. Last week I was in Afghanistan.
This force in the National Guard, both at home and
overseas, is something I have never seen in my 44 years in the
Guard, and I would tell you that my biggest concern is as we
draw down and we draw down the resources, these men and women
will look for something else to do, and we will lose that
strength, that capability.
Last week a town hall, in Camp Leatherneck, talking to
guardsmen that were right there on the point of the spear,
helping to tear down the facilities, and I asked them, are you
being deployed too much? They looked at me and said no,
predictability is good but, no, we want to be a part of
something bigger. If we know that the numbers are going to come
down, when you get us back home, you better give us dynamic
training. You better keep our weekend drills dedicated to
taking our time and giving us the skills we need because we
know based on what is happening to our military, if something
happens in the world, we are going to have to go quicker, so we
want to be ready quicker.
General Lyons. Sir, and if I can add. Oh, I'm sorry,
General Talley. Go ahead.
General Talley. You know, as we look at this post 9/11
generation, you know, 87 percent of our Army guardsmen have
joined since 9/11, so they have grown up in this operational
tempo, this operational Reserve that we are all accustomed to.
I use my own family as an example. My spouse is in the Guard.
My stepson is in the Guard. My middle son is in the Guard. So
four deployments between us.
Mr. Cole. Are they all married?
General Lyons. What is that?
Mr. Cole. Are they all married?
General Lyons. One is, sir.
Mr. Cole. Very understanding spouse.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Make sure that gets in the record.
General Lyons. Nearly 50 percent of our Army guardsmen and
women are veterans, and so as General Grass highlighted, the
challenge is we have to keep them engaged. We have to provide
them the operational opportunities that are out there either in
training or in operational missions, things like combat
training center rotations which are the culminating training
events that we have, the opportunity to serve overseas,
continue with their state partnership program, remain engaged
because as he so rightly said, if we don't offer those
opportunities to develop our leaders of the future, my fear is
as the acting director, is that they will decide they have
something better to do with their time.
They feel value, they feel contribution in what they have
done over the last 13 years, and they are eager to do more.
That is the sense that I get from our men and women that serve.
Mr. Cole. General Talley.
General Talley. Congressman, thank you for the question.
Like General Odierno and Secretary McHugh, my biggest
concern is if we ever ask a soldier to go do a mission and they
are not properly trained, resourced and led. And I think if
they are properly trained, resourced and led, it doesn't matter
what component they are from.
But for the Army Reserve, as the Army has morphed and
changed over the years, and we have become de facto, almost all
of the enablers for the Total Army because most of our regular
Army is the tooth, and the Army National Guards are in many
ways a miniature version of big Army, but almost all of those
enabling skills that we need to support those combat missions
are in the Army Reserve. So our demand signal stays the same in
the Army Reserve, whether we are no longer executing named
operations, combat operations, or when we are switching to
contingency operations.
So we have got to be ready. Well, those contingent missions
may not require us, afford us the flexibility of going to a MOB
site. You may have to go right away, and so for, us it is all
about readiness. It is making sure that as the resourcing goes
down, we have got to have enough OPTEMPO, money and resourcing
to keep those enablers ready because we provide that support
not only to the Army but to the total force.
Thanks for the question, sir.
BUDGET PROCESS
Mr. Cole. Oh, no. Thank you.
One other quick question, and the answer may not be too
quick, but obviously we have heard a good deal of debate and
discussion about the differences of opinion over air assets and
what is happening given what we are all going through a very
difficult downsizing and readjustment.
Are there other areas that particularly concerned you
beyond that, in terms of the decisions that are being made
right now, and are you comfortable that in the decision-making
process you have had the opportunities to state your case and
work back and forth with the regular Army and regular Air
Force, what have you, to, you know, just to work through this
together and come to common solutions to joint problems.
General Clarke. I can go first because I have got the easy
part of this discussion.
Yes, sir, absolutely. Working with the Air Force senior
leadership unquestionable, the outstanding collaboration we
have with the senior leadership is their--I mean, they pull us
into every decision. They want to ensure that we have an
opportunity to voice our opinions.
Remarkably this year, this past year, was the first time
that the Air Force asked adjutants general to be a part of the
programming decisions, to sit there and give their voices and
let their voice be heard. They were representing all of the
adjutants generals out there for the broad issues, but they had
an opportunity to inject their opinion. And it was quite
helpful, I think, I think General Welsh really appreciated them
being there for the discussions.
So for us it is working very well, and I think in the
future, particularly under Secretary James and General Welsh we
can look forward to more of that.
Mr. Cole. All right.
General Lyons. Sir, I am concerned about the impact of
budget reduction specifically into fiscal year 2015. We compete
in the same Army processes for budget decisions, so where I see
the risk that we are going to assume here is specifically in
the readiness of our formations.
As we look ahead to fiscal year 2015, in terms of
operations tempo, our ability to resource combat training
center rotations will not be there. The rotations may be
scheduled, but the funding both in pay and allowance and
Operations and Maintenance to support that is not there. We
will see impact in our base operations support, which is
support for everything we do across our armories across the
Nation there. We will see risk in our sustainment, restoration,
and modernization accounts. So as I talked in my opening
statement about the average age of our facilities being about
44 years, and there is variances in that across the Nation, as
things break, our ability to repair them, we will continue to
defer that maintenance over time here, and so when you have an
old facility and you are deferring maintenance it just
exacerbates the issue and that reduces our readiness. We will
see impacts in our depot maintenance as well.
But, what I am very concerned about is our ability to,
again, engage our men and women and sustain the leaders that we
have that have been honed over 13 years of hard fought and hard
won experience, but also build that next generation of leaders
and so our pay and in allowance and our O&M accounts directly
contribute to our ability to do that, and so that is an area of
concern.
FORCE STRUCTURE DECISIONS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Very briefly, because I want to give Mr.
Aderholt a chance to put his marker down here since he is been
very patient. Maybe you don't have any.
Yes. General Talley.
General Talley. Sir, quick response.
I have direct access to Secretary McHugh and General
Odierno daily. I can get to see them any time I want and I
have, particularly as you might guess on the issue of end
strength and the force structure. What I ask the boss is, it is
really how do we properly balance our Army, light, medium,
heavy forces, Active Guard and Reserve, and how do we assume
risk and provide the cost savings that we have to provide to
the Secretary of Defense? The only thing I have asked the boss
to do is allow me to make those recommendations to you as to
how we might downsize the Army Reserve and how I can provide
the cost savings to you. The boss has allowed me to do that.
There has been a loss of discussion, a lot of give and take. At
the end of the day, though, I pitch my case to the boss, he
makes the decision, and then makes that recommendation to
Congress. He has allowed me to do that.
General Grass. Congressman, if I could, one of the toughest
issues that we have to deal with in the Department of Defense,
is finding the right mix between our active component and our
Reserve component, and of course we just went through that with
the Air Guard, and I think we have come up with a very good
analytical way ahead. The way we have formed a team of task
force continuation, stood up by General Welsh, is really
helping to inform the metrics that go into that so we get it
right for the Nation. I think we have to do the same thing
inside the Army.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Cole.
Mr. Aderholt.
HUMVEES
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I will be brief here.
The National Guard has consistently included modernized
Humvees among their top priority funding priorities, and
funding was included fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 to
establish a multi-year program to modernize the rapidly aging
fleet. I am aware that the partnership between the Army
National Guard Bureau and industry has yielded an effective
public/private partnership to rapidly fill like-new vehicles to
Guard units nationwide as part of this program.
The question would be what kind of impact will these
upgrades have on the Guard's ability to perform its mission?
General Lyons. Thank you, Congressman.
It has direct impact, and I want to thank the committee for
their generous support in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014
for providing those dollars that does exactly what you just
talked about, which is modernized legacy fleets of our wheeled
vehicles. We have a vital of variance of Humvees in particular,
and so those dollars are going to continue to allow us to
modernize those vehicles, and so that has a direct impact on
our readiness both for overseas missions and our domestic
missions at home.
Mr. Aderholt. Let me just follow up.
As we are looking for fiscal year 2015 funding, what impact
would additional funding have in respect to the Guards'
initiative to upgrade the Humvees?
General Lyons. Thanks, Congressman.
We still continue to have legacy variants of our Humvee
fleets, so we would look to continue to modernize.
General Talley. Sir, thanks for the question.
Like the National Guard, we have an aging Humvee fleet, and
one of the areas that we would like to see if it is potentially
possible to get additional resourcing would be how do we
modernize those Humvees, particularly as it relates to ground
ambulances? I own approximately 59 percent of the doctors and
nurses for the Total Army, the Guard was able to get some
additional funding last year where they can convert some of
their Humvees into ground ambulances, great initiative, we
would like to do exactly the same thing because there is no
program or record fix for that.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Ms. Granger [presiding]. Mr. Visclosky.
MOVING FROM ACTIVE SERVICE TO THE GUARD
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
General Lyons, you had mentioned that about 50 percent of
the Guard members are veterans. To what extent do you think
there are still, and General Talley, you may want to address
this as well.
Bureaucratic barriers for soldiers moving from active
service to the Guard as well as the Reserve, that we could
expedite this because obviously you do have that training, you
have got that expertise, desire to serve. Are there things that
can improve that flow of talent?
General Lyons. Thank you, Congressman.
We do want to capitalize on the opportunity to have serving
active component soldiers, transition seamlessly into the Army
National Guard. As we speak we are engaged in a pilot program
called AC to RC, Active Component to Reserve Component. So I
have career counselors at Ft. Hood Texas that engage early on,
and so as an active component soldier is making a decision to
come off of active service, typically that engagement would
occur anywhere from three to six months from that decision to
leave.
What the AC to RC program will allow us to do is to extend
that window out to about a year where that active component
soldier gets exposed to the opportunities both in Army National
Guard and the Army Reserve early on in the process, and then
the second goal of that program is if that service in the Army
National Guard requires a change of their military occupational
specialty, that they make that change while they are on active
duty, so the end result is the active component delivers a
trained soldier into the paragraph and line number in the Army
Guard formation, and so we have readiness that is maintained.
Mr. Visclosky. With the skill that is needed?
General Lyons. Yes, exactly sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Yeah.
General Talley. Sir, just to piggyback on that, what we
need to do is, the regular Army has got to draw down in it is
force structure and obviously the decision has been made to
draw them down at a greater rate than that of COMPO 2 of the
National Guard and COMPO 3 of the Army Reserve. We have got to
emphasize soldier for life here. Soldier for life is not
leaving the regular Army and becoming a civilian. It is serving
in the regular Army, one of our great Army national guards or
in the Army Reserve.
So to promote that, we have to actually extend our AC to RC
program which is a regular Army program, even more. We have got
to go more than a year out. We need to say how do we take
soldiers that are quality soldiers, combat men and women,
veterans, allow them to leave the active Army early and then
finish their commitment in the Army Reserve or Army National
Guard as we pull, not push them from our force, the regular
Army force, and then train them in a career using in our case
the Army Reserves and Employers Partnership Program, which was
the initial program that eventually became Heroes to Hire for
OSD.
Thanks, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Is that, if you would, a pilot as well in a
sense?
General Talley. The pilot program that is being implemented
right now, that we are testing at Ft. Hood, was really a
discussion between the active Army, the Army Reserve, and the
Army National Guard at Ft. Hood. It is allowing us to go in
using Army Reserve and Army National Guard resources to pull
folks, or to get with them a year in advance. My argument is I
still don't think that is far enough. We got to go more than a
year in advance because by the time they get to the transition
point, they have already kind of made their mind up, and what
we want to do is be able get them earlier and to allow them to
understand that there may be a way that they can start training
into a different MOS, occupational specialty, that would allow
them a more viable civilian career transition.
General Odierno has got a cash flow issue. He has got to
get cash flows quicker. He is going to have to draw down
quicker than perhaps he might like. We could take advantage of
that and help the rest of the Army by a more aggressive AC to
RC program.
Mr. Visclosky. You mentioned the pilot program as well as
what you are doing in Reserve. We are going to hold a hearing
about a year from now. Will the pilot program be completed?
Will you have a better assessment as to whether this will
facilitate and ease that movement of talent?
General Talley. Short answer is yes, sir. The Army G1
Howard Romberg, we are anticipating we should be able to get
some sort of metrics in terms of whether or not it is going to
work or not, we hope by mid to late summer, and then the idea
is if we do we want to then expand that across all of the major
military installations to capture the AC to RC.
And a point that I made earlier this morning is we also
need to break down the barriers for the other services. In
other words, if you serve in another service and you want to
come into the Army, right now often we make you repeat basic
training. I don't know why we do that, but we are trying to get
that policy changed.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. And the pilot program, when will that
end, General Lyons?
General Lyons. Sir, I would like to take that for the
record because I am not sure on that, and I want to give you an
accurate answer.
[The information follows:]
The AC2RC 365 Pilot Program at Ft. Hood is a one-year program. The
program has yet to be implemented, but is expected to be implemented by
the Active Duty within the next few weeks.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT
Mr. Visclosky. If I could, I would like to draw your
attention to two accounts, one from my perspective very
ephemeral, the opportunity, growth and security initiative
account, that I am assuming will be plussed up fully once we do
changes to entitlement programs and pass tax legislation this
year.
Do you have requests for your various services in that
account as a proposal, and just generally, yes or no? I am not
interested in specifics at this point.
General Grass. Congressman, we did submit unfinanced
requirements be included with the Department of Defense.
Mr. Visclosky. Let me ask then in conjunction with that
question about another account, and that is the National Guard
and Reserve equipment account that apparently somebody in the
administration forgot to put any money in for a request for
2015. If, in 2015 that account receives funding, would there be
items of particular interest to your services to be included in
that, and would any of those be also represented in that
opportunity, growth and security initiative request?
General Lyons. Congressman, first to the NGREA, again I
want to thank the committee for their continued support in
NGREA funding for the National Guard. It allows us flexibility
to procure items that you are getting at that we don't have in
the base budget.
Specifically in the Guard I just wanted to highlight the
ability to purchase critical dual use items of equipment, those
items of equipment that are good for the war fight as well as
our domestic missions, and thanks to the committee's support, I
am happy to report that we were at 83 percent in fiscal year
2010 in critical dual use equipment, and we are up to 93
percent in fiscal year 2014, and so that is directly related to
the committee's work. I want to thank you for that.
As you look ahead, we still have requirements. We have
heavy truck fleet requirements, purchase of the chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear. The CBRNE enterprise
equipment, general engineering vehicles, simulators to train
our force. So these are all examples that we would look to use
NGREA funding for in the future, sir; in addition to the Humvee
modernization that I talked about earlier with the additional
funds the committee has provided in 2013 and 2014.
General Clarke. Sir, yeah, my appreciation for the NGREA
funds. From an aviation perspective, again we found uses in the
dual use as well. But from a war fighting perspective, the
opportunities, we still use the targeting pods that we
received. It brought us up to the first string capability.
You know, in the National Guard we didn't have that
capability, but we were literally put on the first string when
we acquired that capability through NGREA funding.
The latest that I have seen is a modification to F-16s
where we have a center display unit. The difference in that is
trying to view something on a laptop over here, versus having a
60-inch TV right here for a pilot. That is a big deal because
your ability to discriminate where the enemy is and
particularly where the perimeters might be, it is just a game
changer. We also have helmet mounted sights now. Remarkably
good equipment that allows you to, and from my experiences in
Iraq, if I look at something I can designate it with my sight
off of my helmet. One push of the button, all my weapons and my
sensors immediately go to that point on the ground. That is a
game changer.
So the NGREA has just been fantastic. But to answer your
question, sir, wherever there is a combatant commander
requirement that needs to be met, if NGREA helps with it, that
is very helpful, and we have a very good process--type process
through weapons and tactics conference to identify which
requirements are out there, and then we have a good process for
prioritizing which ones we are going to try to fund with NGREA.
General Talley. Short answer, sir. Yes on the UFR list. It
is already in. On NGREA, tremendous ability to help the Army
Reserve. We are going to reinforce success. We are focused on
simulation equipment and making the most of home station
training particularly as we have to come down in OPTEMPO as it
relates to travel money for example; and since most of our
force is enablers, we are focusing pre-marksmanship
instruction, familiarization of weapons systems, how to
basically execute trucks and convoy; and then when we do get on
the real machines itself and the real equipment, it makes it
quicker to train, it makes it safer. Tremendous value, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
UPGRADED APACHES
Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Gentleman, you are on your
game. We do put money in this committee on the NGREA account,
so it is good to hear that it is being properly utilized.
I have been trying to find out from staff, but since I know
General Grass has had 44 years service, and let me say is it 12
as an enlisted man, you may have this answer.
How many Apaches do we have in the Army; would you guess?
General Grass. We have in the Army Guard about----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I know the Army Guard. I just wondered
if you knew what the big Army has.
General Grass. 732 about.
General Lyons. Yes, sir, it is 732 with an acquisition
objective of I believe, 690.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So following up with Mr. Womack, who was
headed down this path here about the upgraded Apaches.
In the interests of full disclosure, this committee put
in--tell me if this is accurate General Grass, this committee
put in nearly a billion dollars to upgrade those Apaches for
the National Guard?
General Grass. Chairman, I would have to go back and check
that. We were talking to our lawyers today to try to find those
documents because they are critical.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think this committee put the money in
there specifically for the National Guard. You don't have to
talk to your lawyers. I think we can help validate that.
General Grass. Yes, sir.
CYBER ACTIVITIES
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Though, I think this puts a point on our
discussion here.
Just sort of shifting gears a little bit here, if you look
at the overall defense budget, there are a few areas that have
sort of been plussed up, and God only knows we give credit to
our special operators for what they do. We may not know where
they all are at any given time, but I am sure some of you,
certainly the air component and others have been responsible
for their safekeeping and their air travel and other means of
getting here and about.
There is a greater investment in cyber activities. Has it
been determined, more importantly, have you shown your interest
with the powers that be of being part of that overall endeavor?
Guess that goes to you, General Grass. This is what we call a
softball.
General Grass. Chairman, first let me tell you, we have
spent a lot of time with General Alexander before he retired.
We do an exercise with him every year. We are going to do one
this year down at Quantico, Virginia, where we bring in
Guardsmen and women from across the state with cyber skills. We
have worked with the Army and the Air, and these gentlemen can
give you more detail on what specific units. But we are looking
and we are postured and ready to buy into structure as the Army
and Air National Guard have it offered to them by the Army and
Air Force. We just stood up our first computer protection team,
or cyber protection team. It is a 39-person team. We brought it
on full-time. They are going through their train-up and
certification. We brought those Guardsmen and women from across
the country. Tried to draw them from different states.
They will eventually go to Ft. Gordon, Georgia. The intent
would be as they get up to speed, we would actually eventually
send them back to their states. We are hoping to draw an
opportunity to fill future cyber protection teams and possibly
put one per FEMA region in the future. We are working very
closely with R cyber and F cyber.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, don't hide your treasure under a
basket. I think you have got a lot of amazing men and women in
all of your Guard and Reserve that can bring their brains and
education to the cyber issue, so I think you ought to promote
yourselves more.
I have, not a parochial issue, but I am interested in the
air wing at Atlantic City. They do some incredible stuff. There
is concern about the F-16 fleet. They cover a pretty broad
territory, so it is more than just a Garden State. They go up
and down the coast.
Where are we going, General Clarke, what is your priority
in your budget quest, and how do we keep the fleet in that
location and others around the country modern and relevant?
General Clarke. Thank you, sir.
The airmen at the 177th Wing, New Jersey, perform two
missions. One is a homeland defense mission, 24 hours a day.
They are on call to pick up any tasking that North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) would give them. But
additionally they trained to the air expeditionary force as
well. So one day they could be tasked with a mission to support
the homeland, and the next day they could be out the door going
to support an overseas contingency.
And they have done this multiple times, and they do it very
well mostly because they do it with experienced airmen. For the
airplanes themselves, the basic airplane, the Block 30 F-16s
that they are flying are in pretty good shape. We think that
because of the earlier Falcon STAR program and then the
equivalent Flying Hour program, how they are flown has extended
the life on these airplanes out for a good number of years. So
the basic airplane is good.
Unfortunately the budget difficulties, some of the
capabilities upgrades will be not forthcoming; but again with
NGREA and things like that, we are able to meet the combatant
commander requirements with the airplane once it does deploy
overseas. So I would tell you that one day we would like to see
new airplanes here, but in the meantime we are going to do the
best we can with great Airmen first of all, and then airplanes
that we have already put some significant funds into to make
sure they are good out through another 10, 15 years.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Mr. Womack.
MEDICAL READINESS
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to, you know, we have talked a lot about
equipment, and that is all well and good, but we are still a
very people-intensive organization as all of our services are.
So I have just got a random list of some topics that I would
like some kind of brief answers on.
You know, when I was serving, one of my biggest complaints
was the fact that I was always stuck with, for lack of a better
term, people that were non deployable. They were protected by
certain things, systemic things in the organization, and it was
the common complaint of my soldiers, is that they didn't seem
to have or were concerned about what I call upward mobility
through the ranks because a lot of people senior to them just
never seemed to kind of go away, and a lot of people that have
served a long, long time and this is no reflection on General
Grass, who has already been mentioned as having served a long,
long time. It is not that upward mobility that I am talking
about.
So, if we are going to see a reduction in end strength,
which it appears that we are, it would seem to me that the
pressure on the service to be able to create upward mobility is
going to continue to be if not a bigger--a challenge but a
bigger challenge, going forward. So when I look at things like
medical fitness, whether somebody is deployable or non-
deployable, MOSQ, NOVAL, those kinds of issues that scan the
surface of our personnel management system, what are you doing,
General Grass, and General Lyons, and I am sure it is something
that is important to the Army Reserve, too, what are you doing,
what is your vision for how we continue to create the
opportunity for the young people joining our force to be able
to achieve greater rank, and positions of responsibility
against a lower end strength?
General Grass. Congressman, first of all, great, great
support from this committee on medical readiness dollars and
our ability to run every year all of our men and women, both
Air and Army, through a soldier readiness process has paid us
huge events.
The Army and Air Guard today are running in the low 80s, I
think up to 85 percent.
General Lyons. Yes, sir, about 83.1 percent. We are the
highest of all three components today.
General Grass. Medical readiness, which was unheard of as
you know, before the war. We didn't have the resources. And the
dental readiness, back then a lot of folks didn't have dental,
and we had to wait until they mobilized and then we had to get
them fixed to go and that delayed time.
So what we are concerned about now though as the dollars
shrink, the medical and dental readiness are going to be the
first two we have got to watch close.
So if someone can't make that and can't meet that and the
resources are available, but they are going to have so slowly
shift to taking it out of their pocket and go to TRICARE Select
for Reserve, we are going to have to hold the line there
because we are going to have somebody like you said standing
right there ready to step in their place if they can't meet the
medical readiness.
COMBAT TRAINING
Mr. Womack. Combat training center rotations, it was
mentioned earlier. It is a capstone mission for or capstone
event for the Reserve components. I am deeply concerned, both
from the AC and the RC side, that we are not going to be able
to get our soldiers through these capstone events that are
basically the crowning achievement to assess their readiness to
deploy down range.
General Lyons. Congressman, I absolutely agree with you.
Our posture, the net effect as I said earlier, will be at
individual crew and squad level proficiency.
Combat training center rotations allow us to either come
out of the combat training center rotation at platoon or
company level proficiency which is where we need to be, so that
takes funding both in Pay and Allowance (P&A) and in O&M. We
can schedule the rotations which we have two scheduled for
fiscal year 2015 currently, but again, not the dollars to
resource those rotations so without that we are going to
continue to maintain a force at individual crew and squad level
training.
MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTY
Mr. Womack. Are we having any problem finding school slots
for those that are trying to become qualified in their military
occupational specialty?
General Lyons. I think I would answer it this way,
Congressman. We will take risk in our MOS qualification
opportunities and our special training opportunities, both of
which come out of O&M accounts and some P&A, so we will seize
every single opportunity we have, every single seat, to an MOS
qualified soldier. My fear is we may not have the money to
occupy that seat.
Mr. Womack. General Talley.
General Talley. Sir, on the seat requests, we are not able
to get enough seats to meet the requirements that we have. That
is not the real issue, the real issue is how do you fund, it
gets to General Lyon's point, how do you fund the per diem, the
travel, the salary, to get them to go to that event,
particularly as you have a decrease in training funds. A
challenge that I highlight frequently both within forces
command, the Army and also to the Congress is----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Could we just hold the testimony for a
moment.
There is a moment of silence up on the floor, and if we
would take a moment to recognize the loss of life.
Thank you.
Mr. Womack and then Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Womack. And I know exactly where General Talley was
going with his comments, so let me just say this and then I
will finish. I sense a perfect storm happening for our Reserve
components. We are seeing the effects of not having the funds,
perhaps not having the funds to ensure medical readiness, to
get the appropriate people in the right slots, to get them
through the combat center rotations. We are seeing issues with
regard to the platforms on which they would train and become
proficient and serve as an operational force down range, and we
already know that we are not doing some of the missions that
heretofore we were doing that were ideally suited, MFO as Sinai
as an example.
And so I just caution our country about putting our Reserve
components in a position where they are going to almost by
force to be not ready to do what this country is going to ask
of them at some point down the road, and I will get off my soap
box on it, but it is a great concern of mine. We are going to
continue to talk about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We share your concern, Mr. Womack.
Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple quick
points.
One, I truly support the Guards' counter drug program. I
think it is very worthwhile and we certainly have seen very
positive results in my congressional district. For General
Grass and Lyons, just so that my impression is either correct
or incorrect, it is my understanding and we have had a
discussion about Humvees. So, will remain a part of the fleet,
if you would, until about 2030. Is my impression correct.
General Lyons. I believe that is accurate, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay, and finally, Mr. Chairman, I would
point out while General Clarke has been in your position for 2
weeks, as I understand it?
General Clarke. One week.
Mr. Visclosky. You did a heck of a job, but I also
understand that General Lyons, during his long career, has been
able, up until today, to avoid having to testify before a
congressional committee. I think you did a superlative job. You
keep at this, you are going to get good.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. He is doing pretty well now.
Mr. Visclosky. He is doing terrific.
Gentlemen, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. On all of our behalf and to the men and
women you represent, the best of America, wherever they may be,
God bless you and thank you.
And the meeting stands adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Two questions submitted by Mr. Cole and the
answers thereto follows:]
Training and Simulation-Lease v. Buy
Question. What is the effect of sequestration on the Army National
Guards ability to maintain optimum levels of readiness?
Answer. Assuming Budget Control Act (BCA) funding levels return in
fiscal year 2016 and beyond, there will be significant impacts on Army
Guard readiness with far-reaching implications for overseas missions
and no-notice emergencies here at home. Our readiness to conduct
wartime missions enables the ARNG to execute domestic operations with
skill and efficiency. The ARNG will always respond domestically, but
due to lower levels of readiness in equipment, personnel and training,
and a greater dispersion of the force across 2,600 communities across
the nation, the response may be slowed.
In the near term especially the Chief of Staff of the Army has
previously stated that readiness levels will drop to ``unacceptable
risk'' under the BCA. BCA-level funding will require significant
additional cuts to force structure and end strength. The ARNG has been
instructed to plan to cut its force structure to 315,000. These funding
restrictions will impose reductions to facilities and full-time manning
across the nation. The Guard will also have to rebalance forces among
the states to maintain essential capabilities for governors' domestic
missions, a requirement which will produce further turbulence beyond
just the troops whose units are eliminated.
Future impacts of BCA can be foreseen from the impacts we saw
during fiscal year 2013. When BCA-mandated funding levels return in FY
16, the Army will again suspend Guard training and other operational
employments, leading to a loss of leader development opportunities.
Military Technicians may again be furloughed. OPTEMPO funding will
drop; CTC rotations will likely be cancelled. We can also expect an
impact on equipping, as any reduction in procurement by the Army will
be felt in the ARNG as well. BCA may also impact Depot-level overhaul
of equipment, limiting the availability of thousands of items of
equipment and creating a maintenance backlog which will take time and
money to address in the future.
Question. Though nothing substitutes for live training, can
simulators assist maintaining readiness levels? How do they reduce the
costs of live-fire training?
Answer. The Army National Guard (ARNG) continues to develop its
ability to integrate live, virtual, constructive and gaming training
aids, devices, simulations and simulators (TADSS) programs with the
ARNG Training Strategy. Simulators assist the ARNG in meeting
established aim points of our training strategy. TADSS play an
essential role in collective training exercises on our installations.
They support our role as an operational reserve and in meeting our goal
of providing units at the appropriate level of readiness in their
available year. Just as critical, TADSS also support our individual
Soldier training at home station, local training areas, and
institutions. The ARNG synchronizes the use of TADSS with Army Force
Generation (ARFORGEN) to improve unit training proficiency and ensure
combatant commanders receive trained units and proficient battle staffs
in the time available.
As an example, the ARNG achieves the training requirements of M1A1
Abrams and M2A2 Bradley equipped Brigade Combat Teams (BCT's) by using
the Conduct of Fire Trainer-Situation Awareness (COFT-SA) and the
Mobile-Conduct of Fire Trainer Situation Awareness (M-COFT-SA). The
ARNG's geographical dispersion of units led to the development of the
M-COFT-SA trainer as a mobile solution to meet training requirements.
The savings in utilizing these simulations is significant. The
estimated cost to operate an actual tank is $75 per mile. The estimated
cost to operate a Tank Driver Trainer simulator is $2.50 per mile.
According to the National Training and Simulations Association study
the Army saved $2.5M training 2,200 Armor Soldiers. That is a savings
of $1,136 per Soldier which equates to about 15 hours of training per
tanker. Further, in tank gunnery, the introduction of the Conduct of
Fire Trainer reduced the annual expenditure of ammunition from 134 to
100 rounds per tank while improving marksmanship. This resulted in an
annual cost avoidance of approximately $29M. A range of other studies
show that simulators are cost-effective for training and are a good
investment. The cost of their procurement can be amortized in periods
of one to four years.
Question. What kinds of simulation training does the Guard have?
What additional type of training could help maintain and sustain
readiness?
Answer. The Army National Guard (ARNG) uses virtual, constructive
and gaming simulations to train everything from the individual Soldier
tasks (such as weapons proficiency training, including day and night
fire) to collective unit tasks (such as command post exercises or
convoy trainers). The ARNG has a variety of simulations training that
we use to enhance unit readiness. An increased fielding of Training
Devices, Simulations and Simulators (TADSS) at home-station or company
level will increase proficiency and sustain unit readiness by reducing
travel time and increasing training time.
Question: The Army has several simulation programs of record,
including CCTT. Since this system entered the inventory, the Army has
spent nearly $2.3B fielding it. How many of these simulators does the
National Guard have in its inventory?
Answer: The Army National Guard (ARNG) variant of the Close Combat
Tactical Trainer (CCTT) is the Mobile CCTT. The ARNG has 12 M-CCTT sets
consisting of six Bradley Fighting Vehicles and six Abrams tank
configurations. One of the key challenges of funding the program is
concurrency, which is the ability to upgrade simulators to match the
specific capabilities of ARNG equipment. Funding is currently
insufficient to maintain 100 percent concurrency across the ARNG and
therefore program managers are required to prioritize sites for
resourcing.
Question. Knowing that Guard forces have a unique environment--high
geographic dispersion and a fraction of the annual training days--Is it
more cost-effective for you to buy Army POR or COTS systems? How does
the training experience compare?
Answer. The Army Program of Record (POR) offers a cost-effective
solution through the use of the Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System (JCID) process. Since the entire lifecycle is
integrated into the POR it can require a longer fielding time from
initial development. The Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) system
provides a rapid-fielding capability. However, a COTS may require
higher costs to sustain, elevates the risk of lack of interoperability
with existing systems, and may increase total lifecycle management
costs. Both procurement options offer the same training experience if
the training requirement is identical, but COTS is usually reserved for
a short term strategy to bridge to a program of record.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Cole.
Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the answers thereto
follows:]
Operational Requirements
Question. We are fortunate in the US to have a military structure
that allows us to maintain an active duty force along with a National
Guard provided by the states and territories. One aspect of the
National Guard structure is that we are able to have operational
capabilities without the burden of active duty pay and benefits during
a time of constrained budgets. There seems to be a point where we could
negatively take advantage of the Guard by placing too many operational
requirements on the Guard without providing the proper compensation.
How do we strike the right balance between the military
capabilities needed to achieve an active, ready status while also
properly utilizing the Guard?
Answer. In my conversations with Soldiers, Airmen and senior
leaders across the National Guard, I have consistently been told that
they are eager to continue to be employed in service to their country
and to their states. More than 80% of the Army National Guardsmen in
the force today have joined since 9/11. They joined with the
expectation of active employment, and as the conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan conclude, they continue to expect that they will receive
opportunities to deploy, conduct exercises with our allies and our
sister services, build partnerships with foreign nations, and challenge
themselves and their units at the Army's premier combat training
centers. Recruiting and retention in the force have been excellent, and
we have no indication that our Soldiers feel that they are being taken
advantage of by having operational requirements placed upon the Guard.
Rather, they seek to continue to be employed.
A proper balance of active and reserve capabilities will ensure
that the Army National Guard remains operational through sustained
manning, equipping and training, and is provided adequate resources to
achieve the required training levels. This balance also provides
operational and training opportunities for leader development, such as
for the peacekeeping missions in the Sinai and Kosovo, to the Horn of
Africa or as part of the air defenses of our national capital, to joint
and multinational exercises or as rotations to Combat Training Centers.
For our contingency missions, the Air Force strikes the appropriate
balance between active, ready military capabilities and the proper
utilization of the Air National Guard through our already in place 1:5
rotational structure and unit mobilization procedures. As a service, we
are moving more towards unit mobilization as this ensures the proper
compensation takes place. Involuntary mobilization also triggers our
deploy-to-dwell tracking program, ensuring units and individuals do not
arbitrarily exceed the 1:5 rotational construct we have put in place.
The 187 FW in Montgomery, AL provides a great example of utilizing the
involuntary mobilization construct in order to provide the proper
compensation to the Air National Guard when filling critical Air Force
operational requirements.
As we continue to explore the idea of placing more operational
capability in the Reserve Component, we should explore the barriers
which limit the daily use of Air National Guard personnel and
equipment. These barriers currently force the Air Force to operate
within a paradigm that requires the use of full-time active duty
manpower to cover missions and capabilities that could be accomplished
more efficiently with a proper mix of full and part-time Airmen from
the Air National Guard.
The ANG state mobilization construct also creates efficiencies with
our dual-use personnel and equipment making them available to Governors
and other Civil Authorities when not already tasked to federal
missions.
Moving force structure and manpower from the active component to
the reserve component provides an opportunity to meet demand with more
capacity due to the cost effective nature of the reserve component.
Combat forces within the Air National Guard are as ready and capable as
its active duty counterparts, but at a fraction of the cost. As an
example, a recent OSD CAPE report to Congress identified that an active
component F16 unit costs $81.9M per year as compared to an ANG F16 unit
at $56M per year.
Civil Air Patrol
Question. The President's FY15 budget request for the Civil Air
Patrol is well below the levels enacted in the FY14 omnibus. How do the
potential large cuts in the aircraft procurement account affect CAP's
future ability to perform key functions, such as disaster relief or
counterdrug and homeland security missions?
Answer. The differences between the fiscal year 2014 omnibus and
the fiscal year 2015 President's Budget request are the result of a
congressional mark for Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in fiscal year 2014. The
Air Force's portion of the fiscal year 2015 President's Budget request
was the baseline extension from fiscal year 2014 with no reduction in
the programmed request. The fiscal year 2014 markup enabled CAP to
purchase additional aircraft, supplementing their procurement for that
year, and placing newer aircraft in the fleet. The Air Force position
is that in this fiscally constrained environment, the fiscal year 2015
President's Budget request sufficiently supports CAP's future ability
to perform key functions, including disaster relief, counterdrug, and
homeland security missions.
The fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act requires
the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with CAP, to produce a
report on the optimum size, scope, and utilization of the CAP aircraft
fleet. Our agencies are currently engaged, in concert with our
stakeholders, on defining these requirements, which will further inform
our interagency strategy for future use of the CAP. The Air Force
understands and appreciates the value of our volunteer auxiliary, and
we will continue to work as partners in meeting the requirements of
federal, state and local officials for disaster relief, counterdrug,
and homeland security support.
Question. The Civil Air Patrol provides aircraft with high-tech
sensors, which greatly reduce the per flight hour costs. To what degree
do these savings, combined with utilizing CAP volunteers and other
assets, result in significant savings to the government? Are there any
disadvantages to utilizing these assets even more as compared to
government aircraft?
Answer. We know that utilizing the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in its
official Air Force Auxiliary capacity is fiscally responsible at a cost
of approximately $200 per flying hour. Civil Air Patrol's status as a
volunteer organization provides additional manpower savings to the
government. The Air Force is currently drafting a report required by
the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act to evaluate the
degree of potential savings that could be realized with an optimum
size, scope, and utilization of the CAP aircraft fleet. As the official
Air Force Auxiliary, we believe there is no disadvantage to utilizing
CAP's personnel and equipment for appropriate missions (e.g., disaster
relief, search and rescue, etc.), to support civil authorities when
CAP's capabilities are an appropriate substitute for military assets.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt.
Questions submitted by Mr. Carter and the answers thereto
follows:]
TACPOD
Question. Discussion: In fiscal year 2011, Congress
reprogrammed approximately $168MM to fund the Beyond Line of
Sight Command and Control (BLOS C2) initiative for a DoD
mission that was a Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) and Joint
Emerging Operational Need (JEON). A portion of that BLOS C2
effort was TACPOD. TACPOD is an agile communications bridge in
the sky designed to fly on MQ-9 Reapers and is designed to meet
the need to optimize the real-time distribution of Full Motion
Video (FMV) with a specific war-fighter requirement in mind.
TACPOD meets that warfighter need by bridging video beyond line
of sight from operators on the ground to decision makers
hundreds of miles away and back again. TACPOD successfully
completed full testing to a TRL Level 8 in July 2013, and was
due to deploy to theater, but a lack of MQ-9 assets has
prevented TACPOD from deploying despite in-theater requests for
the capabilities. The U.S. Air Force funded and tested TACPOD,
but with no assets available to fly the pods, the TACPODs are
in storage at Hanscom AFB in Massachusetts. Both the 147th
Reconnaissance Wing in Houston, TX and the 174th Attack Wing in
Syracuse, NY are flying, or soon will fly, MQ-9 Reaper UAVs.
Integrating TACPOD on to their MQ-9s will allow them to meet
their demanding BLOS C2 requirements.
Given that TACPOD meets both the need for BLOS C2 and
extended range requirements both in overseas and domestic
operations; how do you plan to implement TACPOD in your MQ-9
operations?
Answer. Air National Guard (ANG) MQ-9 Reapers have a robust
BLOS C2 capability in their current configuration.
If the Air Force develops a Concept of Operations (CONOPs)
for employment, the ANG will work to operationalize this
capability. Until such time, the ANG has no plans to implement
TACPOD in our MQ-9 operations.
Question. Do you plan on including TACPODS on your NGREA
list and putting them to use in FY15?
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) spends National Guard
and Reserve Account (NGREA) funds on validated Air Force and
Combatant Commander requirements vetted through a forum of
Reserve Component and Active Duty warfighters at our annual
Weapons and Tactics conference. If our MQ-9 warfighters
determine the TACPOD is critical to mission accomplishment in
the upcoming 2014 WEPTAC in October, and it meets validated
requirements, then TACPOD would be considered for FY15 NGREA if
Congress appropriates NGREA.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Carter.
Question submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen and the answers thereto
follow:]
Authority of the Chief
Question. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau is nominated for
appointment by the President, this officer has met the requirements as
determined by defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, under the advice and/or recommendation from their respective
state governors and their service secretary. The nominee is confirmed
by a majority vote of the Senate, and is appointed a member of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Currently, the Chief of Staff of the Army recommends the nominee to
be the Director of the Army National Guard. The Chief of Staff of the
Air Force recommends the nominee to be the Director of the Air Guard.
General Grass, if you and the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air
Force hold equal positions on the Joint Chiefs, then why do you not
make the nominee recommendation for the Director positions? Are there
other inequities that you, as a new member of the Joint Chiefs do not
equally share?
Answer. Under current law, the Secretaries of the Army and Air
Force select the Directors and Deputy Directors of the Army and Air
National Guard respectively.
The National Guard Bureau has been working closely with the
Department of Defense to ensure the position of the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau is afforded equal treatment in all aspects with
members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
U.S. Northern Command
Question. United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) is a Unified
Combatant Command of the U.S. military tasked with providing military
support for civil authorities in the U.S., and protecting the territory
and national interests of the United States within the contiguous
United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico. USNORTHCOM was created following
the September 11 attacks. In case of national emergency, natural or
man-made, NORTHCOM's Emergency Preparedness Directorate will take
charge of the situation or event.
General Grass, given your previous position as the Deputy Commander
of U.S. Northern Command, you are uniquely qualified to address this
commands role. Aren't the functions previously mentioned tasks that the
Guard does on a daily basis?
Answer. NORAD and USNORTHCOM have two primary missions--Homeland
Defense and Defense Support of Civil Authorities. Homeland Defense
missions such as Air Combat Alert, and Missile Defense are best planned
and executed by NORAD and USNORTHCOM under presidential control. To my
knowledge there is no Emergency Preparedness Directorate at USNORTHCOM.
The National Guard is primarily a part-time workforce under
Governor control. Long-standing relationships with civic leaders
throughout 3,000 communities nationwide enable the National Guard to
quickly respond to domestic emergencies in support of civil
authorities. The vast majority of the National Guard's domestic
response is done in state status and that makes the National Guard the
military first responder for the nation--which is a little different
than NORTHCOM's focus.
Question. Whether the functions are identical to the Guard's
homeland mission or not, would it not be beneficial for a Guard general
officer to be nominated for the Commander position at USNORTHCOM?
Answer. The USNORTHCOM Commander should be the best qualified
individual general officer based on experience, leadership and
judgment. 10 U.S.C. 164(e)(4) requires ``at least one deputy commander
of the combatant command the geographic area of responsibility of which
includes the United States shall be a qualified officer of the National
Guard who is eligible for promotion to the grade of 0-9, unless a
National Guard officer is serving as commander of that combatant
command.'' This provision ensures that, at a minimum, the Deputy
Commander of USNORTHCOM will have extensive experience serving in the
National Guard, providing the possibility of a National Guard general
officer to serve as the Combatant Commander.
An Army or Air National Guard nominee for the command of USNORTHCOM
would possess a deep understanding of the interaction of federal,
state, local and non-governmental agencies during a range of emergency
responses, an understanding forged over a career of working under both
federal and state command. Most senior Guard officers are veterans of
multiple state call ups, and those who have served as adjutants general
have served as cabinet-level officials in their states, many
responsible for managing emergency services. These experiences would
give a Guard general officer serving as the USNORTHCOM commander
valuable understanding and credibility when dealing with the Governors
with whom he or she must regularly work.
The bulk of forces which USNORTHCOM works with on a daily basis, as
well as those forces designated for USNORTHCOM alignment in major
contingencies, are drawn from the Army and Air National Guard. Together
the Army and Air Guard make up more than 50% of the reserve structure
in the Department of Defense. While exceptionally capable officers,
none of the commanders assigned to USNORTHCOM since its inception in
2002 have spent a significant portion of their career working with
National Guard forces or responded to a domestic emergency as part of a
state force.
Finally, assignment of a National Guard officer to this position
would be a further indication of the Department of Defense's commitment
to the Total Force policy, demonstrating that even the most senior
levels of command are open to officers regardless of component.
Commission on the Structure of the Army
Question. Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Cole (of this
Subcommittee) and others introduced a bill which was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services to establish a commission on the Structure
of the Army. This bill limits funding available to the Army in fiscal
year 2015 that would be used to divest, retire, or transfer any
aircraft or personnel (at levels below 350,000) assigned to the Army
National Guard. The Commission, appointed by the President, and the
Committees on Armed Services ``shall undertake a comprehensive study of
the structure of the Army to determine the proper force mixture of the
active component and reserve component, and how the structure should be
modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements
for the Army in a manner consistent with available resources and
estimated future resources.'' The Commission is to submit its report by
February 2016.
General Grass, what is your opinion on the results of the
previously commissioned Structure of the Air Force Commission and do
you believe that this was a worthwhile endeavor?
Answer. The Commission on the Structure of the Air Force has been
an unqualified success in providing an external evaluation and
perspective on the mix of active and reserve forces in the US Air
Force. It has provided a valuable roadmap forward for how the Air Force
should approach future force structure decisions.
We believe there is a great deal of symmetry between many of the
recommendations from the Commission on the Structure of the Air Force
and what our Air Force proposes for its way ahead. We are currently
working with the Air Force and the Air Force Reserve through the Total
Force Continuum Office to look at implementation strategies for the
NCSAF's recommendations. The efforts of the National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force were tremendous and provide a solid
foundation for helping the Total Air Force grow together and become
more efficient and effective in the future.
Question. The Committee understands that funding constraints will
mean that the Army will have to make significant changes to the end
strength and force structure across all three of its components. As
we've seen in the press, and have been briefed, there are varied
opinions about what those changes should ultimately entail. Most likely
you are taking all of this feedback into account as you ponder the
various options before you. However, I would specifically like to know
what you are hearing from the nation's governors, who serve as the
commanders-in-chief of the National Guards of their states and
territories on a day-to-day basis. What are Governors telling you, and
how is their input effecting the decisions you are making about the
future of the Army and the Army Guard?
Answer. The concerns of the nation's governors, as they have been
related to me personally and through the adjutants general, are
consistent with those expressed in the February 28, 2014, letter from
the National Governors Association to President Obama. The governors
recognize the need to reduce spending to meet budget obligations.
Governors are concerned, however, by the current proposed cuts to Army
Guard personnel and air combat capability. The governors have stated
that they want to see the operational capability of the Army National
Guard preserved, and expressed a desire to maintain the Army National
Guard at its pre-war end strength of 350,000--a level it is programmed
to reach at the end of fiscal year 2015. The governors also endorsed
the results of the recently concluded National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force and advocated for a similar review of the
Army's force structure and active/reserve mix.
Question. Generals, the Air Force has really endorsed much of the
findings of the Commission on the Air Force, especially the plan to
shift more capabilities and missions into the National Guard. Wouldn't
a similar Commission benefit the Army as we begin to restructure the
size of the Army?
Answer. If directed, we should not fear a critical examination of
our enterprise. Any Commission though should be prepared for a review
of the Total Army--not just one single component. We should look for
opportunities to review not just force structure and end strength, but
other significant issues such as mobilization processes as part of the
Army's Total Force Policy. We should be forward looking and incorporate
new global security threats as well as emerging vulnerabilities in the
homeland. The Budget Control Act (BCA) is still the law and we must
anticipate executing our missions within BCA funding levels. Therefore,
we should be prepared to answer any questions related to whether these
reductions contribute to; the erosion of combat capabilities; the
degradation of skill qualification; an increase in strategic risk to
our ability to execute Operational Plans; an acceleration in equipment
degradation; or, further degradation of an already aging
infrastructure.
From an Air Guard perspective, we believe our Air Force is going to
rely more, not less, on our National Guard and Reserves. This makes
sense from not only a mission standpoint, but from an economic
standpoint. We believe there is a great deal of symmetry between many
of the recommendations from the Commission on the Structure of the Air
Force and what our Air Force proposes for its way ahead.
The Air Force is actively reviewing the 42 recommendations and the
Air Force's Total Force Continuum staff is already working to implement
19 of them. Staffing action plans are being developed for the remaining
recommendations.
While the issues facing the Army and the Air Force differ to a
degree, the Air Force commission demonstrated the value of an outside
look at how a military service evaluates its strategy and force
structure to balance its components. To be of true value, any proposed
commission on the structure of the Army should, like the Air Force
commission, be a holistic review of all three components. In addition,
it should review the Total Army's ability to execute its requirements
under Budget Control Act funding levels.
Question. Generals, the Air Force has really endorsed much of the
findings of the Commission on the Air Force, especially the plan to
shift more capabilities and missions into the National Guard. Wouldn't
a similar Commission benefit the Army as we begin to restructure the
size of the Army?
Answer. The Army Reserve believes that a Commission like the one
used for the Air Force is unnecessary.
The Army has already carefully weighed force mix decisions,
including all three components of the Total Army. The Army has
presented a plan which includes input from the Combatant Commanders and
the Joint Staff, and has been reviewed by the Secretary of the Army and
Secretary of Defense. I have collaborated with Army Staff and our
position regarding force mix decisions is consistent. The Army Reserve
has been a full partner in the analysis of strategic requirements and
the development of budgets that balance the contributions of all
components. While the Air Force required a special commission to
identify what is best for that service and its components, a similar
commission for the Army is costly, unwarranted and unnecessary. The
Army has arrived at conclusions based on careful analysis that provides
the best security and value to the nation.
HMMWV Modernization Initiative
Question. This Committee strongly supports the National Guard and
relies on the expertise of our Adjutants General to help understand
their needs and challenges in meeting their mission. The Committee has
sought to provide units returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with the
proper equipment for training and responding to domestic emergencies.
One example of this effort is the HMMWV Modernization Initiative funded
by the Committee in both fiscal years 2013 and 2014. I want to commend
you and the Army for establishing an innovative public-private
partnership between industry and Red River Army Depot that will result
in state-of-the-art vehicles for Guard units across the country. These
like-new HIMIMWVs will produce significant enhancements in vehicle
capability at the lowest possible cost, while utilizing the expertise
of our partners in the defense industrial base. As this program has
taken shape, it is my understanding that the Bureau has identified an
even wider array of older HIVIMWVs that require modernization through
this process in order to fill near and longer term capability gaps in
Guard units.
Generals Grass and Lyons, given that the HIVIMWV will remain an
integral part of your vehicle fleet until at least 2030, can you talk
about how this program will help achieve greater levels of readiness
and mission success both here at home and in future contingencies
overseas?
Answer. Once approved, the Public Private Partnership (PPP) for
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) modernization will
take approximately 900 of the Army National Guard's (ARNG) armored
HMIMWVs and update them to incorporate the newest modification
improvements. The program also replaces HMIMWV chassis, reestablishing
them as new vehicles, and extending their life. In effect, it takes a
portion of the ARNGs I-IMMWVs and increases capabilities. This has the
effect of improving the readiness of this segment of the HMMWV fleet
for both domestic and overseas missions.
The ARNG is working closely with the Army to further modernize the
fleet and address the most urgent capability gaps.
Review of Reserve Mobilization
Question. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, has suggested the military review the ability of the reserve
component to mobilize quickly when needed. His comments are linked to
the possibility that active-component Army forces fall to 420,000 as a
cost-saving measure. His comments note that ``U.S. military response to
aggression most often begins in the air or maritime domains,'' but
usually concludes with a commitment of land forces. ``Therefore, our
QDR land forces will need to be even better organized, trained and
equipped for the full spectrum of 21st century challenges,'' he wrote.
``Moreover, since time is a defining factor in the commitment of land
forces, I strongly recommend a comprehensive review of the nation's
ability to mobilize its existing reserves as well as its preparedness
for the potential of national mobilization.'' One could interpret
Dempsey's comments as saying, ``a way must be found to access and train
the National Guard and Reserve more quickly than in the past.''
Generals, These comments would suggest that the National Guard
cannot perform at the same level as the Active Component and won't be
able to counter complex threats without a period of preparation prior
to deployment. In 2005 the National Guard made up about 43 percent of
the forces in Iraq and 55 percent in Afghanistan--and more than 50,000
Guardsmen responded to Hurricane Katrina. Could you please give me your
thoughts on those statements.
Answer. More than a decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan has
amply demonstrated the National Guard's ability to perform every
mission it was given. We are not aware of any metric maintained within
the Department of Defense that demonstrates Army National Guard units
performed at a lower level than units of the other Army components. In
fact, one of the most frequent comments made about our units and
Soldiers was that, once in the field, they were indistinguishable from
their active component and Army Reserve counterparts. We firmly believe
that this is true, and that it demonstrates the profound success of the
Total Army concept that the United States Army has worked hard to
achieve for decades.
Army National Guard units do require some period of preparation
prior to deployment, due to lower readiness expectations which compound
their cost effectiveness when not mobilized. The length of pre-
deployment preparation varies depending on pre-mobilization readiness,
the type of unit and its mission. Once validated, Guard units deploy at
the same level of readiness as their active component counterparts. The
Army has significantly reduced post-mobilization training time for its
reserve component units as additional investments were made in pre-
deployment readiness and post-mobilization training has been
streamlined. As a result, the number of post-mobilization training days
declined by 60 percent between fiscal years 2006-2012, and all but the
largest units assigned the most tactically difficult missions averaged
less than 45 days of post-mobilization training prior to deployment.
The Army National Guard will be as ready as it is resourced.
Due to the Army and Air Guard's dispersion across more than 3,000
communities, our experience working with local emergency responders and
the accessibility of the Guard by the governors for employment as a
state asset, the Army National Guard remains the military force of
choice for domestic response. Through Emergency Management Assistance
Compacts, governors can call on additional assets from neighboring
states to respond to complex catastrophes at home. The Army Guard can
do this even in the midst of a war because of the depth of domestic
response capability and capacity resident in its units. As your
question indicates, at no time was this capacity more evident than in
September 2005 when some 50,000 Army Guardsmen deployed to Gulf Coast
states in the space of a week, even though another 80,000 were deployed
overseas.
The Air National Guard is trained, equipped and resourced to the
same level of readiness as the Active Component. We are an essential
partner in the daily operations of the Total Air Force in all five core
missions: air & space superiority; intelligence, surveillance, &
reconnaissance; rapid global mobility; global strike, and command &
control. Last year, over 39,895 Air National Guard men and women
deployed to 48 countries as part of the Total Air Force defense of U.S.
national security interests. Additionally, Guard Airmen defended the
skies over our homeland and supported their deployed brethren through
U.S.-based ``reach-back'' capabilities including remotely piloted
aircraft operations and intelligence analysis.
Question. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, has suggested the military review the ability of the reserve
component to mobilize quickly when needed. His comments are linked to
the possibility that active-component Army forces fall to 420,000 as a
cost-saving measure. His comments note that ``U.S. military response to
aggression most often begins in the air or maritime domains,'' but
usually concludes with a commitment of land forces. ``Therefore, our
QDR land forces will need to be even better organized, trained and
equipped for the frill spectrum of 21st century challenges,'' he wrote.
``Moreover, since time is a defining factor in the commitment of land
forces, I strongly recommend a comprehensive review of the nation's
ability to mobilize its existing reserves as well as its preparedness
for the potential of national mobilization.'' One could interpret
Dempsey's comments as saying, ``a way must be found to access and train
the National Guard and Reserve more quickly than in the past.''
Generals, These comments would suggest that the National Guard
cannot perform at the same level as the Active Component and won't be
able to counter complex threats without a period of preparation prior
to deployment. In 2005 the National Guard made up about 43 percent of
the forces in Iraq and 55 percent in Afghanistan--and more than 50,000
Guardsmen responded to Hurricane Katrina. Could you please give me your
thoughts on those statements.
Answer. As the Chief of the Army Reserve, I cannot speak for the
ARNG but would only say that we are both a critical and vital component
of the nation's overall defense strategy.
As for the Army Reserves ability to respond--GEN Dempsey's comments
are spot on. The ability of America's Armed forces, Active Guard and
Reserve to respond to a domestic or global crisis is crucial to the
nation's credibility as a global power. To ensure that the Army Reserve
will always be relevant and ready, almost 10 years ago we embarked on a
strategy that sought to bring Army Reserve Forces to a higher state of
readiness prior to mobilization. This strategy working in coordination
with the Army's Force Generation (ARFORGEN) process now enables us
bring a significant portion of our force to a higher state of readiness
for a one year rotational period thus allowing the Army Reserve to
respond globally more rapidly than ever before.
During the past decade the Army Reserve has reduced post-
mobilization training time by 40%. As a result units have been
deploying much more rapidly. Fewer days at mobilization stations means
less days of mobilization and reduced expenditures for the Nation.
Army Reserve units now spend, on average, 41 days at
mobilization stations conducting post-mobilization training before
deployment. While some of our units spend as few as 7 days at
mobilization stations performing post-mobilization training before
deployment, others spend up to 62 days at mobilization stations
performing post-mobilization training before deployment. Training is
tailored based on theater requirements.
The Bottom-Line is--now more than ever we can and do ready and
deploy Army Reserve Forces more rapidly than ever before in the history
of our force.
Question. Generals could you please explain the federal role of the
Reserve Components. Would you say that the Army is trying to change the
fundamental structure of the Reserve Components by beginning to bring
combat arms out of the reserves and into the active component?
Answer. The federal role for the Reserve Components is articulated
in two places in the US Code. Title 10, US Code, Section 10102, states
the purpose of Reserve Components is ``. . . to provide trained units
and qualified persons available for active duty in the armed forces, in
time of war or national emergency, and at such other times as the
national security may require, to fill the needs of the armed forces
whenever more units and persons are needed than are in the regular
components.'' Congress further defined the purpose of the National
Guard in Title 32, US Code, Section 102: General Policy: ``In
accordance with the traditional military policy of the United States,
it is essential that the strength and organization of the Army National
Guard and the Air National Guard as an integral part of the first line
defenses of the United States be maintained and assured at all times.''
While modern combat has blurred the concept of ``front'' versus
``rear'' area troops, the traditional conception of the battlefield
Congress evoked viewed the first line defenses as those which are
directly engaged in combat. The Army National Guard proudly embraces
its long history of combat service from colonial times through the most
recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops have always been
in the first line defenses of this nation, and shall remain SO.
The Army has stated that the rationale behind the Aviation
Restructure Initiative is to meet the modernization needs for the Armed
Reconnaissance Helicopter. Additional reasons include higher
availability of active component forces for short notice missions.
Question. Generals could you please explain the federal role of the
Reserve Components. Would you say that the Army is trying to change the
fundamental structure of the Reserve Components by beginning to bring
combat arms out of the reserves and into the active component?
Answer. Title 10, US Code: the purpose of each reserve component is
to provide trained units and qualified persons available for active
duty in the armed forces, in time of war or national emergency, and at
such other times as the national security may require, to fill the
needs of the armed forces whenever, during and after the period needed
to procure and train additional units and qualified persons to achieve
the planned mobilization, more units and persons are needed than are in
the regular components.
The federal role of the Army Reserve is to provide trained,
equipped, ready and accessible Soldiers, leaders, and units to the Army
in support of Unified Land Operations, Combatant Commands, and the
Nation. Further the Army Reserve provides unique capabilities to the
Army and the Joint Force not present in the National Guard or Active
Component.
I cannot speak to what force structure changes the ARNG and the
larger Army are jointly contemplating nor can I say that the Army is
trying to change the fundamental structure of the Reserve Components
regarding combat arms. We have only a very small contingent of combat
arms. We have one light infantry battalion stationed in the pacific and
we are fully cooperating with the Army's plan to convert our 2 Attack
Helicopters to Assault Helicopter battalions. We are not divesting our
one infantry/combat arms battalion and the Army's Aviation Restructure
Initiative is in fact helping complement the Army Reserves core
competencies of combat support and combat service support.
I will say we are proud to be a part of the total force and would
point out our role in providing a significant portion of the Army's CS
and CSS forces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support & sustainment capabilities USAR % ARNG % AC %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAG.................................... 94 6 0
Chaplain............................... 80 20 0
Civil Affairs.......................... 77 0 23
Military History....................... 75 22 3
Quartermaster.......................... 66 16 18
Mil Info Spt Ops....................... 61 0 39
Postal & Personnel..................... 61 0 39
Medical................................ 59 16 25
Information Ops........................ 48 43 9
Chemical............................... 43 35 22
Transportation......................... 43 39 18
Public Affairs......................... 41 45 14
Engineers.............................. 30 47 23
Military Intelligence.................. 26 20 54
Military Police........................ 24 45 31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proud to be the nation's most economical force. We
Provide 19% of the Army Force for 6% of the Army budget.
The Bottom-Line for the Army Reserve is that we are proud of our
role in providing critical and key enablers to the total force and we
continue to thrive in our role as the major provider of unique
capabilities for the Total Army and Joint Forces.
Proportionate Cuts Versus Strategic Cuts
Question. The Department of Defense is making hard decisions about
programs and cuts throughout DOD, however the Committee is concerned
that these decisions are often being made based on fairness and
proportionality rather than strategy and cost.
Generals, would you address whether the services can retain more
capability in the reserve components than in the active component at a
lesser cost?
Answer. Numerous studies both internal and external to the
Department of Defense have consistently found that reserve component
forces provide both military capability and capacity for the nation at
a substantial savings. In its December 2013 report to Congress, ``Unit
Cost and Readiness for the Active and Reserve Components,'' the Office
of the Secretary of Defense established that an Army National Guard
Brigade Combat Team costs about 24% of an active component BCT when in
dwell (that is, when not mobilized). The same OSD report establishes
that, even when mobilized to full-time active duty for a year, a
reserve component service member costs 85-90% of his or her active
component counterpart, due to differences in benefit availability and
utilization as well as retirement compensation. The Reserve Forces
Policy Board calculated the fully burdened cost of a reserve component
member to be about 31% of an active component member. Further, Combat
forces within the Air National Guard are as ready and capable as its
active duty counterparts, but at a fraction of the cost. As an example,
a recent OSD CAPE report to congress identified that an active
component F-16 unit costs $81.9M per year as compared to an Air
National Guard F-16 unit at $56M per year.
There are differences in capability between reserve component and
active component units. The most cited is the amount of time it takes
to bring a reserve component unit to full readiness after mobilization,
due to lower readiness expectations which compound their cost
effectiveness when not mobilized. The length of pre-deployment
preparation varies depending on pre-mobilization readiness, the type of
unit and its mission. Once validated, Guard units deploy at the same
level of readiness as their active component counterparts. The Army has
significantly reduced post-mobilization training time for its reserve
component units as additional investments were made in pre-deployment
readiness and post-mobilization training has been streamlined. As a
result, the number of post-mobilization training days declined by 60
percent between fiscal years 2006-2012, and all but the largest units
assigned the most tactically difficult missions averaged less than 45
days of post-mobilization training prior to deployment.
Question. Generals, would you address whether the services can
retain more capability in the reserve components than in the active
component at a lesser cost?
Answer. The Army Reserve provides a tremendous value to the nation.
The recent ``Active and Reserve Component Units of the Armed Forces
Report to Congress'' highlights specific cost analysis demonstrating
the value of the Reserve Component to the nation. The Army Reserve
provides 20 percent of the Army's force structure for only 5.8 percent
of the Army budget In fact most of the Total Army's support and
sustainment capabilities, such as our legal support, chaplains, civil
affairs, logistics, public affairs, and medical expertise are in the
Army Reserve. We are embedded in every Army Service Component Command
and Combatant Command. The Army's proposal adequately balances the
importance of costs, readiness, responsiveness, and requirements while
providing the most effective and efficient force for the budget
allocated.
The ``Active and Reserve Component Units of the Armed Forces Report
to Congress'' demonstrates the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the
Army Reserve as an enabling force. Army Reserve personnel costs are
minimal when the force is not mobilized. The efficient use of the Army
Reserve yields significant cost savings to the nation while mitigating
strategic risk.
Question. Is this capability as reliable as that provided by active
forces--or is there a mix?
Answer. Absolutely. In the past dozen years of conflict, the Army
National Guard (ARNG) has never failed at a mission. These missions
include the most complex tasks performed by the Army's largest combat
formations, with the sole exception of the initial invasion of Iraq,
which was conducted by six active Army maneuver brigades. Since 2003,
the ARNG has deployed Brigade Combat Teams to Iraq or Afghanistan 47
times for missions that spanned the full spectrum of operations, from
host nation training, advising and assisting through security force
missions to counter-insurgency operations. ARNG Apache attack-
reconnaissance battalions deployed 12 times to Iraq or Afghanistan,
performing the same demanding missions their active component
counterparts performed.
Once pre-deployment training is completed, Army National Guard
units are validated using the same metrics applied to active component
units. Numerous senior leaders have told our Guardsmen that their
performance in the field cannot be distinguished from that of their
active component counterparts.
History struggles to show any time where capability was required
from the Reserve Component and it was not provided in time to meet the
demand. The readiness of the Air National Guard is unique in the fact
that the Air National Guard trains to the same state of readiness as
the Active Component, is inspected to the same standards, and has a
proven track record of performance on equal with our Active Components
counterparts.
In fact, recent history illustrates where the Reserve Component
responded because the Active Component could not. Operation Odyssey
Dawn beginning in March of 2011 demonstrated the speed and agility by
which the Air National Guard answered the Nation's call to help protect
Libyan civilians from their government regime's violence. Within 48
hours of a phone call from then AMC Commander, Gen Ray Johns, Brig Gen
Roy Uptegraff was in-country leading ANG tanker efforts for the 406th
AEW's mission. The ARC is every bit as reliable and capable as active
forces.
Question. Is this capability as reliable as that provided by active
forces--or is there a mix?
Answer. The Army Reserve provides complementary capabilities to the
Active Component, including the majority of combat support and
sustainment units. Annually, we can provide a sustained rate of 27k
trained and ready Soldiers. When used in an operational capacity, we
are as capable as the other components.
Over the last ten years the Army Reserve has evolved in its
training and readiness preparation. We are now a fully integrated,
operational force that supports the Total Army. Our units are
integrated into many Combatant Command contingency plans and the Army
Reserve participates in training exercises around the world. Citizen-
Soldiers proudly stand ready to respond with the same professionalism
and readiness we have learned to expect of our Total Army, regardless
of component.
Question. As we look at the threats faced today and may face in the
future, a strong and vibrant force with more capability and capacity to
surge makes sense. Can that be done with a large Reserve Component? Can
you explain the rationale of active and reserve forces balance offered
in this budget request considering our challenges?
Answer. An appropriately sized larger Reserve Component can provide
a stronger and more vibrant force with greater capability and capacity
to surge in today's fiscally-constrained environment than a more robust
Active Component force. Throughout the past 13 years of combat, the
National Guard has demonstrated that can provide the capability needed
to support our military requirements and is ideally suited to rapidly
provide the Services with additional capacity when needed. For example,
in Iraq, Army National Guard brigades took on a heavy share of the
combat in 2005 while the active Army was in the process of transforming
its brigades to the new modular Brigade Combat Team structure following
the first year of war. During the Spring of 2005, the Army National
Guard provided 8 of 15 combat brigades in Iraq. The immense capacity
resident in the Army National Guard--which contains 39 percent of the
Army's deployable units--is a vital national asset, a hedge against an
uncertain future where active component forces alone are unlikely to
prove sufficient to conduct a sustained land war. The Air Force, the
Air National Guard, and the Air Force Reserve are working closely
through the Total Force Continuum to understand and implement the
necessary changes that are required to provide the appropriate balance.
The challenge we face today, is getting us to the right balance of
active and reserve component force structure without creating undue
risk to the Total Air Force or our great Nation as a whole.
Question. As we look at the threats faced today and may face in the
future, a strong and vibrant force with more capability and capacity to
surge makes sense. Can that be done with a large Reserve Component? Can
you explain the rationale of active and reserve forces balance offered
in this budget request considering our challenges?
Answer. The current budget request sustains the training and
readiness of Army Reserve structure, providing the Total Army with the
unique enabling capacity to meet the defense needs of the nation.
Throughout Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom the Army
Reserve has demonstrated its ability to meet to the Army's surge
requirements. Additionally, the Army Reserve is closely integrated in
the Total Army Training Validation (TATV) process. Whenever and
wherever it's needed, the Army Reserve can be relied upon to perform
its assigned missions effectively and professionally.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Frelinghuysen.]
Friday, April 4, 2014.
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WITNESSES
HON. ANN WAGNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MISSOURI
HON. PAUL COOK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
HON. MARTHA ROBY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ALABAMA
HON. DENNY HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON
HON. BRADLEY BYRNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ALABAMA
HON. STEVEN PALAZZO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI
HON. REID RIBBLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN
HON. DAVID JOLLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
HON. DEVIN NUNES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
HON. RON BARBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
HON. RON DESANTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
HAWAII
Opening Statement of Chairman Frelinghuysen
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good morning. The committee will come to
order.
This morning, the committee holds an open hearing during
which Members of the House of Representatives are invited to
bring their concerns and issues regarding the future posture
and force structure for the Department of Defense directly to
our attention.
My ranking member and I are here today to take testimony
from our colleagues in an effort to provide maximum Member
participation as we work to draft the Department of Defense
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015.
At this time, I would like to yield to the ranking member
for any statement or comments he may wish to make.
Opening Statement of Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
One, I very, very much appreciate that you are holding a
hearing to hear the views of our colleagues. I appreciate that
very much. I also appreciate the fact that our colleagues have
taken the time and the trouble to appear today.
The Appropriations Committee is charged with a very
important responsibility, and that is to make decisions over
about $1 trillion worth of funding to operate, as effectively
and as efficiently, the greatest government on the planet
Earth.
Your testimony today will be very helpful to the members of
this subcommittee, as far as the appropriations of money for
the Department of Defense, to make those decisions as wisely as
possible. So I really appreciate the input of the Members.
And I deeply thank the chairman for taking the time to
invite our colleagues, to hear their views, as far as the
budget within our purview.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Our first colleague, Ms. Wagner, from
Missouri, thank you for being with us, starting us off this
morning. The floor is yours.
Summary Statement of Congresswoman Wagner
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
the ranking member for also taking the time and the courtesy
today to hear about all these important defense priorities. And
I would like to talk about one, in particular, for the United
States Navy, our Nation, which is the EA-18G Growler.
The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review notes, and I quote,
``In the coming years, countries such as China will continue
seeking to counter U.S. strength using anti-access and area-
denial approaches.''
Now, full-spectrum airborne electronic attack has been
identified by the Navy and the Department of Defense as a
critical and required capability for our forces to effectively
and successfully operate in these challenging environments. As
the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, has
stated, control of the electromagnetic spectrum is critical to
the warfighting mission today and in the future.
As you know, the Growler is the Nation's only full-spectrum
airborne electronic attack aircraft. It provides this unique
capability off of Navy aircraft carriers and provides support
for Joint Force land bases. It is truly the tip of the spear as
our forces enter into contested air environments.
Recognizing that there is a warfighting need, the CNO
submitted an unfunded priority for 22 additional Growlers for
congressional consideration of the fiscal year 2015 defense
appropriations. The stakes are quite high, and the time to act,
I hope, is now.
Without additional Growlers to meet the Navy's unfunded
priority, it is likely that the F-18 manufacturing line will
shutter. To avoid this very predicament, last year Congress
added $75 million in advance procurement funds for the F-18 in
the fiscal year 2014 defense appropriations act, enough for 22
aircraft.
Another critical consideration is the Nation's defense
industrial base for tactical aviation. Today, there are
multiple providers for tactical aviation, sophisticated
tactical radars, and Strike Fighter engines. With the end of
the F/A-18 production, however, DOD will be left with only a
single manufacturer in each one of these areas.
This scenario limits warfighting surge capacity, it
eliminates competition that drives innovation and cost control,
and imperils future development programs. Moreover, the F-18
program supports American manufacturing, including 60,000 jobs,
800 different suppliers and vendors, and provides $3 billion in
annual economic impact.
For these reasons, I have authored a House letter to your
subcommittee asking for consideration of the Navy's unfunded
priority of additional Growlers. I hope it demonstrates to you
that there is a broad support for this request across Congress
to support both the warfighter and the defense industrial base.
I look forward to working with the subcommittee and
supporting the appropriations process as it moves through the
House of Representatives. And I thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Ms. Wagner. And your letter
and your presence testify to the importance of this program. We
really appreciate your taking the time.
Mrs. Wagner. I have a son on those front lines, who is a
West Point graduate, who serves in the 101st Airborne. And our
military readiness is of the utmost importance to me, not just
as an American and a Member of Congress but as a mom too.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Both of us, we are proud of your son's
service----
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. And so many remarkable
young men and women. Thank you so much for being with us.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
[The written statement of Congresswoman Wagner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Representative Paul Cook. Marines never
retire, but welcome.
Mr. Cook. That is affirmative, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The floor is yours.
Summary Statement of Congressman Cook
Mr. Cook. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member
Visclosky. I do have to--the ranking member's comments about
appropriations and everything else, I hope I can get a copy of
this so I can give to my wife so she will appropriate more
money for my budget every month. We have--but that is another
story.
Mapping and geographic data are critical elements in
planning and conducting combat missions and ensuring our troops
are aware of their surroundings. Today, this data is provided
to our military by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
or NGA. NGA's products give the most complete data, allowing
each service to access the information across a variety of
handheld and mobile platforms.
In remote environments, such as the mountains of
Afghanistan, an accurate map can be the difference between life
and death. Following the attacks of the September 11th, 2001,
the intelligence community struggled to distribute information
in a timely manner to those responsible for our safety.
The challenge of providing high-quality, accessible mapping
data in support of DOD operations was resolved by turning to
the private sector for advanced mapping software. Today, cell
phones place virtually unlimited information at our fingertips.
In fiscal year 2002, this committee provided $15 million
for the Commercial Joint Mapping Toolkit, which was
competitively sourced and provided this information in a cost-
efficient manner. The goal was to provide connectivity and
interoperability between the users and providers of mapping
data while minimizing costs for DOD.
Twelve years later, this goal has been achieved. Today, the
Commercial Joint Mapping Toolkit is used in 56 DOD programs of
record. Recognizing its value, the NGA is currently extending
the program through December 31st, 2015.
After that, the future is unclear. I understand the NGA has
not yet announced a plan for follow-up to Congress or DOD, and
the committee needs to know what is being planned. I have
serious concerns it is changing its approach to the mission of
providing this key data.
The agency is building an online map of the world, which
centralizes all intelligence data analysis, and it is touted as
tailored for DOD and intel sectors. That is the core of my
concern. The agency is not saying ``tailored for warfighters.''
While decision-makers far from the front lines have a need for
information, it is never as severe as the need on the
battlefield.
Today, this program is a success because mapping data and
toolkit software are accessible to DOD at no charge. Obviously,
budget constraints have made this--who knows what is going to
go on. If NGA stops providing this data at no cost, the
committee will almost certainly receive larger appropriation
requests, as the DOD attempts to build its own capability. And,
obviously, this could have an overall impact on the troops that
go into harm's way.
I am asking this committee to again take the lead on this
important issue.
And, just personally, you know, many years ago, I joined
the Marine Corps. I was an infantry officer. And people asked
what I did, and I said I was the most dangerous weapon in the
world. And that was, I was a second lieutenant with a map and a
compass. And, unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in that,
in that if you are out there in a strange environment and you
don't know where you are, those troops and everything else,
calling in artillery, air, it is very, very dangerous.
So I am very, very concerned about that for those people
that go in harm's way. This is a program not as expensive as
some of the others, but, you know, some are just very, very
important.
I would just like to add, as a historian--I know that we
have a number of historians. If you look back at the Battle of
Shiloh, April 1862, when the famous general--well, he wasn't
famous after the battle. Lew Wallace was supposed to arrive at
the Battle of Shiloh; he got lost. And a lot had to do with the
maps, the terrain, and everything like that. And, of course,
the North almost lost that pivotal battle and could have
conceivably lost the war. So the consequences are tremendous.
And I appreciate the committee allowing me to speak.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I appreciate that
the Member is not necessarily asking for money for NGA but for
appropriate funding for, as you say in your testimony, the
soldiers and Marines who are in the field.
So I do appreciate that is your primary concern. I must
tell you, though, you were doing terrific until you mentioned
Lew Wallace getting lost. As an Indiana resident, I don't know
who prepared that statement.
Mr. Cook. Well, I knew you were going to ask that, sir.
And, of course, we all know that Lew Wallace was instrumental
at the Battle of Monocacy, where he was placed in obscurity,
and, quite frankly, he saved the Union at that famous battle.
And I am sure you have all gone out to the battlefield to learn
more.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you so much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah, thank you, Paul, for being here.
And thank you for your service in Vietnam----
Mr. Cook. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. And bringing these concerns
to our attention.
Mr. Cook. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you so much.
[The written statement of Congressman Cook follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Martha Roby, welcome. A member of our
committee, part of our leadership.
Mrs. Roby. Well, good----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good morning. Thank you for being with
us this morning, taking time out of your schedule to share your
concerns, things you want to bring to our committee's attention
as we put this budget together. Thanks.
Summary Statement of Congresswoman Roby
Mrs. Roby. Thanks so much. And I appreciate the difficult
work that you have on this subcommittee.
Rightly or wrongly, Congress has imposed on our military
certain budget constraints that will require our commanders to
make very tough decisions. Congress has asked them to do more
with less and to maintain a delicate balance of readiness, end
strength, and modernization. I believe that the United States
Army is endeavoring to do just that, and I want to recognize
Army leaders for their efforts.
As you know, Army aviation provides critical capabilities
to our commanders in the field. Army helicopters directly
engage the enemy with devastating force. They move critical
cargo and troops to the front lines. And when every second
counts, they offer lifesaving transportation for our wounded
warriors.
In response to budget cuts, the Army set out to review its
aviation strategy in order to exploit efficiencies without
compromising operational capability. The starting point was the
reality that, in the time of smaller budgets, the number of
combat air brigades must decrease. The end result is the
Aviation Restructure Initiative, or the ARI.
I have closely monitored the development of ARI since last
fall, and I believe it is the right solution for Army aviation,
given the current fiscal constraints. ARI ensures the Army is
able to maintain its most modern, capable, and survivable
aircraft, while divesting legacy helicopters that are
increasingly more expensive to operate and maintain.
With the growth of unmanned aircraft capabilities, ARI also
allows the Army to capitalize on new technology and harness the
potential of teaming manned helicopters with unmanned systems.
This partnership will play a growing role in the future of Army
aviation.
ARI reduces the aviation fleet by almost 800 aircraft, with
approximately 86 percent of those coming from the Active Duty
component. Furthermore, by reducing the Army aviation fleet
from seven to four types of aircraft, ARI will save money that
can be redirected to modernizing our best utility, attack, and
cargo helicopters. Importantly, ARI also enables the Army to
continue the development of aviation programs such as the
Future Vertical Lift.
These are, however, benefits beyond simple cost savings. As
the Army Aviation Center for Excellence, Fort Rucker trains
hundreds of new Army aviators on an annual basis. These pilots,
the best in the world, are the most important assets the Army
aviation brigade takes into battle.
Today, new students at Fort Rucker begin their training on
old civilian-style helicopters that have been flying since
Richard Nixon was President. Today, under ARI, students at
Rucker will immediately begin training in modern aircraft,
complete with glass cockpits and dual turboshaft engines. These
aircraft operate much more similarly to the Apaches, Black
Hawks, and Chinooks that Army aviators fly in operational
units. The result is better training and likely a reduction in
overall training time.
Given the reality of the situation, I believe that ARI is a
logical answer to a difficult situation. It will provide Army
aviation with the most capability while mitigating sustainment
costs. It also ensures that the Army has the most flexible
aviation force to accomplish the mission when our Nation calls.
So, again, I appreciate you letting me share my thoughts
with you today. And, again, I also understand that you have
many difficult decisions to make in the days to come.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We appreciate it. And I suspect we will
be making them together, since you serve on the Appropriations
Committee with us. But thank you for your testimony and being a
strong advocate for our military. Thank you so much.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you so much.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
[The written statement of Congresswoman Roby follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Denny Heck, representing the great State
of Washington, thank you for being with us.
I put Ms. Roby before you a little bit. I think you came in
together, but as a member of the committee, we figured we would
give her the nod.
Welcome. Thanks for being with us.
Summary Statement of Congressman Heck
Mr. Heck. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am deeply
grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I know every one of us has seen those incredibly
heartwarming video clips when soldiers return home from theater
and surprise their family members. Sometimes a kid is at
school, and in walks mom or dad. My favorite, actually, is
where, in this case, it happened to be a father was in the big
cardboard box and burst out.
And all of these end the same way, right? There is this
look of shock and amazement on that child's face, and then they
burst into a sprint and leap into mom or dad's arms for that
embrace. They are precious moments. And I can tell you with all
sincerity, I have--I couldn't watch them too many times and
fail to have it bring a tear to my eye. And the reason is
pretty obvious: Because sometimes mom and dad don't come home.
They are incredibly moving.
As you know, military bases become the home of ambitious,
promising students whose parents dedicate their lives to
serving our great country. There are, in fact, about 80,000
students who attend public schools on military installations.
Ninety-four percent of these students are the children of
servicemembers.
I think we can all agree that when servicemembers visit
these schools, they should walk into state-of-the-art, secure
institutions where their child is thriving. While important
progress in this area has been made, some schools remain in
great need of safety, capacity, and technology upgrades.
Unfortunately, a 2011 analysis by the DOD's Office of
Economic Adjustment found that there were 33 public schools on
military installations across the country that were classified
as being in poor and very poor condition. Some of these schools
had crumbling walls, chipped floors, cracked ceilings. Some
were too small, some with makeshift classrooms literally in
hallways and supply closets. There were faulty ventilation
units, corroded pipes, and the list goes on and on and on.
This committee generously stepped in--generously stepped
in--and provided funding to replace the schools on this list.
These schools now have welcomed back students to new and
improved learning centers, while others are still in the
process of being replaced. This was all thanks to the hard work
of this subcommittee and your former colleague, Congressman
Norm Dicks.
But now, due to sequestration cuts, the funding that the
subcommittee provided will now cover just 28 of the 33
identified schools.
I happen to represent the congressional district--I have
the privilege to represent the congressional district that
includes Joint Base Lewis-McChord, often called JBLM, one of
the largest military installations in America. Unfortunately,
Evergreen Elementary on JBLM is one of the schools that will
now go without funding.
Evergreen happens to be a school recognized in the military
community for its attention to students with special needs in
education. In fact, the truth of the matter is that soldier
after soldier makes a request for a compassionate assignment to
JBLM so that their child with special needs can attend
Evergreen.
As the husband of a devoted educator, now retired, I know
teachers and staff work day-in and day-out so that the students
making strides in the environment they have can go as far as
they can. And I know that if the teachers and staff could
physically build their own new school buildings, they would,
because they are that dedicated.
Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee was instrumental in making
a difference to thousands of other public school students on
military installations across the country by implementing this
project. What I am specifically asking for today is that you
complete what was begun in 2011 and fix the remaining school
buildings originally identified as being in poor or very poor
condition and no longer sustainable.
Specifically, I request that the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee include the language from Section 8108 of the
fiscal year 2013 defense appropriations bill. Section 8108
calls on the DOD to construct, renovate, repair, or expand the
public schools on military installations that remain in need of
updates, including our very own Evergreen Elementary.
I love seeing the smiles on those kids' faces when their
parents return safely home and surprise them. And now I want to
see the smiles on the faces of mom and dad when they enter a
building that they know is suitable to their child's learning
needs. This is the kind of investment that DOD can and should
make in our servicemembers' families.
I thank you so very much for the privilege of being here,
sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you, Denny, for pointing out
something which I think all the committee members feel very
strongly about. There is more work to be done. We appreciate
your highlighting something which is important to all of us.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. I would simply also thank you for
recognizing the contribution of Mr. Dicks. And when I was
visiting Fort Campbell, met with some of the high school
students and kicked everybody except the students out. And
still remember one of the young men saying, you know, ``I have
lived at Fort Campbell longer than my father has.''
And so, if nothing else, we ought to make sure they have
the right facilities and tools as they get on with their lives,
as well.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well said. Thank you very much.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman? If I could----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Again, thank you, as well, Mr. Heck, for
bringing an important issue to us.
Having served on the Military Construction Subcommittee, we
all know there are issues there that should be funded but that
seem a somewhat lower priority than funding schools.
I am just curious, why does the Defense Approps
Subcommittee fund the schools and not Military Construction? I
am just curious. I know----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You will have to pose that as a
rhetorical question, because, quite honestly, I don't know, but
it has always been, I think, part of our bill.
Mr. Moran. Well, maybe because Norm was such a fine
advocate for it. It is curious.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. When I have gone somewhere, I have been
appalled, actually, at the condition of some of the schools.
Mr. Moran. Yeah.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I don't know, but we will find out. And
I guess a public question deserves a public answer at some
point in time.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. And, Mr. Chairman, I may have been given
advice from our staff, and that is because these are not
government-owned facilities, these are schools in the private
school districts.
Mr. Moran. That is the answer. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Well, thank you. The process of
education goes on here. Thank you very much.
[The written statement of Congressman Heck follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Pleased to recognize Congressman Bradley
Byrne--thank you very much--from the great State of Alabama.
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to be with
us this morning.
Summary Statement of Congressman Byrne
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member Visclosky and the distinguished members of the
committee. It is my honor and pleasure to appear before you
today to testify on two issues important to our national
security: the Department of Defense's changes to the Littoral
Combat Ship program and the continuation of the Joint High
Speed Vessel program.
I am sure that you know the Independence variant of the
Littoral Combat Ship and the Joint High Speed Vessel are both
made in my district, in Mobile, Alabama. While I am committed
to the people of my great State, I come to you today more with
a concern for the future of the United States Navy, our great
Navy.
The Littoral Combat Ship is essential to the missions in
the world's littorals, the shallow seas of the world. It is
being built in a manner that is both affordable and efficient,
and it is critical if the Navy is to support the
administration's pivot towards the Asia-Pacific region. I think
you will agree that the fastest route to a hollow force is to
increase requirements on our forces without providing the
assets to complete the mission.
The Secretary of Defense has directed the Navy to look at a
different ship option for the last 20 ships of the 52-ship
Littoral Combat Ship program. The specifications are due from
the Navy this summer. And it is my belief that a modified
version of the LCS will be the best value for the taxpayer,
while meeting the Navy's requirements of a capable and lethal
surface combatant.
The LCS is designed with modularity in mind and can accept
different mission sets and weapon systems with ease. If the
Secretary of Defense wants a more lethal, small surface
combatant, he need not look any further. There is plenty of
space and power available for a vertical launch missile system
and a 76-millimeter gun, giving the LCS the knockdown power of
a destroyer. This vessel is truly a plug-and-play system.
We should be extremely concerned about the slowing of the
purchase of the Littoral Combat Ships in the fiscal year 2015
budget. Reducing the ships in the LCS program in fiscal year
2015 through fiscal year 2017 is simply a bad idea. This
introduces instability in the LCS program, as the shipbuilders
in Alabama and Wisconsin and their suppliers price the ship on
a four-ship block buy. And this instability will be felt by
suppliers nationwide.
As you know, the Navy has continued to state its
requirement for a 52 Littoral Combat Ship program. It is my
belief that the LCS remains essential to the Navy's ability to
project power, particularly to missions that don't require a
destroyer or an aircraft carrier. The LCS is a fast, versatile,
fuel-efficient, and highly capable ship. I liken it to Mohammed
Ali, who said, ``I float like a butterfly and sting like a
bee.''
The LCS is extremely important to the Navy because it
addresses three critical mission areas: anti-surface warfare,
particularly against fast inshore attack craft; anti-submarine
warfare, most notably against a proliferating diesel electric
submarine threat; and mine warfare.
The Navy has often stated that LCS will deliver
capabilities in these mission areas that far exceed those
capabilities in the fleet today. For minesweeping, we actually
send our sailors directly into minefields with vessels, and,
under this new program, we would send remotely operated craft
that come from the Littoral Combat Ships, so it is also better
for the safety of our sailors.
During the recently completed LCS war game, the Navy has
once again expressed their support and need for this program.
The LCS program is currently realizing significant efficiencies
and savings. Moving to an entirely new ship will introduce
tremendous cost increases and time delays to the Navy--two
factors our Navy cannot afford.
Failing to produce all 52 Littoral Combat Ships would
significantly reduce the size of our fleet, set back the Navy's
shipbuilding program for decades, and damage America's national
security. Without all 52 ships, the Navy will be forced to
cover the same geographic area with significantly fewer assets.
The LCS is the rare military program that has seen cost
decrease instead of increase over time. The LCS has adhered to
stringent contractual and budgetary constraints and has locked
into fixed-price contracts and a congressionally mandated cost
cap. The Littoral Combat Ships are being built today at an
average cost of $350 million per hull, well under the cost cap,
and at half the cost of the first ships of this class.
According to the Navy, the LCS is the most affordable ship in
the fleet.
The Navy was directed by the Department of Defense to
reduce the LCS buy for fiscal year 2015 from four ships to
three ships. This action introduces instability into the
current program, as the builders and suppliers of LCS price the
ship on a four-ship buy, and will also greatly impact the
shipyards in Alabama and Wisconsin and the broader shipbuilding
industrial base. There are tens of thousands of hardworking
Americans whose jobs depend on the continued construction of
these valuable ships.
Because of these considerations, I ask that the committee
restore the funds necessary to add a fourth ship back into this
year's budget.
The Joint High Speed Vessel is also produced in my
district. The Joint High Speed Vessel is a shallow-draft, all-
aluminum, commercially based catamaran capable of intra-theater
personnel and cargo lift, providing combatant commanders high-
speed sealift mobility with inherent cargo handling capability
and agility to achieve positional advantage over operational
distances.
Joint High Speed transports personnel, equipment, and
supplies over operational distances with access to littoral
offload points, including austere, minor, and degraded ports,
in support of military operations and humanitarian efforts. In
automotive terms, the vessel has been compared to a pickup
truck or a utility vehicle.
The Department of Defense places a premium on the ability
of U.S. military forces to deploy quickly to a full spectrum of
engagements. In addition, the Department values the ability of
U.S. forces to debark and embark in a wide range of port
environments, from modern to austere. The Joint High Speed
Vessel, crewed by Military Sealift Command sailors, has
demonstrated the ability to transport military forces, as well
as humanitarian relief personnel and material, in a manner that
is responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, and sustainable.
The USNS Spearhead, which is the Joint High Speed Vessel 1,
is currently employed to the Sixth Fleet area of
responsibility. The Joint High Speed Vessel is designed to
transport 600 short tons of military cargo 1,200 nautical miles
at an average speed of 35 knots in sea state 3--35 knots. The
Joint High Speed Vessel supports the Navy Expeditionary
Combatant Command and riverine forces, theater cooperating
missions, Seabees, Marine Corps, and Army transportation.
The original procurement objective, set in October 2008,
was for 18 ships. This procurement number was lowered to 10
Joint High Speed Vessels as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget
request.
Recently, before the Armed Services Committee, CNO Greenert
mentioned the Navy's desire to modify the capabilities of the
Joint High Speed Vessel by testing the railgun on the vessel.
The versatility of the Joint High Speed Vessel is undeniable
when you think about its mission capability with such a unique
offensive weapon in its service. The Navy has desperately been
searching for a vessel to test this weapon on, and they have
clearly chosen the Joint High Speed Vessel for a reason.
Based on the ability of the Joint High Speed Vessel to
support all branches of the military services, provide high-
speed intra-theater sealift, operate in littoral environments,
operate in austere port environments, and support humanitarian
disaster relief activities, and because the ship's construction
line is still operational, I believe the Department of Navy
should continue to procure Joint High Speed Vessels.
Procuring additional Joint High Speed Vessels will enable
the Navy to realize the hard-earned efficiencies and cost
reductions achieved by the shipyard in constructing Joint High
Speed Vessel 1 through 10. An additional $50 million in long-
ahead advance procurement funding will enable the Navy to begin
the process of procuring additional Joint High Speed Vessels in
line with the original 18-ship requirement.
Like the LCS, the Joint High Speed Vessel program provides
the Navy with a very affordable and capable ship. At roughly
$160 million per ship, the Joint High Speed Vessel costs a
fraction of what other shipbuilding programs cost. And with
production steaming along, we are rolling new Joint High Speed
Vessels off the line every 6 months. The program has clearly
matured in what can only be considered efficient, serial
production. We shouldn't let that go to waste.
Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate the
opportunity to share my thoughts on these two very valuable
ships with the committee.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We thank the gentleman for his
testimony.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank the gentleman, as well.
And recognizing that your predecessors were members of this
committee--Mr. Callahan was my chairman; Mr. Bonner served on
this subcommittee, our good friend--I assume your constituents'
expectations will be very high. I am confident you will be able
to meet those.
But I do appreciate your concern about the shipbuilding
program.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, sir. I have very big shoes to fill,
and I work very hard today to fill them. Appreciate your time.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
[The written statement of Congressman Byrne follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Palazzo, I do apologize. I know you
got here on time. Accept my sincere apologies.
Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Chairman, as a former Marine and somebody
in the Army National Guard----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah, let me thank you for your gulf war
service, as well, too.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Very special for all of us. The time is
yours.
Summary Statement of Congressman Palazzo
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member of
the committee, for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee on my priorities for your fiscal year 2015 defense
appropriations bill.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I want
you to know that I have a healthy respect for the work of your
subcommittee and the essential role you play in providing for
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who wear the uniform
of the United States in service to our Nation. I also share
your commitment to providing for a Navy and Marine Corps that
is capable of projecting American power abroad with forward-
deployed naval forces.
As some of you know, I represent the Fourth Congressional
District of Mississippi, down on the Gulf Coast, and it is no
surprise that my district depends heavily on industries like
military shipbuilding, which is both a national and strategic
industry that contributes to our national economy and our
national defense, with an impact that goes well beyond the
borders of my district. And so I come here today to discuss a
national and strategic issue that I believe is critical to the
future of our Navy and Marine Corps.
The San Antonio class of LPD is a 684-foot-long amphibious
assault ship. This class of ships functionally replaces four
previous amphibious ship classes and provides greater mission
capability and enhanced command and control than her legacy
amphibs. The San Antonio-class LPD also features a longer
expected service life, improved quality of life for the sailors
and Marines aboard her, and reduced total ownership costs,
something I know is of critical importance to us on the House
Armed Services Committee and a desire that I know you share, as
well, Mr. Chairman.
The LPD is a warship that embarks, transports, and lands
elements of the landing force for a variety of expeditionary
warfare missions. When fully loaded, these warships can carry
landing craft air cushions, or LCACs, Amphibious Assault
Vehicles, and a wide variety of Marine Corps aviation assets,
from the MV-22 Osprey to every helicopter in the Marine Corps
inventory. Simply put, this ship enables the Marine Corps to go
to war when necessary, but she is built to handle a wide range
of missions, including humanitarian assistance and disaster
relief.
Most importantly, the LPD is a survivable amphibious
warship that is capable of going into harm's way. The ship is
built to protect the almost 1,000 sailors and Marines who sail
aboard her. And she relies on the critical contributions of
over 1,000 companies in over 40 States from across our Nation.
So I come before you today because I strongly support a
proposal to build a 12th LPD in fiscal year 2015.
It is no secret that the budget of the Department of
Defense has been under a lot of pressure recently, and the
Navy's budget is experiencing similar strain. However, I do not
believe that current budget pressures should unduly influence
our long-term strategic thinking on the needs of the future of
our Navy and Marine Corps team.
We are building the last two ships of the San Antonio class
today in Mississippi, and given the needs of the Navy and
Marine Corps, the hot production line, the stable design of the
ship, the maturity of the supply base, and the proven fleet
performance of these ships, I firmly believe we need to build
an additional 12th ship of the San Antonio class. I ask for
your support of this proposal in your fiscal year 2015 defense
appropriations bill.
And, in closing, shipbuilding is one of the most strategic
activities undertaken by our defense industrial base. It takes
years to build the finest ships for the finest Navy and Marine
Corps in the world. And I am proud to represent one of the
largest last great centers of American manufacturing, right at
home in south Mississippi.
But don't take my word for it. During a recent forum,
General James Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps and a
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated, I quote, ``We have
an LPD hull right now which is one of the most successful hulls
we have. There are years and years of time and effort that have
gone into that LPD. That is as fine an amphibious warship as
has ever sailed the seas. The LPD, from my perspective, just
makes sense.'' I couldn't agree more with General Amos.
And I thank you gentlemen for your time.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you, invoking his name. And,
again, thank you for your own military service, for your work
on the House Armed Services Committee. And our committees are
bound to work together, since at a time of less resources we
need to make sure that every dollar counts, and I look forward
to working with you and your colleagues.
Mr. Palazzo. Same here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Reid Ribble, the gentleman from Wisconsin. How are you?
Mr. Ribble. I am doing great. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking
Member, thanks for----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And I look forward to meeting you. We
have an office visit, I think, in the offing, too.
Mr. Ribble. Yes.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Thank you for being with us
this morning.
Summary Statement of Congressman Ribble
Mr. Ribble. I am happy to be here.
And I am not going to go through my testimony word for
word; you have written copies. I am going to also try to help
you get back on schedule here a little bit.
I wanted to talk to you about LCS, not from the position of
whether this is the right ship for the Navy or isn't the right
ship for the Navy. I think the Department of Defense, the
Department of the Navy, and House Armed Services on both the
House and Senate will make determinations on the
appropriateness of this vessel.
What I want to talk about specifically is the fiscal year
2015 block-buy acquisition strategy. If the strategy was
correct then--and I believe it is, because we saw a ship that
originally cost nearly $700 million be driven down in cost to
around $350 million, nearly half of the original price--if the
block-buy strategy is broken for fiscal year 2015, we have the
likelihood that the Navy, therefore the taxpayer, will pay
significantly more for the remaining ships under the contract.
And that, therein, is the rub, is that if we are going to,
in times of tough fiscal decision-making, it seems to me that
the best decision is to not break a contract and go from 4
ships, which is the current contract, to 3, thus raising the
cost of the remaining 10 or 12, doesn't seem to me to be a very
practical economic strategy.
And so I am here today requesting that the Appropriations
Committee consider relieving that four-ship block in fiscal
year 2015 so that the contract itself isn't broken.
Secondarily to that, Mr. Chairman, it goes to a broader
discussion about American shipbuilding capabilities. My
shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin, as well as other shipyards
that do military contracting, often invest tens of millions, if
not hundreds of millions, of dollars of private investment to
prepare for contracts based on promises given by the Federal
Government to these localities. And, in this case, my shipyard
spent nearly $100 million of their own private investment.
If contracts get broken--and I understand changes in
defense strategy and changes in terms of agreements as the
Nation shifts and moves and we learn things, but we still must
be very careful about private future investment. If we
discourage or disincent private future investment into this
Nation's shipbuilding capacity, we, in essence, strike a blow
into the Nation's defense.
And so, therefore, I think we need to move very cautiously
any time that we are going to actually break a contract. I get
having contracts end, and I get making changes, but I am very
concerned about this Nation's shipbuilding capacity.
We have an extraordinarily gifted group of workers at
Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin, who are building the
Littoral Combat Ship. And this was a ship that, quite frankly,
Secretary Gates, Secretary Panetta--Secretary Panetta was just
up at the shipyard a few months ago--Secretary Mabus have all
spoken glowingly of. And, in recent war games, the Navy itself
spoke glowingly of the ship itself.
So it is a ship that apparently they wanted. It is a ship
that we should continue to build for the time being as long as
it meets the national defense strategy. And it is certainly,
from an economic standpoint, a ship that we shouldn't break a
contract with in fiscal year 2015, where we reverse the trend
of cost savings and make the ship that they are going to buy
anyway more expensive.
And so, as you guys weigh and measure all these things--and
I can tell you, it is during this time of year I am glad I am
not an appropriator--but I want to encourage you to consider
what that block buy and strategic buy program means to our
shipbuilding capacity and meeting the promises that we have
given, but also make sure that we are buying these ships at the
best possible costs for the time that we buy them.
And, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you for being here and
articulating so well what is so important here. We don't want
to lose that industrial base and incredibly qualified people,
no matter where they are, but certainly recognize the historic
role of Wisconsin.
Mr. Visclosky. I appreciate you summarizing your testimony.
I appreciate that you use steel to build those ships in
Wisconsin. And your concern about the industrial base,
particularly shipbuilding, I think the chairman, all of us on
the committee are very concerned about it.
The one question I have is, Vilas County, is that in Mr.
Duffy's district?
Mr. Ribble. Yes, it is. It used to be in my district.
Mr. Visclosky. Because my mother is from Eagle River. I was
just curious.
Mr. Ribble. Yeah. A beautiful place.
Mr. Visclosky. It is a great State, Wisconsin.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you very much.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you for your concern.
Mr. Ribble. Yeah. It is good to be here, and thank you for
your time.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Reid.
[The written statement of Congressman Ribble follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. David Jolly, welcome. The gentleman from
Florida.
The Summary Statement of Congressman Jolly
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.
For those of you in the room, including professional staff,
this is a unique opportunity for me. And I will keep my remarks
brief and contribute to Mr. Ribble's effort to get you back on
schedule. I have submitted for the record my testimony.
I have a unique situation, as the newest Member of Congress
but, more importantly for this subcommittee, one who has the
responsibility to carry on a legacy of a man that you all
worked so closely with, and contributed not just to the
security of our country but you know what he did for the
district that now I have the privilege to represent. And so, to
the extent that I am able to, I am trying to maintain the level
of effort and contribution he made to our district but also to
our region and the regional assets that support our national
security.
We have a district that, as you know, contributes to many
national programs, programs of record. We contribute to the JSF
canopies, the GPS III, SOCOM GMV recent award, cooperative
engagement capability for naval warships--all of these
competitively awarded programs of record. I have submitted
Member requests in support of many of those and would ask for
your consideration.
But more importantly--I shouldn't say ``more
importantly''--just as importantly, the assets at both the
Guard and Reserve center in my district, as well as MacDill Air
Force Base. We have the Reserve Medical Command there. We have
a readiness center, a joint readiness center that is now named
for my predecessor. And then at MacDill, you know the assets
that we have at MacDill and the operations of both CENTCOM and
SOCOM.
And the only ask I would have for you there--I know this
committee last cycle worked with the command on decisions of
staffing and resources and whether those would be retained at
MacDill or whether there were resources better applied in other
areas. Certainly not trying to speak for the command or for
this committee, but I would simply ask that, in an era of
fiscal constraint, that we consider the investment that has
been made at MacDill, the success of having SOCOM at MacDill,
at its current staffing and resource level, and make sure that
we balance any decisions related to that with the investment we
have already made and the command's priorities.
I have submitted that statement for the record, but,
gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We appreciate it. And we recognize,
obviously, the legacy you follow. And, obviously, our committee
is mindful of the number of important installations and
purposes for which your district has historically been focused.
So we appreciate your being here.
Mr. Visclosky. And as a former staffer, I wish you well in
your career. We both were blessed with wonderful mentors.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[The written statement of Congressman Jolly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Farr across the threshold first. Of
course, Mr. Nunes is in the warmup spot. I apologize.
Our colleague from the committee, Sam Farr.
Summary Statement of Congressman Farr
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Visclosky, fellow members of the Appropriations Committee. I
want to thank you for the honor of allowing me to testify but
mostly for your continuous support for servicemembers and the
DOD civilians who are committed to our national security.
I bring to you an ask in the wake of yet another tragic
shooting at a military installation and solemnly come before
you today to ask for your support in helping prevent such
catastrophic events from occurring by fully funding the ACES
continuous evaluation program.
Because of the Washington Navy shooting, the intelligence
leaks at NSA with contractor Edward Snowden, and the 2009 Fort
Hood shootings, President Obama ordered a review of the
security clearances by the Department of Defense and the Office
of Management and Budget and the Department of Navy and an
independent review.
The consistent theme across all four reviews was the need
for a continuous evaluation program, which means reviewing the
background of an individual who is determined to be eligible
for access to classified information on an ongoing basis to
confirm that the individual continues at all times to meet the
requirements for eligibility for access to classified
information.
In my district, the Defense Department has an organization
called Defense Personnel Security Research Center, known as
PERSEREC, and it has developed the Automated Continuous
Evaluation System, known as ACES. The program has been in
effect for about 9 years. It can provide continuous evaluation
of individuals 24/7, 365 days a year, instead of the only
periodic reinvestigations which occur every 5, 10, or 15 years.
Currently, ACES is capable of checking over 40 government
and commercial databases in areas relevant to personal security
and can identify those individuals who may present a potential
security risk. ACES is the only continuous evaluation program
that complies with the legal and regulatory privacy provisions
and permissible uses of government and commercial data.
ACES conducted a pilot test with a sample of 3,370 Army
servicemembers, civilian employees, and contractor personnel.
ACES was able to identify over 730 individuals with previously
unreported derogatory information. Based on the results of this
ACES pilot, the Army revoked the clearances of 55 individuals
and suspended the access of 44 more who had derogatory
information like financial issues, domestic abuse, or drug
abuse.
In its report on suitability and security process review,
OMB has recommended the following timeline to fully implement
the continuous evaluation: October of 2014, the ACES pilot
program is to expand to 100,000 personnel. By 2015, capability
of 225,000 personnel. By 2016, 500,000 personnel. And by 2017,
capability to have continuous review on a million personnel.
We agree with this time plan and really recommend that its
funding be made--I think it is $53 million that can be made
available for that.
So I ask this committee to fund PERSEREC's ACES program as
an enterprise for continuous evaluation solutions for our
government's ongoing need to keep our security personnel
continuously monitored as to their capability of maintaining
that category.
So I would be glad to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you for raising this as
something which deserves more attention in our committee.
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much, and thank you for your
attention.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Farr, thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much.
[The written statement of Congressman Farr follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Another gentleman from California, Mr.
Nunes. Welcome.
Summary Statement of Congressman Nunes
Mr. Nunes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member. It is great to be here. And I have a statement that I
will just submit for the record, if you would accept that.
You probably don't get this very often, but I am actually
here to thank both of you for your strong support of Lajes Air
Base, which is out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. A lot
of people forget about it. And I am concerned and remain
concerned that, in fact, our Defense Department is forgetting
about it and forgetting about our allies and the importance, I
think more now than ever, with this recent invasion of Crimea
by the Russians.
There is, I think, some assumption by some folks within DOD
that we were assuming that subs would never be back in the
Atlantic, and I just think that was shortsighted. And I think
we are starting to see that now, as we look at one of the most
explosive places today on the globe and hotspots is in, not
only North Africa, but also West and Central Africa. And that
is an area that is continuing to explode. The best spot we have
to both police the Atlantic Ocean and to get assets into Africa
is the Lajes Air Base.
And one of the issues that I want the committee to be aware
of is that, you know, we have spent $150 million there over the
last decade. And I think both of you probably have had a chance
over the years to be on this air base, but it is really a Taj
Mahal of air bases. I mean, it is practically all brand-new.
And for our Defense Department, when we are sitting on
roughly 30 bases in Europe, to put this one on the chopping
block is--I think that if the American taxpayer really knew
about this and really knew what existed in Europe, I think they
would have a big problem with it.
And that is why I am here to--I think this committee
recognizes that, and I know that you have been supportive in
the past. And we are looking and trying to work as closely as
we can with the Defense Department to try to fix this long-term
so that we don't lose a strategic asset or waste hard-earned
taxpayer dollars.
And I will answer any questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you. And your statement will
be in the record.
You know, I echo your sentiments. It is an incredibly
important asset and gives us an ability to turn around and do
some things in parts of the world, especially on the African
continent, that otherwise we might not be able to do from
another location.
Mr. Visclosky. I would simply say I think you do make a
compelling case, and I do appreciate your persistence on the
issue very much and your time today.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nunes. Well, thank you for allowing me to speak.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
[The written statement of Congressman Nunes follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Ron Barber from Arizona. Thank you
for being with us. Thanks for your patience.
Summary Statement of Congressman Barber
Mr. Barber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be with you this morning.
I think we all know that the Department of Defense's budget
proposals, while trying to deal with a budget problem of
serious impact, will, I think, if they are all adopted, the
proposals will seriously compromise our national security. And
I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today about one
specific proposal which I think is deeply troubling.
I am going to talk about the proposal in the Department of
Defense budget that has to deal with the divestment of the A-10
Thunderbolt. This is an aircraft that flies in Afghanistan. It
is available in South Korea. It is one of the most effective
close air support fighters that we have.
As you know, the President's budget calls for the
divestment of the entire A-10 fleet, beginning in fiscal year
2015. And if this proposal is adopted, I believe it will create
a serious gap in close air support and the A-10's other support
missions, important missions that provide highly effective
support to our ground troops.
I was in Afghanistan just 2 weeks ago talking with our
troops, and they say they love it when the Warthog is overhead
because they know their day is going to get a bit better.
It may be ugly, as some have said, but regardless of its
look, it is a solid and reliable airframe that is easily
sustained at a very low cost. And I think that is an important
point.
At its core, the A-10 represents a proven aircraft of
unmatched survivability, maneuverability, and lethal armaments
that is only surpassed by the deeply ingrained close air
support culture and expertise of those pilots who fly it. There
is no other fixed-wing aircraft, Mr. Chairman, that provides as
proficient a service as the A-10 in conducting visual support
operations below a 1,000-foot ceiling, while being able to
effectively target the enemy. As I mentioned, our experience in
Iraq and Afghanistan clearly demonstrates the A-10's well-
documented capability to operate in rugged environments.
The Air Force has argued that other platforms in its
inventory can replace the close air support capabilities of the
A-10, and I would respectfully disagree. While the F-15, the F-
16 and B-1 and the B-52 are very effective aircraft that are
important components of our inventory, none of these platforms
can fully replace the capabilities of the A-10.
The A-10 flies low; it flies slow. Its armored hull allows
it to be engaged on a battlefield faster and lighter than
higher-altitude flying fighters. Closer communication with
ground forces makes the A-10 close air support more accurate
and lethal.
On Wednesday, General Scaparrotti, the Commander of U.S.
forces in Korea, testified in the Armed Services Committee
that, as an infantryman, he has benefited from the close air
support the A-10 provides in combat and believes it is
important in the Korean Peninsula.
Additionally, General John Campbell, Vice Chief of Staff of
the Army, testified in the Senate Armed Services Committee,
saying, commanding the 101st in Afghanistan, ``We had an A-10
capability come in and provide close air support to our
soldiers. It was a game-changer.''
In recent years, the Congress has approved over a billion
dollars in upgrades for the A-10--new wings, new electronic
packages, new helmets--that make it a very modern aircraft with
at least 15 to 20 years more of service. It would be, I think,
a waste of taxpayer money to divest after such a strong
investment.
I urge you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, to consider
funding the A-10's mission so that we can most effectively
protect our troops in combat and avoid the capability gap.
Until that gap is closed, we simply cannot adequately support
our troops on the ground.
Now, people say we are getting out of Afghanistan, we are
not going to have a ground war, but this is a troubled world;
Crimea, South Korea, all across the globe we are facing
enemies, and we may end up having to protect our troops on the
ground. The A-10 is the best fighter that we have available to
do so, and I appreciate your opportunity to speak about it
today. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I appreciate your being here, and you
have highlighted some things that are important, I think, to
all of us.
Mr. Barber. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
[The written statement of Congressman Barber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Hudson, from the great State of
North Carolina, thank you for being with us. Thanks for your
patience. I know you have been here for a while, but we are
trying to stay on schedule and give Members an opportunity to
talk about what is important to them.
Thank you, all of you, for taking the time to be here.
Summary Statement of Congressman Hudson
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member,
for providing this opportunity. And I want to thank you and the
subcommittee for all the hard work you do protecting our
warfighters and providing the funding and tools that they need
to do the job. I applaud the bravery and sacrifice of our men
and women in military.
As I travel around the communities in North Carolina, Fort
Bragg is on the edge of my district. People consistently tell
me their number one priority is to fiscal responsibility,
restraining spending, forcing Washington to live within its
means; and accordingly, I am committed to cutting spending, to
reducing the size of government, promoting economic growth,
putting our budget back in balance, and sometimes that means
holding departments and agencies accountable, and that is why I
chose to appear before you today to talk about one particular
issue.
As the Army embarks on a new plan to replace the M113
armored personnel carrier, a series of vehicles that have been
in service for over 50 years. I believe it is important for
this committee to ensure proper oversight given the series of
setbacks in recent years to combat vehicle programs.
As you know, the Army's newest approach is called the
Armored Multipurpose Vehicle, or AMPV. There have been active
studies ongoing for some time on determining the appropriate
replacement. In 2008, the Army came to the conclusion that a
mixed fleet of modified Bradleys and Strykers would be the
ideal replacement for the M113. As opposed to a one-size-fits-
all approach, a mixed fleet makes the most economic sense as it
leverages existing programs and allows the vehicle best suited
to a particular mission to be utilized.
Strykers provide speed, stealth and protection in a variety
of roles, while tracked vehicles like the Bradleys can address
the small amount of terrain that is too extreme for a wheeled
vehicle to operate in.
The AMPV program was out of the spotlight for a while
because of the Army's focus on the Future Combat Systems, the
Ground Combat Vehicle. Both the FCS, cancelled in the 2009, the
Ground Combat Vehicle, recently terminated after billions of
dollars were invested in the programs, in both cases the Army
recommended a two-manufacturer approach to development and
production. This allows a greater variety of designs and
encourages competition, which we all know drives prices down.
Furthermore, it ensures our troops deploy with the best
equipment for the job.
With the AMPV as the only Armored Combat Vehicle program
remaining, I would hope the Army will continue to utilize the
multimanufacturer approach. Unfortunately, the most recent RFP
by the Army for the MPV runs counter to this practice and makes
clear that a tracked vehicle such as the Bradley is the only
solution it intends to accept. Any competitor that would offer
an opposing design will find the Army has not provided
sufficient data or time for other companies to compete for a
tracked vehicle.
I believe Congress should not fund a noncompetitive
solution for AMPV and should require the Army to develop an
acquisition plan in order to leverage the advantages of a mixed
fleet. A mix of vehicles, such as the Stryker and the Bradley,
is likely to be a more cost-effective solution, and that can be
fielded actually more rapidly.
Strykers are currently the largest combat vehicle fleet in
the Army and have found broad support for mix of speed, low
operational cost per mile, and resistance to improvised
explosive devices. Bradleys, meanwhile, continue to offer
complete off-road ability and additional protection for direct
engagement, but a mix of these two vehicles would continue to
be evaluated, in my opinion, and considered by the Army as it
leverages the best of both types of vehicles in their quest to
replace the Vietnam-era M113s.
I hope the subcommittee will encourage the Army to fully
evaluate and consider both situations at hand instead of
viewing the competing contracts as mutually exclusive. I hope
the committee will consider a plan that places the best
equipment for the job on the field. If the military can
demonstrate to the subcommittee they are on the right path,
then they can and should move forward with their current plan,
but I believe a fair analysis that acknowledges the
cancellation of the Ground Combat Vehicle and the role it was
to play will recognize the benefits of pursuing a mixed fleet
solution.
I thank the Members for their time and consideration in
this request and, again, appreciate your commitment to hearing
from Members.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We thank you for your time, and I can
assure you our committee is taking a very close look at the
progress on this program.
Mr. Hudson. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Appreciate your emphasis on competition.
Mr. Hudson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
[The written statement of Congressman Hudson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Gentleman from Florida Mr. DeSantis.
Thanks so much for being here. Thank you, also, for your Navy
service.
Summary Statement of Congressman DeSantis
Mr. DeSantis. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member. I know you guys are very busy, so I really appreciate
you having me and giving me some time.
I am here to talk about the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, which,
as you know, is the Navy's carrier-based Airborne Early Warning
and Battle Management and Control System. As the fiscal year
2015 budget request is considered, I ask that you support the
E-2D program as well as and additional fifth E-2D Advanced
Hawkeye aircraft.
The E-2D is equipped with new cutting-edge communications
capabilities and radar systems. These advancements enable the
E-2D to synthesize information from multiple onboard and
offboard sensors to provide increased missile protection to our
carrier defense groups, while also improving the aircraft's
offensive capabilities, which are key to supporting our
combatant commands.
The addition of the fifth E-2D aircraft in fiscal year 2015
is necessary for providing carrier strike groups with the E-
2D's advanced Integrated Air and Missile Defense capabilities
to pace the rapidly-evolving Pacific threat. Without this fifth
aircraft, a carrier will be forced to deploy with the less-
advanced E-2Cs, preventing carriers from having the additional
and considerable capability that E-2Ds bring against multiple
threats. Furthermore, additional funding would be needed to
keep multiple variants of the Hawkeye in service longer.
This program is critical for our Navy and our military. One
of our colleagues, Congressman Jim Bridenstine from Oklahoma,
is himself an E-2 pilot, and he puts it this way, quote, "Given
the threat to strike groups, multiyear procurement of E-2D is
absolutely necessary. The only question is are we purchasing
enough E-2Ds and missile interceptors to counter the high
volumes of incoming missiles that our soldiers and sailors
could face," end quote.
The program has met every major milestone on schedule since
the program's inception in 2003. As the program moves forward,
full funding for the E-2D as well as funding for a fifth
aircraft ensures that carrier air wings will fully realize the
capability provided by the state-of-the-art early warning and
battle management command and control weapons system.
The role technology plays in modern warfare is extremely
important, and the technological advances of the E-2D will
ensure that our military maintains its critical edge. Your
support for the Navy's E-2D Advanced Hawkeye program in the
fiscal year 2015 budget and an additional fifth aircraft is
essential to maintaining the safety of our carriers in a
changing environment where we are facing new threats.
As an appendix to my submitted written testimony, I have
attached an April 2 letter from myself, Representative
Bridenstine, Representative Brown, Representative Brownley,
Representative Carson, Representative Posey and Representative
King in support of the E-2D program.
Thank you again for having me today, and I appreciate the
support that this committee provides to our war fighters.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. And thank you for your
service. That letter will be part of the record, as well. Thank
you very much for your time this morning.
[The written statement of Congressman DeSantis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Representative Hanabusa from the Aloha
State, welcome. How nice of you to be with us. You may be
batting cleanup, I don't know.
Ms. Hanabusa. But then I hope I say the most important
thing.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We will be listening carefully. Thank
you.
Summary Statement of Congresswoman Hanabusa
Ms. Hanabusa. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and anyone
else who is listening, thank you for the opportunity to testify
about the defense programs that are very important to my home
State of Hawaii.
I have been always a fierce advocate of the Obama
administration's rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. I believe it is
vital to the future policy and priorities of the United States
that we remain committed to this pivot, or rebalance, or
recalibration, however you want to call it. And there are many
critical programs in this shift that I would like to take a
moment to highlight.
First of all, I would like to say that I do support the
request for the steady 2-year production of the Virginia Class
submarines. Sustaining a 2-year build rate is not only vital to
mitigating the shortfall of our attack submarine force in the
next decade, but also will continue to leverage critical
savings and efficiencies in building these advanced platforms.
I do want to share a story with you. As many people may
know, Senator Inouye was a great friend and mentor of mine. He
would always tell me, you know, he says, after World War II, he
says, the United States ruled the seven seas. He said if we are
20 percent of it now, that is saying a lot. He said, but, he
says, remember always, the United States will always rule the
deep blue sea, and no one will ever come near us on that.
And this program is one that continues that, and truly, as
you look at the pivot to Asia-Pacific and what is going on, it
is very clear that the one area that no one will ever touch us
in is in our deep blue sea technology. In that vein, the
undersea capabilities that play a critical role, I would like
to encourage the funding of defense research that would
basically allow us to bury undersea cables beneath the seabed,
and that really helps in the significant increase in our
mission effectiveness and cost savings to the Navy in the long
run for that information.
I also believe, when you think about how large the Pacific
is, 53 percent of the Earth's surface is PACOM AOR, but someone
explained it to me like this, and I had never thought of this:
If you were to take all the land masses, PACOM's AOR land
masses, only 17 percent of that 53 percent. But if you were to
take the Pacific, and you put every land mass on this world in
the Pacific, there would still be room for another Africa and
another North America. That is how large that sea is or that
ocean is that comprises the PACOM AOR.
So the shipbuilding budget, of course, is also critical and
must be fully resourced. And I do appreciate the inclusion of
funding for the basically buying of two destroyers as one
additional Afloat Staging Base. That is going to be the method
that we are in the Pacific, by the afloat type and the
rotational-base structure that we are using. We are not going
to base in a traditional sense ever again, I believe, in the
Pacific, notwithstanding the rotational structures that is
found in Darwin, Singapore, is going to be the way of the
future, and I think the float staging is a critical component
of that.
The ships, of course, are necessary to maintain our
presence. I would like to say that in testimony recently
received by Admiral Locklear after the budget dropped, he said
that he is completely undersourced in the Pacific, and in that
vein, I do not believe that we should support the, quote,
"modernization," which really is mothballing of the 11
cruisers.
As my discussions with Admiral Walsh in one of his
testimonies before us was, he is very clear, especially the
South China Sea, it is an LCS-related entity. That is how they
are going to be there. We have a clear reduction in that number
from 52 to 32; however, what is necessary to make that
effective is the cruisers, because LCSs are shore, but we do
need the fleet out in the ocean, and therefore we should not
cut our--really our readiness posture by retiring or
mothballing or however you want to call it, but those 11s are
intended for that.
Both Secretary Hagel as well as Martin Dempsey, the Chief
of the Army chiefs, have talked about the increased risk that
we have taken on. And, of course, they have said that in the
budget structure that we are in and the budget that they
propose, it is not the military that they want, and it is not a
military that they really believe is going to be ready.
I would also like to ask the consideration that we not cut
assets like the Maui Space Surveillance Complex and the High
Performance Computing Center. Those are really necessary for
our cyber defense as well, in particular.
And I would like the committee to consider including the
26.1 billion in defense funding that is proposed in the
Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative, the OGSI, and if
there is a way to fund that, we can really then create the
necessary readiness posture and force structure that we need in
the Asia-Pacific.
Asia-Pacific is where, I believe, the 21st century will be
defined by. It is very important, of course, to my home State,
because as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, Asia-
Pacific is going to be what defines the 21st century, but, of
course, Hawaii is the gateway to the 21st century.
And I would also like to plug the fact that we are probably
the best thing that the United States ever did was when we
became the 50th State. So I would like to ask all of your
continued support in keeping us viable, the most forward and
the most critical for this country as we pivot to Asia-Pacific
and our role in the Pacific arena.
Thank you very much, and if there is any questions--
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We thank you for your very eloquent
testimony and for the good geography lesson which, from your
perspective, you know particularly well. The Asia-Pacific and
PACOM, a huge amount of territory to cover. Thank you so much
on all of our behalf.
[The written statement of Congresswoman Hanabusa follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I believe this does conclude our open
hearing for Members, and appreciate all the staff assistance.
And whatever we need to put in the record that is submitted, we
will do that within the allotted time. And we stand adjourned
until April 8. Is that right? April 8. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014.
U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND/U.S. FORCES KOREA
WITNESSES
ADMIRAL SAMUEL J. LOCKLEAR III, USN, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES PACIFIC
COMMAND
GENERAL CURTIS M. SCAPARROTTI, COMMANDER, UNITED NATIONS COMMAND,
COMMANDER, UNITED STATES-REPUBLIC OF KOREA COMBINED FORCES COMMAND,
AND COMMANDER, UNITED STATES FORCES KOREA
Opening Statement of Chairman Frelinghuysen
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The meeting will come to order. I would
like to recognize the ranking member for a motion.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I move that those portions of
the hearing today which involve classified material be held in
executive session because of the classification of the material
to be discussed.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So ordered. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
This afternoon, the committee will hold a hearing, a closed
hearing, I may add, just for the record, on the status of the
United States Pacific Command, United States Forces Korea, we
are pleased to welcome Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, U.S. Navy
Commander, United States Pacific Command; and General Curtis M.
Scaparrotti, Commander, United Nations Command; Commander,
United States-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command, and
Commander, United States Forces Korea
Admiral, welcome back, and thank you for your service. You
have been in command for over 2 years and you bring a wealth of
knowledge to this hearing. We look forward to your views on a
broad variety of topics in the Pacific area.
General Scaparrotti, welcome to the Committee on Defense.
Thank you for your service. We look forward to your candid
assessment of what is going on in the Korean Peninsula. As
everyone is aware, last year General James D. Thurman was our
commander on the peninsula and he was asked by President Obama
to stay close to home in Korea until the situation calmed down.
General, we are happy that the situation today permits you to
be here with us. However, we are reminded that we can never be
completely sure what happens next in Korea, or for that matter,
in Taiwan, or in the Taiwan Straits or in Indonesia.
As our forces in Afghanistan return home, and services
downsize to a peace-time structure, we are aware that China is
modernizing its armed forces, and will have more ships that are
significantly improved over earlier versions, including
submarines and an aircraft carrier.
Long-standing disputes over territory could bubble to the
surface with little or no warning as we have seen. The recent
Russian annexation of Crimea may encourage similar actions in
the Pacific AOR. The pivot to the Pacific, some might say
rebalance in the Pacific, will involve shifting as much as 10
percent of our Navy's warships in the Pacific AOR; however,
some of the Army's increases in military assets rotate forward
into the Pacific to train, but will actually be based in the
Continental United States.
While discussing readiness, the committee is not convinced
by catchy slogans. A force that is smaller but more agile is
still smaller. Whether or not the force is adequate and how
much risk is being taken requires a judgment of experts, which
is why we have asked you to be here today to help sort all of
this out as distinguished field commanders.
One more topic we must discuss, and about which we want you
to understand our position. Sexual assault will not be
tolerated. It must be addressed in training and policy, and
disciplinary action. Leaders of all ranks must lead by an
example, and improper conduct may be dealt with swiftly with
punishment that fits the crime.
Gentlemen, before we get to your opening statements in a
minute, but before we do, Admiral, perhaps you could update us
very briefly on your involvement and those under your command
for the missing jetliner?
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes, Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. Visclosky. Before the Admiral starts, I just was remiss
in my motion not to remind members that the map that has been
provided to us is classified. But secondly, if I could just add
to the chairman's statements. This is a closed hearing,
gentlemen, and I think it would be very helpful to us as far as
our future considerations is if you could be as candid as
possible, and as frank as possible, because it is a closed
hearing, not a public hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky. Admiral,
welcome.
[The written statement of Admiral Locklear follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The statement of General Scaparrotti follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Clerk's note.--The complete transcript of the hearing
could not be printed due to the classification of the material
discussed.]
Thursday, April 3, 2014.
MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
WITNESS
VICE ADMIRAL J.D. SYRING, USN, DIRECTOR, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
Chairman Frelinghuysen Opening Statement
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The meeting will come to order. I would
like to recognize Ranking Member Visclosky for a motion.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing, which
involves classified materials, be held in executive session
because there is classified material to be discussed.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So ordered. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
This morning, our subcommittee holds a closed hearing on
the fiscal year 2015 budget for the Missile Defense Agency. We
would like to welcome Vice Admiral J.D. Syring, director of the
Missile Defense Agency, to your first time appearing before our
subcommittee. We welcome you and look forward to your testimony
this morning.
As the hostility continues to escalate on the Korean
peninsula, the battery exchanges, the North Korean fire and
directing a test of another nuclear device, we are increasingly
concerned with the safety of our allies in the Pacific areas of
operations and our own homeland defense against missile
threats, realizing that our ground-based, mid-course defense
has been plagued by test data in recent years, we're anxious to
learn of any improvements to the system to increase its
reliability. The threat is increasing. We have to figure out a
way to make the program reliable to protect America and our
allies. Pointing out some of this are several articles the
members have in front of them from today's newspapers. Of
course, North Korea's not the only threat we face. Iran
continues to work on its own missile capabilities. And those
two countries have been in collusion for quite a long time, I
may add. We need to make sure that we are addressing the threat
Iran poses, both to our allies and Israel and to other parties
in the region, Europe, and to us here at home.
We also need to hear your views on the capabilities of our
missile defense, if indeed they are better than our adversaries
China and Russia, and what other countries are doing that have
missile capability, or even a less capable missile capability
that could represent a threat in the hands of people who might
want to use a missile.
So welcome. We look forward to your testimony and an
informative question and answer period. Before we invite your
testimony, I'd like to turn to my ranking member, Mr.
Visclosky, for any comments he may wish to make.
Mr. Visclosky. Chairman, thank you for calling the hearing
today.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And Admiral Syring is before us here.
Your formal comments will be put into the record, but we
welcome any comments you may wish to give.
VADM Syring Opening Statement
Admiral Syring. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Visclosky, distinguished members of the
subcommittee.
Out of our total request of $7.46 billion for the fiscal
year 2015 missile defense program, we are requesting $1.3
billion approximately, plus Air Force Early Warning Radar
upgrades, for homeland defense. My highest priority remains the
successful intercept flight test of the CE-II Exo-Atmospheric
Kill Vehicle. In January 2013, we conducted a highly successful
non-intercept test of the CE-II kill vehicle. Its performance
exceeded our expectations and confirmed we are on the right
track to return the GMD system to flight testing intercept. I
am confident we have fixed the problem and look forward to
conducting the intercept test this summer. It will be in June.
Best test date right now is June 22nd.
I'm also optimistic that we have identified the root cause
of the intercept failure involving our first generation EKV
last July when the CE-I kill vehicle failed to separate from
the booster's third stage. We have accounted for the issue for
the upcoming flight test and are working towards a correction
to the entire fleet before the end of the year, underscoring
the importance of testing.
------
The GMD system fielded in 2004/2005 was designed to counter
a very simple threat from North Korea, a bare RV with no
countermeasures. The intelligence and flight test data today is
very clear that they have moved well past simple
countermeasures and attitude control system development.
Threat missile launches today contain RV's and non-RV's,
which can include tanks, boosters, decoys and other
countermeasures. The BMDS must decide which objects are lethal
and which are not. We cannot shoot at every object seen by the
sensors. If the enemy uses several decoys or releases junk to
fly alongside the lethal target, the multiplication of objects
in the target scene can quickly exceed the available inventory
of interceptors. We must make better use of each interceptor
and only shoot what is required to achieve confidence we have
killed the lethal RV. We cannot afford to shoot our way out of
this problem.
This year's budget request will start the development work
for a redesigned EKV, a long-range discriminating radar, and
other discrimination upgrades needed across the BMD system to
address the very problem I described. I am confident that our
homeland defense capability will be greatly improved and ahead
of the threat by 2020 with this added capability. The new EKV
will address longstanding reliability concerns and the new
radar will provide the needed sensor tracking and
discrimination capability against a threat with complex decoys.
We will continue to monitor Iran's development of longer
range systems as the requirement for a CONUS Interceptor Site
is considered to add battle space and capacity for the
warfighter and to consider a permanent long range radar for the
east coast as well. By 2020, when the Alaska discrimination
radar is complete, our plan will be to move the Sea-based X-
band radar to the east coast for equivalent discrimination
coverage against the Iranian threat.
Mr. Chairman, you will find our plans for the procurement
of additional ground-based interceptors, standard missile 3-
block IB's, and THAAD interceptors, as well as other planned
improvements to the BMDS as part of my written statement. I ask
that it be submitted to the record and----
Mr. Frelinghuvsen. Consider it done.
Admiral Syring [continuing]. And I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement of Vice Admiral Syring follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RECENT GAO REPORT FINDINGS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for your testimony. I spoke
with you briefly. Will you comment on the GAO report? I know
these things appear to be timed to cause a fair amount of agony
and anxiety, but I know that you're prepared to address some of
the issues in there. When you read the title of the report,
``Mixed Progress in Achieving Acquisition Goals and Improving
Accountability,'' that doesn't give us a full load of
confidence. We have confidence in you, but in the overall
program. And I may say, speaking personally, when I talk with
my colleagues about our missile defense program, the comment I
get is that people are skeptical about it, skeptical about its
reliability. So I think one of the things we'd like to achieve
here this morning, and we perhaps will have a full complement
here, certainly those that are here are keenly interested and
others will come, we'd certainly like to--I'd like your initial
reaction to the GAO report, because they are, in some quarters,
viewed as an honest broker and have pointed out some things
that have quite a lot to do with how we put our bill together--
--
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. And how we fund you. Thank
you.
Admiral Syring. Let me cover the program parts of the GAO
report first and then I'll talk more about EPAA, European
phased adaptive approach, in more detail. The GAO has, and
rightfully so, pointed out issues in the past with the Missile
Defense Agency on concurrency and the way that we acquire
systems, and developing overly optimistic concurrent
acquisition strategies, and there are examples of that in the
past, but I can tell you since I've been the director, we've
actually stepped back, and in some cases, redone the
acquisition strategies, for example, the way that we're testing
and readying for tests and new interceptors for the GBI. That
was on the path to test in early 2013. It was a highly
concurrent development path and testing path. It was going to
be, in my view, rushed to test as opposed to completing the
necessary ground and workup tests for the intercept test, so we
went back to that schedule in particular and redid it. There
are other program examples in MDA before we examined it with a
view as more fully concurrent schedules. And coming from
outside the Agency into this job, you know, we looked at it in
great detail, and have actually taken a turn to go back to all
of the development schedules with MDA to ensure that we
properly manage and account for concurrency: and in some cases,
you know, made changes.
The way forward is going to be very important in this area,
because of the redesigned EKV now starting--the new radar now
starting, the development of those acquisition strategies in a
less concurrent way is going to be equally important to ensure
their success.
So we--I actually concurred with the GAO that concurrency
had been a problem. It was actually cited in the last two
reports, and I think we've made great progress in that area.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We're obviously, you know, looking at
some pretty substantial investments towards 2018. We want to
make sure those investments are founded on, you know, some
strong assurances from you.
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Visclosky.
GROUND-BASED MID-COURSE DEFENSE
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you. Admiral, let me ask you a
question. We have 30 missiles deployed today, and it's
anticipated that will grow to 44 by 2017----
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky [continuing]. As far as deployment. If we
were attacked today and we have a launch, would those work? Do
you have confidence that we could shoot down a coming missile?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You do.
Admiral Syring. I do.
Mr. Visclosky. What test results lead you to believe that?
Admiral Syring. The prior test results in terms of actual
intercept testing of the older interceptors were very
successful. The CE-I, which I referred to in my testimony, had
been successfully tested three different times up to the last
failure and the first failure last summer. So it was 3 for 4
with those, 0 for 2 with the--CE-II.
Mr. Visclosky. If I could ask, just so I know, of the 30
missiles that are underground today, do your remarks cover all
30 of those?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. 20 plus 10.
Mr. Visclosky. And you're saying those would work today?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. The reliability calculations are
factored into the shot doctrine of the warfighter. They will
shoot more than one against a threat missile depending on the
extent of the scene, meaning when they see a threat RV, there's
other stuff that's around it, and depending on how wide that
scene is will determine whether they shoot four, five, six or
seven against that threat missile.
Mr. Visclosky. What about the other 10 that are deployed?
Admiral Syring. They are the newer version and they are
through shot management in a status that the warfighter will
only shoot those if required.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. Accepting--and I'm not suggesting
you're not being forthright, accepting that the first 20
deployed would work today if we needed, the 10 are newer
versions. I assume the next 14 to be deployed between 13 now
and 2017 would be of the newer version?
Admiral Syring. Correct.
Mr. Visclosky. Why should we deploy any more until you have
the same confidence that you could sit here and say those last
10 would work like the first 20?
Admiral Syring. You shouldn't. We shouldn't. And that's the
reason that we're going to do an intercept test this summer,
and it will guide our decision with the warfighter to install
the next few that are ready to be completely integrated into
the ground. And then there's an annual flight test between now
and 2017 that will precede every batch of interceptors before
they go into the ground through 44.
Mr. Visclosky. So if I understand the sequence, and I hope
the tests work, I can't imagine the system that it works, the
10 in the ground would be essentially modernized. For lack of a
better term. Are you telling us you wouldn't have the 31st
deployed until you are certain it works?
Admiral Syring. We wouldn't have the 31st deployed until we
successfully pass the intercept test this summer.
Mr. Visclosky. Is the 31st one under construction today?
Admiral Syring. It was--it's at an intermediate stage,
because when we had the failure back in December of 2010, we
stopped integration and taking delivery of the GBI's for that
very reason, and it would be a matter of restarting the final
integration and delivery of those systems under contract.
Mr. Visclosky. And if I could, just so I have a clear
understanding, as I understand it, this is very pedestrian, we
do have the sensors to know if somebody launches? We can track
the missile? We can see if the booster works? And from what you
are saying on the first 20, they were also--what you are saying
is for those additional missiles that are under construction,
they would not be under construction to the point that they
would have to be retrofitted or modernized per the pressures
cells as far as that last sequence, if you would, the end ping
that's involved.
Admiral Syring. The one--the interceptors that will fly
this summer has the correction for the failure that we , saw in
2010, which is an isolated inertial measurement unit (IMU),
which is basically the navigation guidance section for the
missile. And what had happened, for everybody's background, was
there was excessive vibration induced into that measurement
unit caused by the combustion of the divert attitude control
system. So when it got into space, it will fire thrusters as it
sees the threat to get to the threat, and in some cases, that
would go into a very rough regime in terms of lots of shaking
if it needed to go fast, and it shook the IMU. And the
correction is now to isolate the IMU, shock absorbers, if you
will, to account for that problem with combustion if it were to
have to go very quickly to the threat. That correction will be
fed back into the next--to your point, to the 31st interceptor
before it is fielded, and we will test that obviously this
summer.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Would the gentlemen yield?
Mr. Visclosky. Absolutely.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. If the threat involves a lot of decoys,
what happens?
Admiral Syring. Today, we would--the warfighter would shoot
more to be certain of the outcome.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And those that we shoot more of are of
the same reliability----
Admiral Syring. They would----
Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. Group as the one that you
have enhanced?
Admiral Syring. They would first come from the older
versions that have been successfully flight-tested and then
they would go to the newer versions if required.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Visclosky. I have used enough time. I am not a fan of
concurrency and going back and modernizing, retrofitting just
to get it right and then proceed. That is my concern going
forward, and I am pleased that there is not going to be before
final completion test until they get ready, and I hope
generally.
Admiral Syring. Sure.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are on your side. We want you to know
there is a big--some questions need to be answered.
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
THREAT OF NORTH KOREA
Ms. Granger. Thank you. In front of us is a Washington
Times article Wednesday about North Korea that poses some
questions about how ready we are and how--what I would like to
know is what is the assessment, how often do we do an
assessment, how accurate are we, how do we get information from
a country we don't have a lot of conversation with? And last
week when North Korea launched those intermediate range
ballistic missiles, we had no warning. So what is our system of
warning? How soon did you know about that?
Admiral Syring. There is intelligence that we've relied
upon to give you both public and private testimony, and there
is actually a very detailed briefing that is prepared by the
intelligence community every morning that we read, myself, the
chairman, the vice chairman and Secretary of Defense, so the
very latest developments, and sometimes they are hourly
developments, so we have very, very up-to-date information on
what they are doing.
------
Ms. Granger. Is that the way the North Koreans have acted
for some time, or with the change at the top? Is there a
difference?
Admiral Syring. They've acted this way during this sort of
calendar year period of provocation, they did it last year,
they are doing it again this year, they've done it previously
in the spring. They typically knock it off about May, because
that's when the rainy season happens, but we don't--we can't
rely on that, but it has been on an annual basis when they've
paraded these things around. In particular, my view, if they
are doing this in response to the South Korean exercise that is
going on, the United States would know it and you know they are
shooting rockets as well into South Korea.
Ms. Granger. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Ms. Granger. Mr. Owens.
GMD CONTRACTING COSTS
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, nice to see
you again.
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Owens. A couple questions. Mr. Visclosky had queried
you about the testing in 2010. You responded that you are
making modifications as a result of that failure. Who is
bearing the cost of that?
Admiral Syring. We--the contract that we signed with Boeing
has us bearing the cost of that.
Mr. Owens. Now, is that because it was a design flaw?
Admiral Syring. It was a design flaw, but it was--it was
from the design that was rushed into the ground in 2004 and
2005.
Mr. Owens. Is that something that you are looking at in
future contracting to make sure that those kinds of failures
are borne by the contractor?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. And the new kill vehicle
acquisition strategy will include a contracting strategy that
will put the latent defect design responsibility on the
contractor.
MISSILE THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Owens. The countries that you have listed in your
testimony, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Iran, what is the
likely trajectory of a launch by them into the United States?
Admiral Syring. There are two countries right now that
possess the long--and I'll just talk about the rogue nations in
particular, with North Korea and potentially Iran down the
road. The estimate is that Iran could test launch an ICBM by
2015, and I would assess that North Korea could launch an ICBM
at any point.
Mr. Owens. And what would--where would the trajectory be?
Would it be a polar trajectory?
Admiral Syring. Both would come from the north over the
pole. The Iranians would come close to there, but would come
more to the pole than the North Koreans.
Mr. Owens. In the event of a launch, how many rockets would
you expect them to shoot at the United States? The reason I ask
the question is you said that in response to a target coming
in, you might launch as many as five or six missiles to
intercept. If I do my math correctly, that would leave you with
a limited number of additional missiles to launch against
another target.
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Owens. So do you have an understanding of what their
strategy might be if they were to engage in a launch?
------ --
----
Mr. Owens. So you have a reasonably high level of
confidence, then, that they would only be able to launch a
number of rockets that you would have the capacity to
intercept?
Admiral Syring. Today, sir. And that is why it is so
critical to get to 44 by 2017. And that is why it is so
critical to have these discrimination capabilities, to get the
shot doctrine down to where we might only shoot two and then
assess through this radar we are talking about, and then shoot
more if we have to, but hopefully not.
Mr. Owens. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Mr. Kingston.
ISRAELI MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral.
Admiral Syring. Good morning, sir.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you for being here. I want to ask you
if we are going to finish up the funding for the Iron Dome this
year. And the $176 million, is that completed?
Admiral Syring. Right now we don't have--we don't have an
agreement with them beyond that.
Mr. Kingston. But will it be finished? I mean, is there any
reason to believe that they need more time or more money?
Admiral Syring. I think it is safe to say they will come in
and ask for more money.
Mr. Kingston. How much more? If you had to say, you know,
is it 90 percent complete, is it 80 percent? What--how would
you classify?
Admiral Syring. Their requirement is, frankly, not well
known as well as I can tell you what the U.S. requirement is
and such. The funding that we requested will add two more
batteries and a series of interceptors to their inventory, but
what is not accounted for is how many are they expending
through these uprisings and conflicts that happen. And I
wouldn't say no, sir; I would say it has just not happened yet
in terms of them asking for more funding, for more interceptors
in particular.
Mr. Kingston. Is Iron Dome still the primary? I mean, you
know they need David's Sling and Arrow 3 development, but is
Iron Dome the number one that is put--if you have a dollar,
that is where you guys spend it?
Admiral Syring. They are most concerned about that, having
the proper inventory if there were to be another large scale
conflict.
Mr. Kingston. And what about the joint agreement clause
about U.S. providers not being able to provide more than 5
percent? Does that just artificially make it awkward and run up
costs? And, you know, it seems like a lot of money we are
giving them to hold us at 5 percent. Not only is it a little
bit small, but there should be a lot of flexibility in that.
Admiral Syring. We actually signed a co-production
agreement with them 2 weeks ago that will give 30 percent of
the FY 14 Iron Dome amounts to U.S. production capacity, and FY
15 is 55 percent of what they provide to the United States.
Mr. Kingston. And that is not part of the run-up costs
doing that? It is not an option?
Admiral Syring. Their position is that it has increased
costs somewhat. Our data is different, that you all
appropriated last year $15 million for non-recurring costs
associated with co-production. Raytheon, who works very closely
with us, is in contract negotiations with the Israeli Rafael
Missile Company, and they indicated to us that it is no more
than $11 million in non-recurring for their standup costs. In
addition, there is a detailed contract negotiation going on
with Raytheon and Rafael that has an agreement clause in it
that it is not--that if the costs of components provided by
Raytheon exceed 5 percent, that Rafael can go to a different
source. So Raytheon has a strong motivation to provide
affordable costs.
Mr. Kingston. And then tell me where Arrow 2 and Arrow 3
are, because there was a successful flight this January, right?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kingston. And so that does mean that we are there when
Arrow 3 and Arrow 2 starts getting ramped down?
Admiral Syring. Arrow 2 has still not been through an
intercept test. We've done a fly out test. We are testing the
longer range target with them as well, and so is Arrow. I
wouldn't say Arrow 3 is there until we get through two or three
intercept tests. Arrow 2 is obviously fielded, but that is a
lower tier system.
Mr. Kingston. How many do they have? How many do they need
apiece?
Admiral Syring. Arrow 2?
Mr. Kingston. Uh-huh.
Admiral Syring. There is a series of radars and batteries.
I don't know the exact number, I will get it to you for the
record, but it has certainly provided a lower tier defense for
them today.
Mr. Kingston. Whatever is unclassified in that kind of
discussion would be very helpful to me, the number that they
need, the number that they have in Arrow 2, 3, and what their
capacity is on Iron Dome.
Admiral Syring. I will take that for the record. I am not
sure it is unclassified based on how they hold their
information, but I will get the information.
[Clerk's note.--The answer was classified.]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We can talk about it here. It is just a
question of whether you have the information.
Admiral Syring. I think I will have to take it for the
record, sir, to get you the exact number.
Ms. Granger. Can I ask a question?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Jump in. We have a small number here.
Let me add that you have brought General Greaves and Ms.
Schlacter. Normally there is a huge group that comes with many
of our witnesses, so we want to commend you for showing
austerity.
Mr. Kingston. If the chairman will yield, I want to say
he's not just speaking for this committee, but for other
committees. I think all of us are--and it perturbs us sometimes
when witnesses come and they have an entourage with them, and
you wonder, well, who is running the shop, so----
Admiral Syring. I would drive myself if I had a parking
space over here. I can't seem to find parking, so----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think Ms. Granger wanted some of your
time.
Ms. Granger. If I could.
Admiral Syring. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Granger. Because the information that I have is that we
have entered the phase of Iron Dome where that part of
production would move to the United States, and when that
happens, it comes out of the money, so there won't be enough
funding for the interceptors that were planned for, and that is
why the President's plan has less--has a fewer number than they
need. Is that not right? Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Do you reclaim your time, or go to Mr.
Ryan?
Mr. Kingston. I yield.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. You are a gentleman, Mr. Kingston. Thank you.
When you are a senator, you will have an entourage following
you around, and we will call you out on it, too.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Maybe we should strike some of this from
the record.
Mr. Kingston. I was wondering what it will be like when I
write a book. Will I get a big entourage, too?
POTENTIAL EAST COAST SITE
Mr. Ryan. No. And no advance in the House of
Representatives.
Sorry you had to partake in all this. The discussion of the
third ground-based mid-course defense system, and Ravenna, one
of the four sites, is in my congressional district, and I just
wanted to talk to you a little bit about timeline. You said it
is going to be about 24 months for the environmental studies to
be done. Is that still the case? Is it still something you
think, in your estimation, is appropriate for us to move
forward with? Obviously there are a lot of budget challenges
and competing interests here. Can you talk a little bit about
that?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. The status is that we are done.
And you know this well, sir, but for everyone else, we are down
to four sites that we are looking at as part of the
environmental study, and all four will be evaluated and we
started that process. We are also on tap to develop a
contingency plan, meaning don't discuss the environmental study
for 2 years and then visit this again. This is like a
development plan on how you would do it when the requirement
came.
So each of the sites will have a part to the contingency
plan in terms of the specific issues that we have at each site
in terms of how we would actually do it. It won't be the
detailed, you know, design work until we actually select a
site, but there is a lot of work that we can do at each site in
terms of planning, requirements and acquisition, cost
estimating that we will do as part of this contingency plan. It
will be very comprehensive. We actually already have a very
comprehensive requirements document written for a CONUS
Interceptor site, meaning how would you take the requirement
for A fielding 20 interceptors and then start to put it into
specific language that I need this much power and this much
geographic space, I need--you know, I need power at this
capacity of this quality. That is just one example, but it is
approximately a 300-page document, and we have worked on that
over the last 6 months.
All of that will progress, and our schedule is 24 months.
And that is, frankly, aggressive for an Environmental Impact
Study. The DOD average is, I would say, 3 years, almost 4 years
in the past, but we have people from a global deployment
standpoint that have done this worldwide that know how to do
it. We did it in Alaska in that same period of time, so I am
confident if we had to go do this, we could. So that is point
one.
Step two is your question on what is the requirement, what
is the need, are we going to--you know, are we going to proceed
with this. And I always answer that with the east coast CONUS
interceptor site. We actually call it CONUS because east is a
great value for battle space and capacity, meaning there is
time to shoot later and there is time for the warfighter to
assess whether we hit and killed the lethal object, or the re-
entry object. That is what the east coast site is.
The priorities in terms of budget are as I laid out: Let's
get to 44 interceptors by 2017; let's continue to improve the
reliability of those interceptors so the warfighter has
confidence; let's test those interceptors; let's focus on the
discrimination and sensor capability to the west for North
Korea first; and then as Iran continues development, monitor
that. Frankly, my view is Iran is behind North Korea in ICBM
development in technology, but that doesn't mean they won't
catch up. And I think what you will see in the 2016 budget is
Admiral Haney and General Jacoby will debate this requirement
vigorously, and they would testify to you that they have seen
the same benefit, but it is down to, you know, what is the near
midterm priority given the budget situation I am under. And I
think I have recommended to you the prioritization of that
budget to more focus on North Korea first and then do the
preparatory work for an interceptor site.
Mr. Ryan. Where would--so obviously if you are talking
about New York, Ohio, Michigan, it is a matter of seconds, I
mean, the difference between----
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. So where would this interceptor--if one was
coming to the east coast, where would the collision be? Where
would they meet?
Admiral Syring. It would hopefully be up towards the
northern part of Canada, north of--between the pole and Canada
for a first shot, and then further on down if we hadn't hit it
by then, but in all likelihood, you know, we have factored in,
you know, where the booster would drop. That is actually the
biggest concern in terms of when you shoot, where the booster
drops, the first and second stage booster, and we would work to
mitigate that through the flight control software to make sure
it was developed.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Syring. And if I could just add, sir, the intercept
in all likelihood, you know, it is in space, and the
possibility, I mean, as the debris comes down, it will burn up
on re-entry.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Womack.
THREAT OF NORTH KOREA
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We continue to see some alarming activity from North Korea,
most notably from last year's launch. And I'd like to know what
we have learned from those activities either about their
capabilities or our own, and have any of these lessons
surprised you?
------
Mr. Womack. What is your take-away from that?
Admiral Syring. That they are becoming more provocative and
less caring about the international reaction.
Mr. Womack. So we know they have the capability. Does that
change the--and we have known they have that capability, so it
doesn't weigh in at all to any of our pre-planning into what,
if any, response we would have for any provocative action on
their part?
Admiral Syring. Yes, it does. And when I talk defense, I am
only one part of the equation, but this is the offense-defense
strategy that Admiral Haney can talk to you more about and
Admiral Winnefeld. In terms of when we do something
preemptively, you know, that would be their decision, whether
it is something that would trigger that level. I wouldn't say
that the tests of an SCUD, you know--you know, advanced SCUD
would trigger that sort of reaction.
------
Mr. Womack. Thank you. I will have more questions later.
Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Cole, are you ready?
Mr. Cole. I will pass this round. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
MISSILE DEFENSE TEST FAILURES
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I guess I have some time. What is
considered to be a--what constitutes a failure? I certainly get
the impression that sometimes when things fail, there is some
positive spin to it. I sort of detect that. Is that something
that I am misinterpreting?
Admiral Syring. In terms of our failures?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
Admiral Syring. No, sir. A failure is a failure, and until
we successfully achieve an intercept with the new version of
the GBI, it is unproven.
DISCRIMINATION AND SHOT DOCTRINE
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Talk to the committee a little bit about
what is called, and I refer to it along with Mr. Visclosky,
that the decoy, the whole issue of discrimination here. People
are going to be launching something, and you are suggesting
that North Korea perhaps will be. And I think at times we are
dismissive of North Korea's capabilities. I am not suggesting
you feel that way, but I think sometimes people think it is
sort of a Rube Goldberg and that things got shot over Japan and
plopped into the sea, and in reality, they have ginned up their
game, they have got a lot of people that have committed to this
missile technology. Tell us about how we discriminate and how
difficult that is in terms of the overall--maybe just refer to
what we call the shot doctrine.
------
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So how are we ``doing''?
Admiral Syring. Today we do not have the homeland defense
discrimination capability. So today you look up and you see a
cluster of objects. And certainly there is discrimination
capability on the kill vehicle itself, but that is leaving it
to chance. What you--what the warfighter will do is, based on
how wide that cluster of objects is, they will shoot four,
five, six interceptors into the cluster. This cluster can be
seven kilometers wide. So what will happen is the kill vehicles
as they come into the scene, will go for what they determine to
be the most lethal object. That could be the re-entry vehicle,
that could be the tank, that could be a decoy. The idea is
based on the extent of the cluster and the number of lethal
objects in that scene, we will put the proper number of
interceptors up there to ensure that we kill the re-entry
vehicle.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So they could shoot one, we could shoot
four or six?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It really depends.
Admiral Syring. It does, on the extent of the cluster.
SEA-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Just educate me a little bit here.
We have got sea-based.
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Is there a greater degree of reliability
with the sea-based? Evidently there is.
Admiral Syring. Sir, the sea-based intercept tests last 10,
12 years, 28 for 34 successful intercepts. A much longer track
record. The spy radar in the newer version of the Aegis weapon
system computer program, it is called version 4.0, and the new
missile, which has been developed and tested, which is the SM-3
missile, this is a follow-on to the capability of the 1A, has a
two-color seeker in the kill vehicle, which enables it to not
only just discriminate from a Radio Frequency standpoint, but
be able to now discriminate in two colors in terms of picking
the decoy out of a potential infrared decoy scene. So lots of
capability on the SM-3 interceptor. Not probably the same
capability on the kill vehicle, but certainly the kill vehicle
we designed that we requested is going to have that capability,
the onboard discrimination capability as well. The spy radar is
very good at the later versions in terms of discriminating a
decoy scene. We have tested it against decoys. Last flight
test, actually, had decoys up in the scene, and it picked up
the lethal object and put a standard missile on the target.
COSTS OF MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So put some numbers on the cost of what
you are doing here and how much we have gotten for the amount
of money we have invested?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. The ground based mid-course
defense system has--since 2001, we have spent just over $22
billion. By 2019, with the request you have in front of you, it
will be $30 billion. The two improvements that I have asked
for, pleaded for, is to get on with the kill vehicle redesign
to get out of the prototype nature of the versions that were
fielded very rapidly and to provide the varied discrimination
capability I spoke about.
The kill vehicle redesign is just over $700 million over a
period of years and the radar is just over $900 million. So we
are talking about an additional development in that range for
what I view as a rapid set increase in capability.
RELIABILITY CHALLENGES
Mr. Frelinghuysen. This is just a personal observation.
Your soft underbelly, sort of what I referred to earlier, is
just the skepticism about, you know, that this type of
investment, and you are not in the public relations business,
but in reality, these tests that are recorded, maybe they are
not recorded the way that you would like them to be recorded,
but there is a sort of essence here that we are making these
substantial investments, our committee, I think, has been right
there with you, that things are not working out. You are
assuring us with a great degree that they are, could work out
within the time span. We often have a history of pushing things
to the right here.
Admiral Syring. Sir, I have been the director now for 16
months.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I know your involvement is incredibly
important. Maybe program source, you know.
Admiral Syring. And we have been very successful with that
program and the Aegis program in terms of the systems that are
delivered can intercept any time we shoot. So it is not a
matter of hit-to-kill technology being flawed. It is a matter
of restoring or putting that discipline into this development
for the mid-course defense program.
You know--the fielding direction the President gave in
2001, early 2002 was to put these into the ground and provide
some defense against the rising North Korean threat. The design
cycle was cut short, the system engineering-cycle was cut short
and the prototypes were fielded, and, you know, we said we
would come back and improve it. And what I am saying as the new
director is now it is that time.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Visclosky.
MULTIPLE KILL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
------ --
----
Mr. Visclosky. For an individual booster that is in the
ground today, are there more than, if you would, one kill
vehicle on top of that booster?
Admiral Syring. No, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. So when in response to the chairman's
question, our launch capability, you are saying two, three,
four depending on the decision-maker, those would be the whole
booster, everything?
Admiral Syring. One would be one, yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. If you had 30 in the ground today, we launch
four, we have got 26 left?
Admiral Syring. That is correct.
DISCRIMINATION CAPABILITIES OF GROUND-BASED INTERCEPTORS
Mr. Visclosky. As you are doing the research, and I
assume--and, again, there is just implicitly the difference
between the 20 that you have confidence in and the new version
is that ability to discriminate as to where that re-entry
vehicle is what you want to destroy, to improve that ability?
Admiral Syring. I would say it somewhat--I would say it
differently, sir, if I could. That the discrimination
capability of the CE-I, the older version, and the CE-II is not
different.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
Admiral Syring. What we are talking about in terms of the
difference in those versions was that the CE-II, and it is hard
to say, because it hasn't intercepted yet, was done to improve
some of the reliability concerns with the prototype nature of
the CE-I's.
Mr. Visclosky. And we are talking about a degree of
probability. As you proceed with research and development, is
the goal in the end, and there is no certainty in life, is that
you increase certainty at a launch as opposed to probability?
Is that what you are looking towards as far as your shot
doctrine?
Admiral Syring. We want to--certainty of launch is part of
the overall what I call reliability of each interceptor,
meaning what confidence do we have that it will launch, it will
boost, it will separate and it will kill. And there are
probabilities assigned to each of those. And the warfighter has
to be nearly 100 percent confident, so his shot doctrine
accounts for the reliability. So if it is--say, it is 70
percent, he knows that it will statistically provide 99
percent, 99.9 percent assurance to the American people that we
are going to kill the re-entry vehicle, he's going to shoot
more.
Mr. Visclosky. We talk a lot about the North Korean's and
Iranian's, the question I have is capability, assume in a sense
because, if you would, I am an old person, I remember mutually
assured destruction, that is essentially the deterrent.
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
getting here late, but I was working for Mr. Calvert on another
subcommittee.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Our sympathy.
Mr. Cole. But my heart was always with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Oh.
CANCELLED EUROPEAN MISSILE DEFENSE SITE
Mr. Cole. Looking at some of the range of possibilities, I
know we have made some decisions that are both diplomatic and
military in recent years, one of which was to cancel the
deployment of anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the
Czech Republic. Given what we have seen with the Iranians, and
it wasn't designed to deal with the Russians, although I think
it probably diplomatically had an impact on their thinking,
certainly they reacted to it, would it be wise for us to
revisit, based on your capacity, looking at those things, first
from the Iranian perspective, but also there is clearly an
ancillary diplomatic advantage for us? I won't ask you to
comment unless you choose to.
Admiral Syring. I have been asked this question before. The
third site, not to relive history, but I have done a lot of
research on it in terms of the challenges that they faced, it
wasn't an easy thing to go do. There was obviously some benefit
in terms of homeland protection against the Iranian threat, but
the more near-term problem was the vast expansion of the
Iranian regional threat to our allies and deployed forces. And
the decision to go back and say let's focus on the region was
made, and there are people on either side of that decision, but
it was made for good reason.
And, you know, I have gone back and looked at what did the
actual--what would a two-stage GBI in the Czech Republic really
provide? And it would encumber the same issues that I have
spoken to the chairman and the ranking member about in terms of
reliability. We'd be in the same place we are with having to
shoot a bunch of interceptors at one threat.
So the better decision at this point--and then there was
uncertainty on the radar in terms of the Czech Republic that
caused us to put the radar there, as I understand. The better
discussion is that it will provide the most defense to the
United States would be to first do what we are doing, which is
discrimination, and then second, to do work with the
interceptor site to prepare for that. And it would provide the
added interceptor capability. And it would just not be east
coast interceptor capability. You can do it today with the 30
going to the 44 to protect the east coast against the Iranian
threat. I had concerns, personally, about the trajectories from
Iran and our ability to cover all of that from a third site in
Poland.
THREATS FROM IRAN
Mr. Cole. Thank you. That is very helpful, because it
wasn't so hard--let me ask you another question concerning the
Iranians. Obviously as you are developing our defensive
capability--we are watching the defense capability. You have
been doing it for a considerable period of time. Give me some
assessment of how they are progressing in terms of their
offensive capability. Are they doing it about as we
anticipated? Are they having problems that maybe set them back
or are they ahead of the trend?
Admiral Syring. I'm sorry, sir. You said Iran or North
Korea?
Mr. Cole. Iran.
------
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Just remind members that this
is a classified hearing, so what you are hearing could not be
repeated in some other form outside the room.
Mr. Moran.
SM-3 IB TESTING
Mr. Moran. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being late, but we had a terribly important hearing under
Chairman Calvert, so you can understand.
You talked about the GAO report. And I did want to clarify,
though, Admiral, they suggested that you delay Raytheon's 3--
SM-3 Block 1B missile until further more successful testing was
achieved. Have you done that? Have you carried through that
part of the recommendation?
Admiral Syring. No, sir. Let me tell you why. The----
Mr. Moran. Has this been asked before?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It has. And I apologize. The coffee
machine has a way of regurgitating when we want to hear you.
Please speak up.
Admiral Syring. The SM-3 1B went through and successfully
intercepted five of six times. And the SM-3 was built off--the
SM-3 1B was built off the SM-3 1A, and we have actually
intercepted successfully with both of those 20 of 22 times. The
testing that we did in the 1B intercept program, that coupled
with the ground testing that was done, the reliability
calculation for the missile, meaning how reliable was it
against this requirement, right now it is exceeding its
reliability requirement with margin.
Mr. Moran. So you said the GAO report was outdated, then,
in terms of its conclusions with regard to that?
Admiral Syring. I didn't agree with their conclusion on the
SM-3 1B program.
THREATS FROM PAKISTAN
Mr. Moran. Okay. Thank you. Admiral, it is understandable
we talk a lot about North Korea when we talk about missile
defense and Iran, so on, but I continue to have nagging
concerns over Pakistan. If the worst was to happen and
Pakistan's government imploded, what preparations do you have
with regard to Pakistan and its nuclear capability?
Admiral Syring. Sir, with all due respect, I would be out
of my league answering that question.
Mr. Moran. Yeah. Okay.
Admiral Syring. And better suited for Admiral Haney or----
Mr. Moran. Sure. Okay.
Admiral Syring [continuing]. Or Admiral Winfield.
Mr. Moran. All right.
Admiral Syring. It would be speculation and personal
opinion, which is not helpful to you.
MISSILE DEFENSE PRIORITIES
Mr. Moran. Yeah. Okay. If you were asked to cut the missile
defense program substantially and you had to pick two out of
three, for example, what would you choose would be the most
expendable in terms of our missile defense system? Of course,
you are Navy. Why am I asking?
Admiral Syring. The pressure and the requirements that I
get from all of our combatant commanders is to actually be
doing more than we are. Honestly--I should be doing more and
providing more, I should be providing more navy ships, we
should be providing more missiles, I should be providing more
GBI's, I should be advancing the capability faster, I should be
doing more with directing energy. There are a lot of things
that we are doing that are okay given the budget situation and
that they understand you can't always do everything, but there
is not one program right now that I would put a bullet in.
Mr. Moran. And I am sure the Air Force is going to say the
same thing, I suspect, on that.
General Greaves. Yes, sir. I support the Admiral.
Admiral Syring. But I have got to say, sir, I don't know if
you track this, but we were pursuing the PTSS satellite program
and the SM-3 2B missile program, and both of those in last
year's budget were killed. And I came in as the new director,
was asked to assess both, and I agreed with both of those
decisions. Technical immaturity, concurrent acquisition,
overselling the actual capability of what those could provide,
frankly, the cost, billions of dollars to get to field either
one.
Mr. Moran. How much did we save when we killed those
programs?
Admiral Syring. My estimate on the 2B development was 5- to
$6 billion development program. PTSS was in the $10 billion
range, probably.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Mr. Calvert.
GROUND-BASED MID-COURSE DEFENSE
Mr. Calvert. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I apologize also, with all
these hearings going on, but I appreciate your indulgence.
So if a question has already been asked, please let me
know, but as you know, the Pentagon announced a tactical shift
in the ballistic missile defense strategy, changing the focus
from the overseas to more of the domestic protection of the
homeland. And part of that action, as I am sure has been talked
about, is increasing the number of ground-based interceptors
from 30 to 44. However, as I understand it, some of the mid-
course defense tests have failed, and I am not sure if that is
the same standard missile testing you were talking about or if
that is another missile also, and so that has been raising some
questions of reliability and performance. So on these Missile
Defense Agency, these ground-based mid-course defense systems,
how do you see the recent test failures, and if it is the same
failures, I am not sure if they are or not, how that is going
to impact the purchase of additional ground-based systems?
Admiral Syring. The last two tests of the new GBI have
failed, and we have been in extensive rework period of the two
issues that we saw during that flight test. They have been
tested in a non-intercept flight test back in January of last
year. We will test that again this summer, sir, in an intercept
test, and we are confident through the testing we have done in
the non-intercept flight testing, we are ready.
The question is, what does it mean, the 44, which is a good
question. And what I have said previously to the ranking member
was in the budget request before you, we have asked for an
intercept every year between now, and, frankly, it is every
year between now and fiscal year 2018 before we field the next
batch of interceptors. So there is an intercept test this
summer that will inform our decision to field the next eight,
which puts us on a wave, on a path to 44. So the intercept test
in fiscal year 2015, that forms the next batch to fiscal year
2017, so we have confidence.
Mr. Calvert. So that is going to affect the timeline for
the installation and deployment of these ground units?
Admiral Syring. If there were a failure on the intercept
test, yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. What initiatives is the Missile Defense Agency
taking to improve the overall performance of the entire
ballistic missile defense system in the near and long-term?
Admiral Syring. Primarily in the area of discrimination.
Mr. Calvert. Does that mean decoys?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. When you discriminate----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Calvert, we have covered some of
this ground, but a little bit.
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. Decoys, the ability to pick out a
re-entry vehicle from the decoy scene.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Crenshaw.
MISSILE DEFENSE CAPABILITY ON NAVY SHIPS
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
being late. I had to chair another subcommittee. I know we are
all busy. But welcome, Admiral. And thank the chairman.
This is, I know, the first time we have had a briefing like
this, and I think to your credit, sir, and I am glad you are
here before the subcommittee. I imagine you have talked a lot
about all the issues that surround ballistic missiles, missile
defense. It is the one thing that I wanted to bring up, because
we talk a lot in this subcommittee about numbers matter, and I
know if we don't have the land-based missile defense that I am
sure you have talked about already, the fact that a lot of that
will now be designated for ships, cruisers and destroyers, and
we have heard testimony in this subcommittee often that we
don't have all the ships that we need, and when we have less
ships, then we have less capability. So could you just comment
on that, on that piece? For instance, one of the things we
heard from the Secretary of the Navy, there is a plan to lay up
11 cruisers, take them out of service, not decommission them,
but it will take up to 9 years to modernize them, so they will
be docked somewhere. So when we have less ships, it seems to me
we have less capability. Can you comment on that as it impacts
your ability to do the things you need to do?
Admiral Syring. We have today 30 ballistic missile defense
ships in the Navy, and those are in extraordinarily high demand
by the combatant commanders, and in some cases, and all cases
we are not meeting the full requirement as is. They take risks.
They understand that. Because you need to consider ship
stations and deployment, times and maintenance times, you
really begin to--up to 10 of the 30 are available at any one
point in time. About a third is a good metric. We are going to
have 43 ships by 2019, which is going to be vitally important
to them.
The other part of both the modernization plan and the new
construction plan going forward is that when we build a
destroyer or we modernize a destroyer, or cruiser for that
matter, it will come with a computer program and missiles to be
multi-mission, meaning it will have all the mission capability
it has today plus ballistic missile defense, which I think is
going to give the combatant commanders great flexibility in the
future where you don't have to think about the BMD destroyer,
you think about a destroyer, and it is inherent that the BMD
capability----
Mr. Crenshaw. But just until we get to that point, I guess
we are assuming, like any situation, more risk and we have got
to balance that.
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Mr. Kingston.
STEM EDUCATION
Mr. Kingston. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Admiral,
we hear a lot that we are falling behind on STEM and STEM
education in the years, and I am never really sure how much of
that is politically popular rhetoric versus how much is
reality. But, you know, just incredible to understand that, you
know, your mission's been described as hitting a golf ball in
outer space 200 miles away, and it takes a lot of smart kids to
do that. So I was just wondering, you know, is it really--are
we really dangerously behind on STEM? Are we getting there?
Admiral Syring. We----
Mr. Kingston. And I am not asking for expert testimony and
all that, but just a general question.
Admiral Syring. We at the Agency, we have a very active
STEM program to go and not just deal with the college folks
graduating, but to get in at the high school level as well with
the importance of science technology. And I will give you an
anecdotal metric, if it is useful to you.
When we have an opening for a rocket scientist, because
that is what we have, you know, people with--the smartest
people, and I have said this, probably the smartest people in
the world working at the Missile Defense Agency. We haven't yet
seen a problem with qualified applicants in terms of getting
the right people to come work on a very exciting mission. I
have many more applicants than what we have space for. So
people want to work there, people understand the importance.
That said, I do--I agree with your premise that there is a
wider problem in the United States of growing those type of
people. The STEM metric that I see and internalize is that
between China and India, there are 2.4 billion people, and
society says about 10 percent of those will be exceptional,
high performing people, so their gene pool every year is 240
million exceptional, high performing people. Our population is
320 million, so we are picking from 32 million people every
year, if you will. So we are up against those sort of volume
and metrics, and, frankly, I am concerned about it.
Mr. Kingston. When you are looking at those applicants,
which universities are you typically seeing that, you know, are
really turning them out? And I don't necessarily mean that they
are the best and the brightest, but that their interest level
is pushing them in your direction?
Admiral Syring. The United States Naval Academy. That is a
guaranteed job.
Mr. Kingston. That was a setup. I know, this is a very
important question. As you know, I went to Georgia Tech, but I
wanted to throw some bones to some of the people.
Admiral Syring. Not Notre Dame.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your time is expired. Notre Dame is
recognized, Mr. Visclosky.
Admiral Syring. Yeah. We are seeing--we see a lot of
candidates from MIT, from Virginia Tech, frankly, from the
University of Alabama in Auburn, down in the Huntsville area,
and there is no shortage of qualified engineers coming out of
those schools that want to work on missile defense.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Visclosky, equal time.
Mr. Visclosky. You get some gold stars there.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. He did his homework, didn't he?
TRANSITION OF MISSILE DEFENSE TO THE SERVICES
Mr. Visclosky. He did his homework.
On the transition of missile defense, a couple of
questions. What is the plan as far as the transition of
elements of your ownership to the military services for
operations?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. That the system is being
transferred in terms of the THAAD batteries that have been
fielded and transferred to the Army. We are going to in total
field seven THAAD batteries, and as they are completed in
production, they will transition to the Army. The Aegis
systems, as they field and are tested, transition to the Navy
for operation. Certainly we continue to participate in terms of
the operation and support of the BMD's specific missions, which
is a part of what they do just so that the Navy is not funding
that all on their own, so there is an operation and support
tail for us for that system. We also help the Army.
There is a small cell that helps the army with the THAAD
system as well to continue the engineering support, software
support that they need from us, but those two systems transfer
to the Navy and the Army. The GMD system has resided and I
think will reside with me for, you know, the foreseeable
future. It is operated by the Army National Guard up in Alaska
and under the control of the northern command and the strategic
command, but given the low procurement quantities and, frankly,
the issues that we are working through, that is still my
responsibility in terms of development in the field.
Mr. Visclosky. Of the $7.5 billion request, are there
iterations of those expenditures in the services in the
existing budget or is there a transition as far as what the
military will be picking up out of that amount? Of the various
services, I should say.
Admiral Syring. There are agreements that reside with each
of the services on what the plan is for transition and their
responsibilities.
Mr. Visclosky. And I assume that they are continuing to
grow, then, to some point as you continue to transition.
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. We will assume more of the THAADs
and the issues responsibilities, just like the Army has
completely taken over the Patriot, for example.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ISRAELI MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just reclaiming, thank you, Mr.
Visclosky, my time. Just a few comments on the relationship,
our relationship with the state of Israel. I do think that the
investments our committee has made certainly if your nation's
survival depends on technology to some extent, that is what we
are--we have--I think we have provided them with a degree of
survivability. And I would think in some ways they are a sort
of test bed for technology and expertise. And I am sure you
would assure us that you are following very closely everything
they are doing?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir, we are; on the development
programs, very, very close.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. This committee's been involved, I think,
for maybe 15 years. God only knows whether it was on Arrow for
a long time.
Admiral Syring. We are co-developing them with Arrow. And I
have a program manager who is, frankly, in Israel today working
with them.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Oh, it is a commendable situation, and I
think we benefit from that.
Admiral Syring. We rely on them and their expertise.
Without them, we couldn't do it.
RUSSIAN AND CHINESE CAPABILITIES
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just could you briefly comment--
sometimes we take our eye off the ball. How will you briefly
describe where the Russians are, where the Chinese are?
Oftentimes we use these expressions, you know, this nation is
more robust than the other and then some perhaps not up to
speed. How would you classify your counterparts in Russia and
China in a brief summation?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. Their ballistic missile defense
capability in both nations is increasing numbers and
capability, and we know that. And we know that we will never
be----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Land-based, space-based?
------
Mr. Crenshaw. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. I read that we are having talks--when we
cancelled the missile defense in the Czech Republic, Poland,
that we had conversations with Russians about missile defense
and then, of course, after the Ukraine, we halted those. Is
that going on, that we are sharing information?
Admiral Syring. No, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. Not true?
Admiral Syring. Not since I have been the director----
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Admiral Syring [continuing]. For 16 months.
Mr. Frelinghuysen.
------
Admiral Syring. On Russia information. Sure.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, Russia and China's capabilities.
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. We'd be happy to provide that.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Some of this I am familiar with, some of
it I am not that familiar with, but I am sure everybody--part
of their education appreciate that opportunity.
Admiral Syring. The other thing, Mr. Chairman, if I can.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Please.
Admiral Syring. The advance--you have all heard about the
CSS Five, the 2-1 ballistic threat from China, and they have
tested that several times and they have a few dozen in their
inventory, is the ability of a ballistic missile at 1,600
kilometers to target our sea base, and we are--in this budget
have proposed a sea-based terminal defense program to field on
the Aegis class ships with the SM-6 missile to defeat that
threat.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, we will set something up.
Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would want to make
note of the fact that I also had a subcommittee meeting,
however, I was on time. I was on time. I just thought I would
mention that.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We could not have a meeting without you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You are vice chairman.
SHARING OF INFORMATION AMONG THREAT NATIONS
Ms. Granger. That is right. Thank you.
I was in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis were talking about
what was going on with Iran and how vital it was that we stop
them from having a nuclear weapon. And the person I was talking
to drew lines from that situation, if they had nuclear weapons,
to the countries that would share and ensure their nuclear
weapons all over the world, frankly. So I think it would be
good also, what you are talking about and where Russia and
China is, but also who's sharing and what their capabilities
are. And I just ask you today, what is the likelihood that
North Korea would sell their technology to Iran, or are they
already sharing it?
Admiral Syring. High. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Are you saying that they, what, 17 years ago gave, you
know, launch, missile launch stuff to Iran?
Admiral Syring.
------
ISRAELI MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Ms. Granger. One other short question, and I have
information right now, but if we were to fill in the gap on the
interceptors that Israel has said that they agree upon a number
that is lower right now, what is the cost of that to fill in
that gap?
Admiral Syring. I was just telling the other distinguished
member that we don't--we have asked, and to get their true
requirement is very difficult for us. And they hold that very,
very close.
------
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Calvert or Mr. Cole. Mr. Aderholt
gets 3 minutes.
RAILGUN TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a quick question. And maybe this is more theater
defense versus ballistic defense, but this new Railgun
technology coming online, I have read about the potential as a
deterrent, especially for theater-type systems but do you see
any future in that?
Admiral Syring. I do. And we are working closely with the
Railgun office on what it actually might provide. Certainly it
is on the right side of the cost equation in terms of the
cheaper projectile, but there are several technical challenges
in terms of the gun barrel, the projectile that have to be
worked through, but we are very interested in that technology.
INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS OF PROGRAMS
Mr. Calvert. One other quick question. I would imagine in
your world, assessment of the systems have to be absolutely
right on. So how important is independent assessment of these
type of systems to make sure that there is no prejudice
involved?
Admiral Syring. Critical. I actually--my test plan is
actually co-signed with Dr. Gilmore in DOT&E, so he approved my
test plan. And I couldn't have any more--I couldn't have a
stronger partnership for that very reason.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Just quickly for the record, if those guys from
Alabama were that smart, they wouldn't have underestimated
Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl. A Texan would never make that
mistake.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. That will be part of the record.
MISSILE DEFENSE PARTNER NATIONS
Mr. Cole. I am still living in the afterglow of the moment.
We talked a lot in this committee about the cooperation,
the cooperative relationship we have with Israel in this
particular area. Can you discuss, if any, the cooperative
relationships we have with our European allies, other countries
that we are working with jointly on this and the degree of help
that is to our program?
Admiral Syring. Yes. First I will talk NATO, then I will
talk other examples of countries. Cooperation we have through
NATO, we actually feel in 2011 the command and control
capability, and their command and control in Europe is actually
connected to our command and control as well to share
information, share situational information from their
standpoint. So there is actual interconnectivity between the
United States and NATO on that.
The partnerships that we have geographically are with
Poland, Romania, the ability to send destroyers to Spain. This
is more classified than we talked about today, work going on
with the United Kingdom in a couple of very key areas. We are
in discussions with the Netherlands on how they can provide
sensing capability with their ships when they are at sea to
provide the coverage as part of the network. And I would say
that there are two or three other countries that we are working
with to provide at least a situational awareness, certain
tracking capability from their sources. The Netherlands and
Germany were very forthright in terms of putting Patriot
batteries into Turkey with the Syria uprising, and we are
thankful for that. And I think there are technology
opportunities in overhead sensing satellite capability that we
continue to pursue a different classification of.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Cole. One additional question, quickly, if I may, Mr.
Chairman.
You must be, from a foreign intelligence perspective, about
the most tempting target in the United States in terms of
technology, in terms of the things you deal with. Could you
give us some description of, number one, your confidence that
you are able to fend that off, and the kind of threats that you
see coming--particularly, obviously, as it is related to cyber
security, but any other just security concern you might have,
that the technology that you have, which is very pressing and
very important, you know, is ever at risk of being stolen or
compromised.
Admiral Syring. We have actually a 24/7 cyber security cell
at MDA, meaning a fully manned, 24-hour watch team of
individuals--I won't tell you the number, it would fill this
room--that monitor the network trafficking and intrusion that
happen every day, the people that are trying. And they are
trying. And I have stood up, and this was stood up before me,
but there is an active defense at MDA to counter that very
specific threat.
Mr. Cole. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Excellent question.
Mr. Aderholt, gentleman from Alabama.
NEW EXO-ATMOSPHERIC KILL VEHICLE
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being late. As you know, our full committee chairman has a busy
schedule of hearings, and I just came from my chairing an
Agriculture hearing. So thank you for letting me come in a bit
late this morning.
I want to ask about the EKV. I was wondering if you could
provide the committee what kind of profile and what kind of
freedom of procedures you would need in order to test and
deploy a new EKV by fiscal year 2018, and any comments that you
could make about that?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir. The reason for the request is
well known in terms of factoring it to more manufacturing,
testing of the EKV. We requested because we are trying to get
out of the design that was fielded back in the early 2000s of a
prototype. And, frankly, to the chairman's point, we have had
issues with that design, and the need to get this to a very
high .99 reliability is critical for the long-range defense of
the Nation. We requested $729 million in this year's budget,
which includes the adequate funding for flight testing that EKV
in 2018. We will actually do a non-intercept flight test and a
flight test in 2018 to test that. And if those are successful,
that will serve as the basis for us to begin manufacturing of
those kill vehicles to go to the new interceptors, but maybe
more importantly, to go back to the interceptors that are in
the ground, where we can form fit replacement and take out the
current EKV and put the new EKV in. That would be the plan
long-term starting in 2020.
Mr. Aderholt. If I don't know where you have it, but could
you provide us with a list of how many interceptors each of our
regional combatant commanders have requested broken down by
base command?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir, for the record.
[The information follows:]
The fiscal year (FY) 2015 President's Budget funds an increase of
the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) force from 30 to 44 by the end of FY
2017. Currently there are 26 GBIs emplaced at Fort Greely, Alaska with
4 remaining at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Location for the
additional GBIs will be at Fort Greely or as directed.
With regard to regional ballistic missile defense systems, the
combatant commanders submit their requirements to the Joint Staff (J-3)
for validation, prioritization, and apportionment by the Joint Staffs
global force management process. The Missile Defense Agency defers to
the Joint Staff for the specifics on how the interceptors are
apportioned.
AEGIS ASHORE
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. And I wanted to ask about your comments
on the progress of working with our allies on Aegis ashore
developments.
Admiral Syring. Yes. The Romania development is doing very,
very well. Mr. Chairman, to your point and others that have
read the EPAA, the GAO EPAA report, I would take issue with the
characterization of that, because we are on track. We actually
fielded the command and control capability for EPAA phase 2 in
late 2011, and that will be the capability that will be
required for 2015 fielded in Romania. So that will bring with
it the ability to, and we have it today, the ability of each
ship to conduct launch operations, meaning able to fire from
the ship without having a track on the radar. And we
demonstrated that with two flight tests in the past 2 years. So
that launch on remote capability is what gives you the coverage
in Europe, so that we are going to have ships stationed there.
And in order to get the wide defended area along with the Aegis
ashore site in Romania gives us the first increment of European
coverage, with the second increment provided by Poland in 2018.
All of that is on schedule, on track. I took a briefing this
morning on it, as a matter of fact.
TWO-STAGE INTERCEPTOR
Mr. Aderholt. And just briefly, the two-stage version of
the GMD interceptor and how it compares at coverage with the
Aegis ashore deployment of our largest SM-3 missile, including
development, would it be a strategic advantage to have those?
Admiral Syring. We have a plan for a two-stage test in this
year's budget. We have always had a plan it is going to be
tested out in the 2019 time frame. There is some development
work that has to go out and finish the testing to follow up on
the testing that was done several years ago, but our plan still
remains to field a two-stage interceptor, both at Vandenberg
and Fort Greely. It provides us the flexibility with the three-
stage to handle problems with interceptors in terms of, say, we
are not successful at two-stage, has a much shorter range, so
if you needed to, you fire one of those in the end game just to
make sure you have got it. So we view it as very complementary
capability and required capability.
As far as commenting about the two-stage, I went over this
previously, the two-stage in Poland back in--it was cancelled
back in 2009, it would have been the subject of the same shot
doctrine limitations I have today with the current GBIs, so the
ability to defeat, you know, more than one or two threats is
probably what the tender provided. And in my estimation, it is
best for us to focus on making use of the interceptors that we
have with discrimination capability to get the shot doctrine
down to protect the whole United States with less interceptors.
We can do that today, but the shot doctrine is not where we
want to be long-term, and it is up to me to provide the tools
to make that decision.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
LASER SYSTEMS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Just a couple of questions.
When I first got on the committee, Jones & Bartlett kept
pounding me on the magnetic pulse. I am not sure where the
momentum--where that is these days, but I do have concerns. I
know we have some investments in laser systems. I think we
cancelled one, but this is--I come from the school, let's
expect the unexpected. What are we doing, and perhaps more
importantly, what are, let's say, the Russians and Chinese
doing in this area? I hate to think we would be making all
these substantial investments, but I assume as we do that, we
are taking a look at ways that they could be disabled, crippled
or, for that matter, vaporized.
Admiral Syring.
------
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, I am talking about that, but I
will be willing to talk about what you were talking about. I
was just wondering where we are relative perhaps to--are the
Russians and Chinese working on something and behind the scenes
in their various stovepipes? I assume they must be doing
something.
------
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Any further questions, Mr. Calvert? And
now Mr. Womack has a question as well.
Mr. Calvert. Just on your question on EMP. Are systems hard
enough to withstand any attack?
Admiral Syring. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Womack.
LEVELS OF RISK
Mr. Womack. Since Mr. Kingston asked the question about
STEM, as a proud graduate of Arkansas Tech and not hearing my
school in the response, I somehow don't feel qualified to ask
any more questions.
Actually, I do have one, and I have asked this of others.
You mentioned earlier in your testimony all of the requests
that you get from the combatant commanders for stuff, for your
capability, and I know you try to get to yes on every request
because you want to, but I also know that you can't get to yes,
because you are in a resource-constrained environment. So what
is the acceptable level of risk that you are--that we have to
be willing to take as a country when we are not in a position
to respond to the combatant commanders with exactly what they
would prefer to have in their AOR?
Admiral Syring. The process that we use is through the
strategic command and their prioritized capability list. They
come up, and General Haney comes up with a list of requirements
for across all of their combatant commanders, so they feed him
what their missile requirements are. He says, this is my
priority, prioritized capability list. I then send back what is
called an ACL, which is an achieve capability list, meaning
here are your priorities and here is what I am doing to meet
them. And I would say in large part they are met.
Now, there are limitations to the number of Aegis ships
that are driven by the Navy, right, in terms of I just can't--I
can't build a ship. I modernize the ship with BMD capability
based on the Navy's, so there is limitation in that way, but I
think we have done an excellent job in terms of structuring our
program to meet the combatant commanders' requirements with
very few exceptions.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
As we conclude, I would just remind members we discussed
some sensitive information which we should not--you know, not
only us, but we are taking a look at perhaps some of our
potential adversaries, we don't want to give anybody
information that would be inappropriate. So please be careful
about what you say.
And, Admiral, thank you on behalf of the committee for the
work that you do. Appreciate it.
Admiral Syring. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We stand adjourned.
[Clerk's note. Questions submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen and
the answers thereto follow:]
AEGIS System and SM-3 IB Missile Production
Question. The fiscal year 2015 budget request procures three
upgrades and five new installations of the Aegis system on ships, as
well as 30 SM-3 Block IB missiles ($398 million), and advance
procurement for future missiles ($69 million). There are concerns with
the production ramp--up to 52 missiles were appropriated in fiscal year
2014, and last year's budget request assumed procurement of 72 missiles
in fiscal year 2015. However, instead of 72 missiles in fiscal year
2015, the request only provides for 30 missiles and plans for 48
missiles in fiscal year 2016. This profile will likely cause
instability in the contractor's production line and will increase unit
costs.
Admiral Syring, the request for the SM-3 Block IB missiles has been
cut by 42 missiles, and is 22 fewer missiles than what was appropriated
in fiscal year 2014. What effect does this have on the production line
and the unit cost of each interceptor? Is this a smart path for
procurement?
Answer. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has procured a total of 77
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB missiles within the last 10 months
(29 missiles placed on contract in June 2013, 4 missiles placed on
contract in August 2013, 8 missiles placed on contract in January 2014,
and 36 missiles placed on contract in March 2014). We will place an
additional 4 to 8 SM-3 Block IB missiles on contract by June 2014 for a
potential total of 85 since June 2013. We anticipate awarding the 30
SM-3 Block IB missiles planned in the President's Budget (PB) 2015 by
February 2015. With a total of 115 SM-3 Block IB missiles in a 21-month
period, the production line has sufficient quantities to remain stable.
The missile quantity reduction requested in PB 2015 is due partly
to advance procurement funding of missile components with lead times
that exceed the current 24-month SM-3 Block IB planned production
schedule. This production schedule was established by the acquisition
strategy during production of SM-3 Block IA missiles and initial
production of SM-3 Block IB missiles. Some SM-3 Block IB components
have lead times that exceed the 24-month production contract. These
lead times range from 26 to 35 months from contract date to first all-
up round delivery. The cost increase of $2M per round is due to a
reduction in the size of order purchases and a reduction in production
efficiencies within the SM-3 Block IB facilities.
We are confident that our acquisition strategy is sound. We are
reviewing the opportunity to enter into and execute a multi-year
procurement contract for full rate production of SM-3 Block IB guided
missiles starting in fiscal year 2016. A multi-year procurement
strategy for the SM-3 Block IB missile will provide additional
production line stability resulting in lower unit costs.
Question. The budget request also includes advance procurement
finding for SM-3 Block IBs with the goal to request authorization for
multi-year production in next year's request. What cost savings do you
hope to achieve with this plan?
Answer: The Missile Defense Agency is compiling cost and pricing
data to support an independent cost estimate by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation for a
fixed-price multi-year contract. We expect to complete this analysis to
support the President's Budget 2016 submission. SM-3 Block IB multi-
year procurement authority is being evaluated for cost savings and
programmatic stability across a four-year period (fiscal years (FY)
2016 through FY 2019) for a range of 182-197 missiles. We expect a 10-
15 percent reduction in SM-3 Block IB unit cost through:
Savings from economic order quantity buy
Mitigation to missile components experiencing
obsolescence, such as electronic components (circuit cards)
Production efficiencies through better use of
facilities and predicted work force requirements for the
activities scheduled over the four-year period
SM-3 BLOCK IIA Co-Production with Japan
Question. The fiscal year 2015 budget request procures up to 17 SM-
3 Block IIA development missiles prior to beginning full production in
the future. However, recent cost estimates from Japan suggest that the
components they are supplying are higher than anticipated and
unaffordable in the future. The SM-3 IIA is already estimated to cost
almost $28 million per round.
Admiral Syring, cost estimates for Japanese components of the SM-3
IIA missile are coming in higher than anticipated. What is the plan to
keep the missile at an affordable price? If Japanese industry is unable
to lower their costs, what is the plan to procure those components and
how would that affect the procurement schedule?
Answer. The SM-3 Block IIA research, development, test, and
evaluation (RDT&E) contract for 17 missiles to support integration and
test is not awarded yet. The independent government estimate for the 17
RDT&E missiles is $28.0 million per missile. The Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) is working with the prime contractor (Raytheon Missile Systems)
and the Government of Japan to refine the unit cost and start
affordability measures before contract negotiations.
An action item from the February 2014 United States--Japan
Executive Steering Committee set a requirement for the Japan Ministry
of Defense and the MDA to define SM-3 Block IIA production cost targets
at section and missile assembly level. Further, they were to identify
design options to achieve cost targets, develop an update cycle to
implement design options, and define production insertion points. This
effort will help the Japanese manufacturer identify design options
achieving cost targets, identify cost reduction initiatives, and find
opportunities to implement identified cost initiatives into the SM-3
Block IIA design.
In another action item, the U.S. prime contractor (Raytheon Missile
Systems) was tasked to analyze U.S. capabilities for addressing
Japanese component affordability. This analysis will give us the chance
to insert identified cost initiatives into the design.
We are awaiting results of the above action items before
determining affordability measures to take for production of the SM-3
Block IIA.
Question: What is the acquisition objective for SM-3 IIA missiles,
and how does that compare to the number that Japan is planning to
procure?
Answer: MDA is working with the Navy and Combatant Commanders to
define a long-term SM-3 Block IIA procurement objective. Per the
President's Budget 2015, 17 research, development, test and evaluation
missiles and 44 production missiles will be procured between fiscal
year (FY) 2017 and FY 2019. Japanese total procurement is planned for
16-32 missiles.
Question: What is the procurement schedule for the SM-3 IIA
missile, how will it be deployed, and what role does it have in the
larger BMD system architecture?
Answer: The SM-3 Block IIA research, development, test and
evaluation contract for 17 missiles to support integration and testing
is not awarded yet. To accommodate scheduled flight tests, these
missiles will be delivered starting in the fourth quarter of fiscal
year (FY) 2017 through the third quarter of FY 2019. Current test
events defined by the Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP) 14.1 require
firing eight SM-3 Block IIA missiles. Spare SM-3 missiles will be
available for each flight test. Spares will roll to the next test event
if not used.
SM-3 Block IIA rounds not used in flight tests will support the
validation of contractor manufacturing readiness (MR). They will prove-
out manufacturing processes, provide information on reliability,
maintainability and supportability, and refine cost estimates. This MR
data, along with the flight test data, is necessary to support the
initial production decision (second quarter of FY 2017) and the final
production decision (second quarter of FY 2019). We will evaluate all
unexpended rounds for deployment to support European Phased Adaptive
Approach Phase III (December 2018).
The SM-3 Block IIA program is on track for deployment in December
2018 to enhance the Ballistic Missile Defense System intermediate range
ballistic missile defense capability. The SM-3 Block IIA will include
increased raid engagement capabilities and capability to defeat a
larger, more sophisticated threat set. With the Aegis BMD 5.1 weapon
system, the engage on remote capability will permit engaging targets at
extended ranges based on track data from remote BMDS sensors.
European Phased Adaptive Approach/AEGIS Ashore
Question. However, last week Secretary of Defense Hagel and British
Defense Minister Hammond agreed on the need to bolster missile defense
systems in Eastern Europe. It was reported that they want to speed up
the timeline for the placement of missile defense systems in Poland,
which are scheduled to be operational in 2018 as part of Phase 3.
Admiral Syring, are the EPAA and Aegis Ashore programs on schedule
to meet the 2015 and 2018 timelines?
Answer: Yes, the Aegis Ashore program is on schedule to meet the
2015 and 2018 timelines for EPAA Phase II and Phase III, respectively.
Question: If the Aegis Ashore installation in Poland could be
completed earlier, would it be outfitted with SM-3 IB missiles instead
of SM-3 IIA missiles since the timeline for deploying the SM-3 IIA
missiles is not until 2018? How would that affect the SM-3IIA program?
Answer: The Aegis Ashore system will be able to launch SM-3 Block
IA, IB and IIA missile variants. Should the decision be made to deploy
Aegis Ashore Poland earlier than the current 2018 date, initial
deployment of the system would not include capabilities in the Aegis
BMD 5.1 weapon system (required to launch the IIA missile) or SM-3
Block IIA missile. This decision would not affect the SM-3 Block IIA
program of record.
Note: The Missile Defense Agency delivers all SM-3 missiles to Navy
Fleet Forces Command (FFC) for allocation to combatant commanders. FFC
determines the mix of variants deployed to ships and ashore based on
ballistic missile defense requirements through the Global Force
Management process.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Frelinghuysen.]
Tuesday, April 8, 2014.
U.S. AFRICA COMMAND
WITNESS
GENERAL DAVID M. RODRIGUEZ, USA, COMMANDER, U.S. AFRICA COMMAND
Opening Statement of Chairman Frelinghuysen
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would like to recognize the ranking
member Mr. Visclosky for a motion.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing today,
which involves classified material, be held in executive
session because of the classification of the material to be
discussed.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So ordered.
Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
Again, Members, what is discussed in here stays in this
room.
The United States Africa Command is one of six of the U.S.
Department of Defense geographic combatant commands and is
responsible to the Secretary of Defense for military relations
with more than 53 African nations in its area of
responsibility, the African Union and the African Regional
Security Organization. While still based in Stuttgart, Germany,
AFRICOM is responsible for all of the Department of Defense
operations, exercises and security cooperation on the African
Continent, its island nations and surrounding waters.
AFRICOM began its initial operations in October of 2007 and
officially became an independent command 1 year later. Although
AFRICOM is relatively new, the command is very relevant,
primarily due to the growing presence of al-Qa'ida and other
terrorist organizations spreading across the continent. Much
like Afghanistan prior to 2001, the African Continent has
become the new haven for extremism. It has always been dealing
with issues that relate to ethnic and religious hatred, and it
is faced each and every day with incredible poverty among many
of its people. With 6 of the world's 10 fastest-growing
economies and a population of 1 billion that will double by
2050, Africa's importance to U.S. national interests will only
increase.
We are pleased to welcome General David Rodriguez, the
Commander of AFRICOM. He has commanded at every level and most
recently led the U.S. Army Forces Command, the Army's largest
organization.
Thank you, General, for testifying before the subcommittee
today. May I also add that you are a distinguished graduate of
West Point, and, most importantly, your wife comes from Red
Bank, New Jersey.
As we have discussed, the committee is concerned that
certain African countries over ready-made havens for terrorist
training and recruitment activity during a time in which our
way of life, and may I say their way of life, has been
threatened by those with radical beliefs. The area within your
command, because of its vastness and unmonitored country
borders, is a prime target for extremist activity.
We are particularly alarmed about the proliferation of more
sophisticated IEDs, which I am sure you will tell us more
about, and which you are intimately familiar because of your
many years in the Middle East.
And may I say I have a personal interest, and I am sure
Members of Congress do, about the growing role of China and
Russia, not only China's economic role, but the whole issue of
foreign military sales. I think that sort of is something--an
area where we may concentrate this morning.
We look forward to your testimony, and I would like to
yield to my ranking member Mr. Visclosky for any comments he
may wish to make.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing.
General, I appreciate your service and your testimony
today, and I do look forward to it. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
General Rodriguez, the floor is yours. Your formal
statement will be put in the record, and I appreciate your
being here.
[Clerk's note.--The complete transcript of the hearing
could not be printed due to the classification of the material
discussed.]
[The written statement of General Rodriguez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, July 15, 2014.
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FUNDING
WITNESSES
HON. ROBERT O. WORK, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
ADMIRAL JAMES A. WINNEFELD, VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
HON. MIKE McCORD, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Hearing will come to order. I would like
to recognize Mr. Visclosky for a motion.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I move that those portions of
the hearing today which fall as classified material be held in
executive session because of the classification of the material
to be discussed.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So ordered. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
This morning the committee will hold a hearing on the
recently announced overseas contingency operations budget
request. I do have a statement, which, by unanimous consent, I
would like to put on the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are doing that so we can have enough
time to focus on the many questions that we should be directing
to our witnesses.
This morning I am very pleased to welcome Secretary Robert
Work, who is the new Deputy Secretary of Defense, having been
in his position for a bit over 2 months.
So, also, Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral, thank you for
being here.
And Secretary Mike McCord succeeds our friend Bob Hale, who
is an old hand here on the Hill, having had its roots in
authorization, but with good relationships with appropriators.
So we are very pleased to have all of you. I think it is
the first time any of you have appeared before our committee.
We welcome you here at this early hour. And may I thank all the
Members for being here so promptly, especially chief ranking
member Nita Lowey of New York.
Secretary Work, I understand you will sort of be testifying
for the group, if that would be all right.
Mr. Work. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. But I am sure we will be hearing from
all of you during the course of the morning. So if you would
proceed, your formal statement would be put in the record.
[The written statement of Secretary Work and Admiral
Winnefeld follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Clerk's note.--The complete transcript of the hearing
could not be printed due to the classification of the material
discussed.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]