[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
_______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
KEN CALVERT, California STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TOM COLE, Oklahoma TIM RYAN, Ohio
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
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.
Rob Blair, Paul Terry, Walter Hearne, Tim Prince,
Brooke Boyer, B G Wright, Adrienne Ramsay, Megan Milam Rosenbusch,
Collin Lee, and Cornell Teague,
Staff Assistants
Sherry L. Young, Administrative Aide
_______
PART 1
Page
FY 2016 Navy / Marine Corps Budget Overview.................... 1
FY 2016 Air Force Budget Overview.............................. 157
U.S. Africa Command............................................ 237
FY 2016 Department of Defense Budget Overview.................. 261
FY 2016 National Guard and Reserves............................ 343
United States Pacific Command and United States Forces Korea... 449
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-457 WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016
----------
Thursday, February 26, 2015.
FISCAL YEAR 2016 NAVY/MARINE CORPS BUDGET OVERVIEW
WITNESSES
HON. RAY MABUS, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES NAVY
ADMIRAL JONATHAN W. GREENERT, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
GENERAL JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
Opening Statement of Chairman Frelinghuysen
Mr. Frelinghuysen. This is a Navy-Marine sort of a day. We
hear through the grapevine that a lot of other hearings have
been canceled, so we want to thank you for making your way
here. We fully expected you would be here, hell or high water.
The committee will come to order. This morning our
subcommittee begins a series of Defense posture and budget
hearings with our military services, our combatant commands and
other major components of our Armed Forces. In this time of
rapidly expanding threats to our national security our goal in
these hearings in our fiscal year 2016 bill is to make sure
that our soldiers, sailors marines, and airmen and their
families have the resources they need to execute their assigned
missions. At the same time in an era of constrained budgets, we
must make every dollar count.
This morning we hold an open hearing on the budget request
for the Department of the Navy. We welcome the leadership of
the Navy and the Marine Corps, the Secretary of the Navy, Ray
Mabus, thank you for being back with us. And for the last time
testifying is the chief of Naval operations, Admiral Jonathan
Greenert. Admiral, thank you for 40 years of service. Let us
give him a round of applause.
It is also my pleasure to welcome back to the committee,
although for the first time in his capacity as a Commandant of
the Marine Corps, General Joe Dunford. Thank you, General, for
being here as well. I am sure I speak for every member of our
subcommittee in thanking you for your valuable service to our
great Nation and for those you command. Of course, we recognize
those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, those who have been
wounded that we continue to care about. We owe all of you and
all of them a great debt.
Gentlemen, the business at hand is the President's fiscal
year 2016 budget request. Unfortunately, the variable that will
have the biggest impact of your budget next year and for years
to come is not actually part of this request. Unless there is a
dramatic legislative change, the law of the land requires the
Appropriations Committee to mark up bills this year to the
level dictated by the Budget Control Act, the BCA. In the case
of the Department of Defense, I expect our allocation to be
approximately $34 billion below the President's request. Since
this is the first of our hearings, I am going to take a point
of personal privilege to discuss some of my personal views and
what I think are realities facing our Nation.
Today and over the next few weeks, the American people will
be hearing a great deal about the so-called sequester, it is a
concept born decades ago and only revived in recent years.
While it sounds like a lot of procedural jargon to the
taxpayers, the sequester will have serious ramifications for
our troops and our national security. This is precisely why we
will be hearing from our witnesses today and in the weeks to
come about how an additional $34 billion sequester cut next
year will harm our defense capabilities in the era of expanding
threats. And yet, the President is threatening to precipitate
that very sequester by sending up a budget that ignores the
law, the Budget Control Act, which we have to support.
For the record, I agree that the law needs to be modified
to avoid dramatic, negative consequences to our ability to
protect our homeland and to assure our mission around the world
and our support for our allies. But let us also be very clear
that the sequester alone is not the problem here. After all,
the sequester did not create the existing security climate that
reflects indecision, hesitation, or some call it ambivalence in
our defense in foreign policy. The sequester did not create
ISIS. That deprived barbaric force was brewed as a result of
our premature withdrawal from Iraq. The sequester is not
responsible for the over 200,000 deaths in Syria or millions of
refugees throughout the Middle East. The sequester had nothing
to do with the President's public declaration, the United
States was no longer in what he called a war footing. The
sequester did not prompt Vladimir Putin to ignite a new cold
war and brutally violate the sovereignty of his neighbor,
Ukraine. The sequester did not lead us to liberate Libya and
turn our back while that country devolved into a dangerous
breeding ground for terrorists. Sequester did not reduce our
Navy to the smallest number of ships in recent memory nor
create the oldest Air Force in its history, nor threaten to
bring the Army's end strength down to pre-World War II levels.
I recognize that the sequester is a clear threat to our
security. However, we are bound to follow the law until
instructed otherwise. The President's request for the Navy is
approximately $13 billion above the level the Navy would be
allocated under the BCA. So the Department will certainly have
to bear a sizable portion of any reduction. So I need to say
right up front that we all need to work extremely close
together to ensure that the funding we are appropriating is
sufficient to take care of our soldiers and marines and
maintain your readiness at the highest possible level. But it
bears repeating; barring some dramatic change in course, the
committee will mark up the fiscal year 2016 bill that is in
compliance with the BCA. Of course, we would like to have your
input. With respect, I will advise you that we will cut the $13
billion with you or we will cut it without you, but we need to
do the job that the law requires us to do. However, having said
that, I remain concerned about the core of the Navy, I think
all of us do, the ships and the shipbuilding program.
Mr. Secretary, you have told us in previous hearings that
since you have been in your position, the Navy has awarded the
largest number of ship construction contracts. May I say I
think this committee more than the other body has been very
generous in that regard because we think ships are important.
While that is admirable, the stark reality is that your fleet
size has fluctuated around 280 over the past several years, far
short of your stated requirement of 304 ships. While the Navy
continues to promise more ships in the outyears, those outyears
always seem to slip further out.
A few years ago the Navy was projecting a fleet size of 313
ships in 2016. Last year, you predicted the Navy would reach
and exceed your ship requirements some time in fiscal year
2019. This year you project you will achieve the illusive 304
ship fleet in 2020. For the welfare of our Nation's defense, we
need to come to grip with the resources available to us and
settle on the plan.
You have heard me say this before, when it comes to ships,
numbers matter. In addition to the quality of ships, I am
concerned about their capacity, I am concerned about their
adaptabilities, I am concerned about the mix of ships. I think
all of us are, submarines, surface combatants, amphibs, support
ships and how they are operated and how they are maintained.
More and more of your ships are not being operated by your
sailors but by civilian mariners. In fact, even your newly
minted fast frigates, the vessels formerly known as littoral
combat ships don't deploy without two permanently assigned
civilian contractors. The subcommittee also wants to hear your
assessment of the conventional and unconventional threats posed
by China, Russia and Iran.
Gentlemen, this former army draftee sees troubled waters
ahead. Sequestration looms large over the Navy, and we owe it
to our sailors, and marines, and citizens to develop the best
solutions possible. I can promise you that our subcommittee
will work hard alongside each of you to insure that our Navy
and Marine Corps are ready and able to be where it matters when
it matters.
I look forward to your comments and an informative
question-and-answer session, your written testimony will be
entered into the record, so feel free to summarize your
statements this morning. Having said that, let me turn to my
good friend, Mr. Visclosky, for any comments he may wish to
make.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your comments and because this is the first hearing
of this cycle, I would simply offer a few remarks. I did not
vote for the Budget Control Act, and it is very difficult to
find anyone in this institution now who admits that they did,
but we are living with the consequences of it. And I would
offer the observation that I voted against the President's
proposal for the use of force last year. I believe then and I
believe today that there is a conflict within the
administration--I am not suggesting that is your problem, the
three gentlemen before us--as far as what our policy is in the
Middle East and if we are going to ask people to sacrifice
their lives, be injured and give the time of their life to this
country, we ought to be very precise.
From my perspective looking ahead as far as our
deliberations and the preparation of the budget which includes
more than half of all discretionary spending in this country,
Congress has the responsibility, and Congress has a role, and
we have not met our responsibility. We have roads, as I like to
explain to people in Indiana, that counties are allowing to
revert back to gravel because there is not enough money to keep
them paved in this country. We have to make an investment and
we have to raise revenue, that is a failure. I often point out
to my colleagues who complain about the budget that 73 percent
of spending is mandatory and not under the jurisdiction of this
committee. We have failed to deal with that responsibility to
find savings on the entitlement side, specifically Social
Security and Medicare. So from my perspective, is a huge
bipartisan failure.
Given that failure of responsibility, and certainly the
administration bears some brunt here too because they can speak
with one voice as opposed to many disparate voices. We have a
role to perform. And as the chairman rightfully pointed out,
our role is to prepare legislation according to the law it is
today. And I do not anticipate unfortunately that that is going
to significantly change between now and October 1st. There is a
degree of difficulty as we proceed with this budget and looking
over what the administration has asked for and what we are
going to mark to, and would hope that as we proceed, there are
very close communications because the chairman, and I agree
with him, acknowledges we are not investing enough in this
Nation's defense, there is no question about that. We are now
finding ourselves in a position where we have to govern
according to the law as well, and that is going to increase our
degree of difficulty.
I would simply also add my thank you to each of you for
your service to this country as well as each one of those
individuals you represent, both military and civilian for what
they have done for this country. And also I do look forward to
your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Secretary,
the floor is yours, thank you for being here with us.
Summary Statement of Secretary Mabus
Mr. Mabus. Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member
Visclosky, members of this committee, thank you so much for the
opportunity to discuss the Department of Navy together with the
Chief of Naval Operations, Jon Greenert, Commandant of the
Marine Corps, Joe Dunford. I have the great privilege of
representing the sailors and marines who serve our Nation
around the world, the civilians who support them, and all of
their families.
As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, this is Admiral
Greenert's last posture testimony before this committee. He's
been a steady hand on the helm of the Navy through the past 4
years of international instability and budget turbulence. Every
day his judgment, his advice, his counsel have been critical.
It is an honor to serve with him. He is going to leave a
lasting impact on the Navy.
Today our security interest places an increasing array of
threats and demands while our budget situation grows ever more
challenging. It is clear that the Navy and Marine Corps team
offer the best value to advance both our global security and
our global economic interest. Uniquely, the Navy and Marine
Corps provide presence around the globe, around the clock. We
are the Nation's first line of defense, ready for any challenge
that may come over the horizon. Presence means that we respond
faster, we stay on station longer, we carry everything we need
with us, and we do whatever missions are assigned by our
Nation's leaders without needing anybody else's permission.
We have always known that America's success depends on an
exceptional Navy and Marine Corps. Article I of our
Constitution authorizes Congress to raise an Army when needed,
but directs you to provide and maintain a Navy.
From the first six frigates to our growing fleet today,
from Tripoli to Afghanistan, sailors and marines have proven
the Founder's wisdom. American leaders across the political
spectrum have understood the vital significance of sea power.
We are truly America's away team. We deploy in peacetime just
as much as in war, and our role over the last 70 years in
securing sea lanes and freedom of commerce has boosted our own
in the world's economy.
Nearly half the world's population lives within 100 miles
of the sea, 90 percent of our global trade goes back to sea,
and 95 percent of all data and voice goes under the ocean. The
shelves of our stores are stocked with just-in-time delivered
products from all over the world some 38 million American jobs
are directly linked to seaborne international trade. For seven
decades, the Navy and Marine Corps have been the primary
protector of this system that has created unprecedented
economic growth. While we have led this effort, we have worked
with allies and partners increasing in our operability and
establishing relationships that also help keep the peace. That
is why our national defense strategy is so clearly focused on
the maritime domain and requires investments in our maritime
assets.
For the past few years, the Department of Navy has
attempted to minimize the impact of an uncertain budgetary
environment marked by numerous continuing resolutions,
imposition of sequester-level funding and the threat of a
current sequestration has been mentioned here before. This
environment has made it more difficult, but even more critical
to set priorities and to make some hard choices.
The presence of our Navy and Marine Corps uniquely deliver
is built on four foundations, our people, our platforms, our
power, or partnerships. These are the key to the capability,
the capacity and the success of our Naval services, and they
remain my top priorities.
Our sailors and marines are well-known for their ability to
exercise independent judgment. The flexibility to adapt to
changing circumstances and events. We remain committed to
providing our sailors, marines and our civilians with the
training and support they need to maintain a naval presence.
And we include in this our injured, our wounded and all the
dedicated families.
We have launched a comprehensive approach to ensure the
world's healthiest, fittest, most resilient and best educated
force, and a force that also truly represents America's
diversity. We continue to aggressively combat sexual assault
abuse, ethical failings, similar challenges. And we are
exploring innovative ways to improve retention and recruitment,
particularly in critical areas. Our people, as great as they
are, can't do their job without platforms. Providing presence,
being where we are needed, when we are needed, requires ships,
submarines, aircraft, systems, vehicles and equipment.
I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Chairman, quantity has
a quality all its own. That means we have got to have a
properly sized and balanced fleet. I have been over these
numbers before, but think they bear repeating. On September 11,
2001, the Navy's battle force stood at 316 ships. By 2008,
after one of the great military build-ups in our Nation's
history, our fleet declined to 278 ships. Our focus on two
ground wars only partly explains that decline. In the 5 years
before I became Secretary, the Navy contracted for only 27
ships, not enough to stop the slide and the size of the fleet.
In my first 5 years, we have contracted for 70 ships, reversing
and halting that decline. And as you stated, by the end of
decade, our fleet will be at 304 ships. We have accomplished
this with a direct and fundamental business approach, increased
competition, relying on fixed price contracts, and thanks to
this committee's and Congress's help a multiyear and en bloc
buying, but budget instability, budget uncertainty, seriously
erode our ability to grow the fleet, manage our resources and
maintain the industrial base.
Without a correctly sized and shaped fleet, the Navy Marine
Corps will not be able to meet the demand for the kinds of
missions for which the Navy and Marine Corps are the best and
often the only option. In the face of this budgetary
uncertainty, cutting ships is among the most damaging and least
reversible course of action, which is why I am committed to
preserving shipbuilding.
Fueling the ships, aircraft, vehicles of our Navy and
Marine Corps is a vital operational concern and enables a
global presence necessary to keep the Nation secure. That is
why the Navy has a history of innovation, especially in energy,
moving from sail, to steam, to oil, and pioneering nuclear. The
fuels market has seen an incredible price volatility in the
last 6 years. New domestic sources are reducing our reliance on
foreign oil, but can't stop the wild price swings. At the same
time, the competition for power, and energy, and the ability to
use fuel as a weapon remains an international security issue.
In all cases, we believe our national security interest and
the ability of the Navy and Marine Corps to meet its missions
must be enhanced by increasing our energy diversity and
efficiency. Our ability to maintain presence and advanced
global security will also be augmented through partnerships,
cooperation helps make us more effective. It diffuses tensions
and reduces misunderstandings.
Again and again, Naval forces have proven themselves most
immediate, the most capable, the most adaptable option when a
crisis develops. Overall, the fiscal year 2016 presence budget
balances current readiness needed to execute our assigned
missions of sustaining a highly capable fleet all within a
tough fiscal climate. That climate demands our most rigorous
examination of every dollar we spent in continuing our
aggressive efforts to cut unnecessary costs in every program
and shift our resources from tail to tooth.
When America is called, the Navy and Marine Corps has
always answered. In order to ensure that we continue to supply
the Naval force our Nation's leaders and the American people
expect, the Commandant and Chief of Naval Operations and I look
forward to answering your questions. And we look forward to
working together with this committee and the Congress to
maintain our great Navy and Marine Corps, because in the words
of the President Theodore Roosevelt, a great Navy is not a
provocation of war, it is the surest guarantee of peace.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The written statement of Secretary Mabus follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Admiral Greenert, again, thank you for
40 years of service.
Summary Statement of Admiral Greenert
Admiral Greenert. Thank you, Chairman Frelinghuysen, and
Ranking Member Visclosky, and distinguished members of the
committee. Thank you all for the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Chairman, you were right, this committee has been wonderful
in supporting the building of ships and the supporting of our
sailors. And you are also right, the mix of ships matters a
great deal, it is just not the whole number. I thank you very
much for your kind words here this morning today.
It is my honor to serve--I have the best job in the world,
I have had it. I get to enable and to serve 600,000 Active and
Reserve sailors, Navy civilians and their families. I am
especially pleased with the 41,000 sailors who are underway and
deployed around the globe today. The dedication and their
resilience of these people continue to amaze me, Mr. Chairman.
And the citizens of this Nation can take great pride in the
daily contribution of their sons and daughters who are out
around the world today.
I am very pleased and honored to testify this morning
beside Secretary Mabus and General Dunford. Your Navy and
Marine Corps team is united in fulfilling our long-standing
mandate that you mentioned--to be where it matters, when it
matters, ready to respond to crises, ensuring the security, and
the underpinning of the global economy.
Now, to that point, recent events exemplify the value of
forward presence. Last August, the George Herbert Walker Bush
carrier strike group had to relocate from the north Arabian Sea
to the north Arabian Gulf. That is 750 miles where they were on
station, and they did this in 30 hours, in less than 30 hours.
In that time, Navy and Marine strike fighters flew 20 to 30
combat sorties per day over Iraq and Syria. And for 54 days,
they were the only coalition strike option to project power
against ISIS.
The USS Truxtun arrived in the Black Sea to establish a
U.S. presence and to reassure our allies only a week after
Russia invaded Crimea, and most of that time that week was due
to paperwork getting established.
The USS Fort Worth, a Littoral Combat Ship and the USS
Sampson destroyer were among the first to support the
Indonesian-led search effort for the AirAsia Flight 8501 in the
Java Sea. So we have been where it matters when it matters.
Mr. Chairman, as I have testified before, the continuing
resolution and the sequestration in 2013 deeply affected Navy
readiness and capabilities. We have not recovered yet. Navy
overall readiness is at its lowest point in many years. Budget
reductions forced us to cut afloat and ashore operations that
generated ship and aircraft maintenance backlogs and compelled
us to extend our unit deployments. Since 2013, many ships have
been on deployment from 8 to 10 months or longer, and that
exacts a cost on the resiliency of our people, the
sustainability of equipment on the ships and service lives of
the ships themselves.
Our degraded readiness posture has also affected our
ability to satisfy contingency response requirements. In
addition to what is deployed globally today, our combatant
commanders require three carrier strike groups and three
amphibious ready groups ready to deploy within 30 days to
respond to a major crisis. That is our covenant to them.
However, on average we have been able to keep only one
carrier strike group and one amphibious ready group in this
readiness posture. So we are at one-third of the requirement we
need to be. Assuming the best case of an on-time, an adequate,
and a stable budget, and no major contingencies, we might be
able to recover from these accumulated backlogs by 2018 from
our carrier strike groups, and by 2020 for our amphibious ready
groups so that is 5 years after the first round of
sequestration and that is just the glimpse of the damage that
sequestration can and will cause if we go back there.
Not only do we face several readiness problems, but we have
been forced to slow our Navy modernization. We have lost our
momentum in fielding emerging critical capabilities for future
fights. We are losing our technical edge, the overall impact of
budget shortfalls in the past 3 years has manifested in the
continued decline of our relative war fighting advantages in
many areas and notably anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine
warfare, air-to-air warfare, and what we called the integrated
air and missile defense.
We have been compelled to accept significant risk in the
execution of two key missions that are outlined in the
strategic guidance. I have a little handout that I provided
which summarizes what those missions are and where we stand.
But the two missions that we have the most risk in we call
deter-and-defeat aggression. That means to win a war at sea
while deterring a war at sea in another different theater. And
number two, to project power in an anti access area denial
environment. Now when I say risk, I mean that some of our
platforms, and our people, and our systems--they will be late
arriving to the fight. And they will arrive with insufficient
ordnance, without a superior combat systems and sensors and
networks that they need and they will be inadequately prepared
to fight. This means longer timelines to arrive, like I said,
less time to prevail, if we do, more ships and aircraft out of
action when in battle, more sailors, marines and merchant
mariners killed and less credibility, frankly, to deter
adversaries and assure our allies in the future.
Given these circumstances our President's budget 2016
submission represents the absolute minimum funding levels
needed to execute our strategic guidance, our strategy. To
bring the Navy program into balance within fiscal guidance, we
focused first on building the appropriate capability and then
to deliver that capability at a capacity that we could afford.
Similar to last year, we applied the following priorities:
Number 1, we have to maintain the sea-based strategic return.
That is a homeland defense item; number 2, sustain forward
presence; number 3, develop the capacity and capability to win,
improve our readiness, develop asymmetric capabilities; and
lastly, but not least important, to sustain the industrial
base.
Choices were made using these priorities. For example, we
were once again compelled to take reductions in aviation
programs, munitions and shore infrastructure. So Mr. Chairman,
over the last 3 years the Navy has been provided budgets that
were $25 billion less than the President's budget request. And
frankly, if we continue on this track, it will be $55 billion
less across this FYDP. The primary result has been deferred
modernization, but the cumulative result has been a loss of
current and future readiness and future capability.
Today's world is more complex, more uncertain, more
turbulent. You mentioned it in your opening remarks, Mr.
Chairman. This trend around the world will likely continue. Our
adversaries are modernizing and expanding their capabilities.
It is vital that we have an adequate, predictable and a timely
budget to maintain an effective Navy.
The proposal that we provided represents the floor, any
funding level below the floor of this submission will require
revision to our defense strategy. Put simply, it will damage
the national security of the country.
I look forward to working with the Congress to find
solutions that will ensure our Navy retains the ability to
organize, train and equip our great sailors and their families
in the defense of this Nation. Thank you for your continued
support and for what this committee has provided your Navy.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Admiral, for your testimony.
[The written statement of Admiral Greenert follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Dunford, good morning. Thank you
for being with us.
Summary Statement of General Dunford
General Dunford. Thank you, Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking
Member Visclosky, distinguished members of the committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and I am
honored to be here with Secretary Mabus and my shipmate,
Admiral Greenert, to represent your Marines.
I will begin by thanking the committee for your steadfast
support over the past 13 years. Due to your leadership, we feel
that the best trained and equipped Marine Corps our Nation has
ever sent to war.
I know this committee and the American people have high
expectations for marines as our Nation's expeditionary force in
readiness. You expect your marines to operate forward, engage
with our partners, deter potential adversaries and respond to
crises. And when we fight, you expect us to win.
You expect a lot from your marines and you should. This
morning as you hold a hearing, over 31,000 marines are forward
deployed and engaged doing just what you expect them to do. Our
role as the Nation's expeditionary force in readiness informs
how we man, train and equip the Marine Corps. It also
prioritizes the allocation of resources that we receive from
the Congress.
Over the past few years we have prioritized the readiness
of our forward deployed forces. Those are the forces you count
on for an immediate response in a crisis. Those are the forces
that supported the recent evacuation of U.S. citizens in the
South Sudan, Libya and Yemen. Those are the forces currently
conducting strikes in Syria, in Iraq, training the Iraqi army
and protecting our embassy in Baghdad. Those are the 22,500
marines in the Pacific west of the dateline.
I can assure you that your forward deployed marines are
well-trained, well-led, and well-equipped. We have had to make
tough choices to deal with the effects of two wars,
sequestration in 2013, and reduced budgets in 2014 and 2015, in
order to maintain the readiness of our forward deployed forces.
We have not sufficiently invested in our home station
readiness, modernization, infrastructure sustainment and
quality-of-life programs. As a result, approximately half of
our non-deployed units, and those are the ones that provide the
bench to respond to unforeseen contingencies, are suffering
several personnel, equipment and training shortfalls. In a
major conflict those shortfalls result in delayed response and/
or the unnecessary loss of young American lives.
Over time, underinvesting in modernization will result in
maintaining older or obsolete equipment at a higher cost and
degraded capabilities. It will eventually erode our competitive
advantage. We do not ever want our marines and sailors in a
fair fight.
The readiness challenges we have today provide context for
my message this morning. We can meet the requirements of the
Defense Strategic Guidance with the President's budget, but
there is no margin. BCA funding levels will exacerbate the
challenges that we have today. It will also result in a Marine
Corps with fewer available Active Duty battalions and squadrons
than would be required for a single major contingency. Perhaps
more concerning it will result in fewer marines and sailors
being forward deployed and in a position to immediately respond
to a crisis involving diplomatic posts, American citizens or
U.S. interests. As we saw in the wake of Benghazi the American
people expect us to respond to today's crisis today. And we can
only do that if we are properly postured forward.
In closing, my assessment is that funding below the
President's budget level will require that we develop a new
strategy. Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear
before you this morning, and for your leadership in addressing
today's fiscal challenges. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, General.
[The written statement of General Dunford follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And thank you gentlemen on behalf of the
committee. The Budget Control Act is the law of the land, we
are going to mark to that bill, so we need to talk about new
strategies. We also need to know if, Mr. Secretary, your
focuses on people, platforms, powers and partnership, your key
factors, fixed factors, your personnel costs, where will you be
making reductions in order to meet the objective of the $13
billion that would be reduced.
Mr. Mabus. Mr. Chairman, first I want to agree vehemently
with what the CNO and the Commandant said, the President's
budget is the minimum that is required to meet the national
defense strategy. And we have seen when sequester hit in 2013
what the impacts are. And we have seen how long-lasting those
impacts are.
I have said that I am going to do everything I can to
protect shipbuilding, regardless of the budget situation. I am
doing that because it is not reversible. If you miss a ship, if
you don't build a ship in a year, you never make that ship up.
And we are living with the decisions that were made 10, 15
years ago in terms of numbers of naval ships and it takes a
long time to reverse that.
But if you do protect shipbuilding and the industrial base
and the ability to build the Navy ships, things like the
maintenance requirements, our public shipyards, when
sequestration hit in 2013, we had a hiring freeze, we had a
furlough, we had a government shutdown. And we don't have
enough people in those public shipyards. Now we are hiring, but
you lose skill sets. And so as the CNO pointed out, the
maintenance requirements for our ships, it will take us until
2018 or 2019 to catch up, same thing with our aircraft. The
backlog in our depots for modernization and for maintenance on
our aircraft will require us almost the end of this decade to
make up. So what is certain is that if sequestration level
funding is where we end up, is that something is going to
break.
SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So if the shipbuilding thing is
irreversible, and I do read your statements before you come,
and you made a point of that, if that is the critical mass, and
God only knows that is what the Navy is identified for, it is
the most formidable part of our defense posture, what else is
going to give? We--in other words, I like having the mission
impacts, I understand that. But I think we need to know what
specific platforms, what is going to give if we are going to
maintain the shipbuilding, and having just visited Norfolk, I
have seen it firsthand that incredible workforce, but something
has got to give if we get under the $13 billion figure.
Mr. Mabus. Well, the things that you have heard from me
just in the maintenance requirements which affects readiness,
from the CNO reduced sailing, the reduced surge capacity that
we have, the reduced training opportunities that we have. What
you have heard from the Commandant, the reduced readiness of
the next to deploy, the reduced equipment for units and home
station, reduced the ability to put sailors and marines
forward. But I also will have to say that the budget that we
put in, we have a responsibility to put the budget in that will
meet the defense plan.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have, of course, a responsibility to
meet the law as does the administration.
Mr. Mabus. Well, the President said repeatedly that he
would veto a budget that locked in sequestration level funding.
And so we are putting forward the minimum budget that we feel
will meet the defense strategy. If it goes below that, we will
break that strategy and we will----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are going to work with you to do
whatever we have to do and I think a closer working
relationship is better than one from a standoff.
Let me, before I turn to Mr. Visclosky, to Admiral Greenert
and General Dunford, is there anything you can do in the fiscal
year 2015 budget to minimize the impact of the negative
consequences of the sequestration, are there any things you can
do now? I mean, this is all about setting priorities here, I
know everybody wants to do everything and you do an incredible
job and do it well. Sometimes we don't always know all the
things that you do. Marines are deployed in areas now where
they have not always been, of course, you always have somebody
at the embassy, so you have larger missions. I am wondering,
taking a step back, are there things we could examine now in
this fiscal year that might minimize the impact in outyears?
Admiral Greenert. I will take a stab there. This is
difficult because as what happened in 2013, you are talking
about what we call the POM drop. If it was sort of measured
approach to 16, it would be different. So here is what I mean,
if you need money now, you have to go where the money is now.
So that would be operations and maintenance, well that is only
a 1-year appropriation, so that is out. Modernization, that is
out. I am trying to get out of a readiness trough so to try to
do that in 2015 while trying to support operations in 2015 is
not--I can not do that. So my point would be if you are marking
a 2016 budget to a different level, you are going after
modernization, likely procurement, that is where the money is
in the fiscal year that you need it. Doing something now while
operating is not really--there is not much there, chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General.
General Dunford. Chairman, if you take a look at our budget
between people and operations and maintenance as the CNO was
talking about, that is 88 percent of my budget. So the only way
that you could realize savings in a given year is divest
yourself of people which we have not done. We have been trying
to keep faith with people as we have done the deliberate
drawdown or stop training operations and making money, which
further degrades the readiness challenge that we have. So I
think my short answer to your question is there really is not
anything we can do in 2015 to set the conditions for what we
actually donate, we do not know what 2016 is actually going to
look like.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, before returning to Mr. Visclosky,
we would like actually a list of what you would have to do
under sequestration scenario. We endorse doing things on the
George Washington. There are issues relative to end strength,
we would like a better picture of what you would do, what your
priorities would be if we had to go into that scenario, which
is what we will be marking our bill to. I think we need a more
comprehensive list, specifics, decommissioning ships, reduce
procurement. I think we need some specific answers. Mr.
Visclosky.
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL AND USS HALSEY
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
General Dunford, I do want to thank you and congratulate the
Corps, because they now do have auditable books and I do not
say that lightly. I think it is very important and realize that
there are other milestones ahead for the Corps. I hope that you
will continue to be very diligent and hope other services can
take a page out of the Marine Corps book. I do think it is
important.
I have two questions, if you could, for the record, because
they are very important to me, but we have a lot of members and
in the interest of time. There was an OPNAV study last fall
that validated requirements for between 1,200 and 1,300 FTEs at
the naval postgraduate school, but the Navy comptroller has a
cap of 884 as far as FTEs at that school. For the record, if
you could provide the justification for not accepting the
study's recommendation. And also, have an interest in the
continued improvement of conditions on the USS Halsey. My
understanding is there were two suicides early last year in
midsummer. I have had a meeting most recently in July of last
year with Admiral Howard and have a series of questions for an
update as to whether or not there is any additional suicide-
related behavior on board, if there is any additional resources
that have been vested or needed.
[The information follows:]
The primary mission of the Naval Post Graduate School is to
increase the warfighting effectiveness of Naval Officers. Over time NPS
expanded this primary mission by engaging in education and research
activities for a variety of other customers including counterparts from
other Services, international partners, OSD, and other executive
agencies. The OPNAV study examined staffing requirements for the NPS
workload, inclusive of all these other non-core mission activities. The
result was a recommended staffing requirement in excess of data
residing in the official Department of Navy manning data base which is
used to determine Full Time Equivalent (FTE) controls by activity or
command. NPS took on this additional workload, much of which is non-
Navy, without developing or maturing commensurately complex business
practices and without appropriately requesting official changes to the
data base, which would have been subject to review for compliance with
the NPS core mission and resource requirements, including FTE. At this
time, any increase to the manning data base requires a corresponding
decrease to other functional areas and/or commands within the
Department. In the current budget environment, it has become more
critical than ever before that Department of Navy ensure an appropriate
balance between resource requirements for the NPS primary mission and
all other staffing requirements. A formal Department of Navy review of
NPS functions and their associated resource requirements, including
sources and uses of funds, is ongoing. Once this comprehensive review
is complete, a final decision on NPS FTE staffing requirements and
allocations will be made.
No, there have been no more suicides in USS HALSEY. In fact USS
HALSEY recently (on 5 February 2015) safely returned from a highly
successful seven month deployment to the Western Pacific. Programs that
were implemented, and are ongoing, include several visits by mental
health experts over a period ranging from a few days to two weeks
within the first two months of deployment (and the second suicide) to
regular visits by Chaplains over the course of deployment; a follow-up
survey by the Naval Unit Behavioral Needs Assessment Survey at the 6-
month mark; and a three-week capstone of classes offered onboard by
Commander, Destroyer Squadron 31 (CDS-31) Chaplain and Military Family
Support Center Psychologist to assess USS HALSEY Sailors and help with
transition back to home life from deployment. Additionally, two Flag
Officers visited USS Halsey to speak with the crew and provide
mentoring to the ship's leadership.
The USS HALSEY Sailors have continued to seek and receive treatment
for individual and group mental health needs. Identification, caring,
and intervention is emphasized at every level of a Sailor's chain of
command.
NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE REVIEW
Mr. Visclosky. The one question we can have a brief
discussion here, and again, I would then defer, Mr. Chairman,
is on our nuclear deterrence. The Nuclear Enterprise Review has
suggested that the composition of the stockpile be changed to
essentially five unique systems from the existing 12 systems
today. Obviously, the Navy has a very large interest in the
issue. The estimated cost as far as the transition for the
National Nuclear Security Administration is somewhere between
$50 billion to $60 billion over the coming years. The fiscal
year 2016 budget for the Navy is about $2.2 billion included
this year for nuclear enterprises.
The two questions I have, either Secretary, Admiral, is if
we have some discussion here about the BCA levels do not
change, what happens relative to funding nuclear enterprise?
Secondly, much more broadly, is there any ongoing discussion
about the triad itself in whether or not that composition from
3 to some other number may be changed?
Admiral Greenert. In answer to your first question the sea-
based strategic deterrent is my number 1 program, Mr.
Visclosky. So I would fully fund that to its requirements. That
defense of the homeland, that is top priority. That is what I
would submit to Secretary Mabus in my recommendations. Put it
another way, I would propose no reductions to the nuclear
enterprise that you see in the President's budget 2016
submission.
Number 2, there are discussions going on within the
Department as to the future of the nuclear deterrent
enterprise. I would say, if you will, everything is on the
table. We are trying to improve it to make sure that the
modernization of it, this would be the third big modernization
since you got the inception, then you have a new bomber, a new
SSBN, that is the Ohio. We are into a new phase where we have
to look and see what do we want to with the Minute Man, the
ICBMs, what about the new bomber and you are familiar with the
Ohio replacement. Those discussions are ongoing, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Vice chair, Ms. Granger.
SPECIAL PURPOSE MARINE AIR-GROUND TASK FORCE
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. Thank you all for your
service. General Dunford, crisis response is an important
mission, the Marine Corps has devoted significant resources to,
and that includes the establishment of a crisis response force
and a marine security guard augmentation unit. Would you give
me some examples of how funding readiness has enabled crisis
response?
General Dunford. I would, Congresswoman. Frankly, I can
give you an example that is really attributable to this
committee. Two years ago we identified the requirement for
additional crisis response capability, both in AFRICOM and in
CENTCOM. So we established special purpose marine air ground
task forces in both of those combatant commanders area of
responsibilities.
The special purpose MAGTF crisis response AFRICOM that this
committee funded, was the first force that responded to Ebola.
It was the force that conducted the evacuation operation in
south Sudan, it was the force that conducted the evacuation
operation in Libya. The force that you created in the United
States central command, one day 10 days ago simultaneously was
evacuating the embassy in Sana'a, was protecting the embassy in
Baghdad, was flying strikes from Bahrain into Syria and Iraq.
Was conducting V-22 type of recovery and aircraft personnel 600
nautical miles to support those strikes. With training Iraqi
army forces in al Assad, it was also training Jordanians. That
is a 2,500-man force that was conducted 18 months ago.
So when you talk about marines being forward postured and
forward engaged, that is what you get when you talk about
crisis response. I would add that those forces that were
training the Iraqis were not forces generated specifically to
train the Iraqis. General Austin was able to begin almost
immediately after the President's decision to train Iraqis
because he already had those forces available to him in
theater.
SEQUESTRATION IMPACT ON CRISIS RESPONSE
Ms. Granger. I will just follow up on that. So if the
crisis response is at the sequestration levels, then something
else has to go, can you give us an example of what would be cut
to keep that?
General Dunford. Congresswoman, we are meeting those crisis
responses. It is important I think for the committee to
understand, we are meeting those crisis response requirements
today at about a 1-to-2 deployment as well. What that means is
our marines are deployed for 7 months and home for at or less
than 14 months. At the BCA level, the only thing we can do as I
was alluding to earlier, the only thing the Marine Corps can do
is reduce capacity, because over 60 percent of our budget is
people. And if you add that with operations and maintenance
money, you are at 88 percent. So the only thing you can do is
reduce capacity. So I would tell you that crisis response would
be affected. And what really happens is it exacerbates
readiness challenges of units at home station. Why do I raise
that? Because the units that would be most likely to respond in
the event of a major contingency are actually the units that
are back at home station not the units that are out there
conducting crisis response.
What would happen if we go to BCA levels is those forces
will have a choice, we will either delay a response in a major
conflict or we will send young Americans that do not have the
equipment, the training and the leadership necessary to
accomplish the mission. I really do think it is a function of
time and or American lives is what we are talking about. Our
experience in 1950 in the Korean war was instructive in that
regard.
Ms. Granger. Thank you so much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Israel.
SEA-BASED BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
homage to the congressional district.
Admiral Greenert, I want to ask you a question about a
ballistic missile defense capability. Our adversaries continue
to develop at a very rapid pace ballistic missile capabilities,
and we need to stay many steps ahead. I was wondering if you
could address the demands on the fleet in maintaining a
proactive ballistic missile defense. I am also concerned about
the current plan to place Aegis cruisers in reduced operating
status and would like you to address that issue.
Admiral Greenert. Today we have on the order of, I think it
is 15 ballistic missile defense capable ships. I will send you
a paper on that so I get it straight. We need, by the end of
the FYDP, and that kind of tends to be our goal, 40 available
around the world, this is ballistic missile defense capable.
They have the sensors, they have the weapon. So it is a pretty
high demand. To get there, Congressman, you have to modernize
the cruisers and the destroyers. They have to have the cooling,
the power for this really high powered radar. It takes a lot of
power, it takes a lot of cooling, and you have to have the
right weapon. So that tends to be, that is what we are rushing
to get done.
[The information follows:]
We currently have a total of 33 BMD-capable ships in our Fleet.
This force is comprised of 28 destroyers (DDGs) and 5 cruisers (CGs).
Twenty-three of the ships have the initial or basic level of
capability, seven have been upgraded to an intermediate level of
capability, and three are equipped with advanced capability, which
allows these ships to conduct true Integrated Air and Missile Defense,
simultaneously conducting BMD and air defense. Working closely
together, MDA and Navy are steadily increasing the number of BMD-
capable ships by both modernizing existing destroyers and delivering
new construction ships built with inherent BMD capability.
This BMD Fleet is currently meeting about two-thirds of the demand
that is being levied on the Navy by the Combatant Commanders. In order
to do that, our BMD ships are making longer, more frequent deployments
than we would prefer. In addition to increasing both the capacity and
capability inherent in the ships of our BMD Fleet, I am working to
ensure that the demand signal levied by the Combatant Commanders is
correctly validated, serviced efficiently, and is sustainable for the
long term.
What has been very helpful, because today we are doing most
of missile defense from the sea ashore, if we can put a site
ashore to get that done, that helps dramatically, much bigger
aperture, more resolution. And so today we are standing one up
in Romania as I speak, it will be in service at the end of
December, and in 2 years one in Poland. That will dramatically
help the European situation. So we are on track. My concern is
to what end? I am speaking President budget 2016 levels. You go
to the Budget Control Act levels, as I said before, most of
what we do will come out of modernization. Well, that is a key
part of modernization.
LONG ISLAND CONTAMINATION
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Admiral. And finally, Mr. Secretary,
this is a very parochial concern I am going to ask if you could
send some folks up to see me regarding a contaminated plume on
Long Island; the Navy and the Grumman Corporation worked on the
Hellfire in the 1940s, that site has been contaminated. The
contamination is growing. I would appreciate it if you would
send somebody up to see me so that we can address those issues.
Mr. Mabus. I would be happy to, Congressman. We have been
working very closely with Congress and also with the State of
New York to address that, but I will be happy to send some
people up with not only information but with our plan of
action.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you again,
Ms. McCollum.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Israel. Mr. Crenshaw.
GUIDED MISSILE CRUISER MODERNIZATION
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first welcome
all of you back. The Navy has a pretty strong presence in my
district in northeast Florida, so I have worked with you all
and developed what I would consider a very trusting
relationship, friendship and I thank you for that. Admiral
Greenert, I know you will be leaving, but not everybody knows
that the Secretary of the Navy is on his way to becoming the
fifth longest serving Secretary of the Navy. I do not know
where you rank in your service as CNO, but in terms of length
of service, but certainly you have been one of the best, so
thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Looks like the Secretary wants equal
time. Okay, excuse me.
Mr. Crenshaw. He will probably be back, right?
Mr. Mabus. I think he has got the quality, quality edge, I
may have quantity.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. That time does not come out of your
time.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you very much.
One of the things I know that you all have been working on
is a plan to modernize some of the guided missile cruisers.
There was a time when the Navy wanted it to lay up, whatever
that means, they were going to lay up 11 cruisers which this
committee and this chairman thought was probably short-sighted.
So now there is a plan I guess when you think of the tumultuous
times we live in and we talked a lot about ships today. When
you lay up a ship and do not have a crew, and you don't have
any modernization money, more than likely it is going to be
decommissioned, and I think this subcommittee thought that is
probably a bad idea when we talk about the number of ships that
we need. And so, under the leadership of the chairman, we
developed this plan called 2, 4, 6, these 11 cruisers are going
to be modernized. I had a couple of questions about that,
because I think the plan is that no more than two ships will
enter the modernization schedule each year. None of the ships
will stay there more than 4 years and there will not be any
more than six ships there at any one time.
The question becomes, and maybe for you, Secretary Mabus,
how have you all decided to benchmark the 4 years that they
were going to be in this modernization? Is there some--like,
when does that begin and when does it end so that we can comply
with that 4-year of 2, 4, 6.
Mr. Mabus. Congressman, first, I want to thank the
committee for setting up the so-called SMOSF funds to modernize
these cruisers. We agree wholeheartedly, we need to keep these
cruisers, and we need to keep them for as long as we possibly
can; we need to extend their lives and modernize them as long
as we possibly can. In answer to your specific question, the 4
years would not include the time getting ready to go into
modernization or the time after they come out of modernization
that you do the shakedown, the testing and this sort of thing.
So it would be 4 years in modernization.
Having said all of that, the reason that--and I fully,
fully understand the concern of the committee and Congress,
words like ``lay up'' were used, words like ``decommission''
were used. The plan that we put in in 2015 to put 11 cruisers
into modernization at once, we were going to continue to have
those ships on commission. They were not going to be laid up,
they were not going to be completely out of service. They were
going to remain under the control of the CNO. If contingency
arose that we had to have extra cruisers, we could have manned
those, or up-manned them, because they would be minimally
manned and gotten them out to sea.
By doing that, by putting all 11 in, we need 11 at a time
in the fleet, by putting the 11 in, we would extend the life of
those cruisers, from the mid- to late 2020s when they are
scheduled to retire now to the mid- to late 2040s. The 2, 4, 6
plan which we are absolutely complying with now would not--it
would extend the lives, but about 10 years shorter than the
original plan.
And what we do not have is the money that would be gained
from the manpower that we could put into the modernization
effort and we would run out of the SMOSF funds far earlier. And
that is the reason that we still believe that putting the 11
cruisers into modernization at times. Whatever assurances or
whatever actions we can take to assure the committee, to assure
the Congress that these 11 cruisers are going to stay in the
fleet, we need all 22 of the cruisers, and we need these 11 to
be modernized to replace the cruisers that will reach the end
of their lives. Whatever actions we can do to do that, because
we do think that the original plan will do that and we will
keep these cruisers in service and more modern longer than any
other plan that we have been able to come up with.
Mr. Crenshaw. Just one quick follow up to Admiral Greenert,
one of the things we just talked about you have got the SMOSFs
so to speak, and then you have to fund the manning outside of
that. I know that is in 2016, is that still the plan to do that
in the outyears?
Admiral Greenert. It is, if that is the intent and that is
what you tell us to do, that is what we will do. We got the
bill, the 2015 bill in December, we had about a week to put
this together. We said, look, we have got to man the 2016 in
our submission to comply, so we did. We did not get it all put
together, so we have to get after that.
The SMOSF fund when it first come out was Ship
Modernization Operation Sustainment Fund. That was good and we
appreciate it, especially the operations and sustainment when
they are not physically in modernization. Well, that has become
the SMF fund, ship modernization fund, no money for operations
and sustainment. That hurts, that is a burden we are bearing
that was not originally intended. That is the intent of the
Congress, so be it, we will comply. But we sure would prefer
the other, it would be very helpful if we can extend that back
to SMOSF, Congressman.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Ms. McCollum.
ARCTIC ROADMAP
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, it has been pointed out that the Budget Control Act
is the law of the land. Congress, without my help, passed that
law, and Congress, with my help, can change that. We can remove
sequestration from this conversation. The President put forward
in his budget a way to move forward without sequestration, and
I appreciate that. We are awaiting the Budget Committee to give
us our numbers, our allocations. And so I wake up optimistic
and hopeful every day that the Budget Committee will do the
right thing and help us bring sequestration to an end.
People are chuckling on the other side of the aisle, but
like I said, I wake up hopeful even though it is zero in
Minnesota and 19 in Alaska.
Which leads me to my question. The U.S. Navy Arctic
Roadmap, which I found really interesting, so, Secretary and
Admiral Greenert, I would like to get your thoughts on the
Arctic. The effects of climate change are particularly evident
in the Arctic. The polar region is warming twice as fast as the
average rise on the rest of the planet, which means more open
Arctic waters.
Now, I know the Navy is thinking about the Arctic, and I
want to commend you for the work for the report that I just
held up, the Navy's Task Force on Climate Change, for its
Arctic Roadmap report last year. We have clear national
interest in the Arctic, along with our Canadian and Nordic
allies. In fact, there is a Nordic Council, which the U.S. is
chairing right now, which is part of the State Department. But
your focus in this area is really important. It is a resource-
rich environment. We should expect the Russians and the Chinese
to be very active in this region.
So, Admiral, as you look to the future, what are the
challenges, opportunities, resources, and investments this
committee needs to be thinking about as the Navy operates in
this very harsh and changing climate?
And then to General Dunford, similar climate change is
affecting sea levels, which impacts equatorial coast lines. So
how is the Marine Corps thinking about climate change and its
impact on your mission, as well as where you will have to have
marines based?
Thank you, gentlemen.
Admiral Greenert. Thank you, Congresswoman. First question,
when will it be navigable? When are the navigable sea lines of
communication open, number one. We think it is about 2023,
2024. And by the way, just because the ice is kind of slushy,
unless you have a hardened hull, you still don't want to go
through that. So it has to be clear. We think it is about 2024.
When it is navigable? And that means open. Is there a
threat? Are there disputes on the routes that are navigable?
And by the way, that is not just open ocean. That is also you
have got to look at the draft. It is fairly shallow up there.
And big container ships have deep drafts, 60, 70, 80 feet. You
talk to big companies--and I have--they say, I don't know if
this is a really a big deal to me.
And are there disputes? There are some, territorial. And as
you mentioned, ma'am, how do we resolve them? Well, the Arctic
Council is certainly a good way to look at that.
What kind of changes? Programmatic. Well, we already put in
place, it is in there, in that roadmap there, that when we
build in new systems, communications, hull, mechanical,
electrical, you have to answer the question, how will it
operate in an Arctic environment? And that includes all that
stuff topside, all the superstructure and the infrastructure.
We need to go up and look at it more often. We have an
exercise we used to do every 3 years called ICEX. Makes sense.
And we did it mostly under the sea. It was a submarine thing.
It had been going on for three decades. We are pretty good at
it. We can go up and establish an ice camp and get that done.
I say we have got to do it every 2 years, and we are for
the first time. And I will talk to the secretary about maybe we
ought to do this annually. We are going to look at the
acceleration. And it is not just about the undersea. We need to
do the surface and the air, invite industry up there, and
assess this place up in an Arctic ice camp and take it from
there.
So it will be communications. It will be the systems
onboard the ships. It will be the satellite imagery so we can
communicate up there, as well.
General Dunford. Congresswoman, I know you are describing
the broader issues associated with climate change. From a
Marine Corps perspective, we view that as certainly one of the
sources of conflict, and also it creates an increased
requirement for humanitarian disaster relief operations. And I
think the kinds of things that we have done in the Pacific over
the last several years are probably prologue for what might
have to be done in the wake of the climate change you describe.
So for us it is a question, once again, of being forward
deployed, forward engaged, and be in a position to respond to
the kinds of natural disasters that I think we see as a second-
or third-order effect of climate change.
Ms. McCollum. But planning for that now, not forestalling,
not doing anything about it now, because on a priority list we
were talking about the military-industrial base, but putting
this off, pushing this down the road has the potential of
making us more vulnerable in the future? Would you agree or not
agree?
Admiral Greenert. I do agree. That is why I say we have got
to get this ICEX exercise to a biannual or annual. And as I
said, our programs today have to prove that they can operate in
an Arctic environment.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Members are invited to be part of the
ICEX program if you haven't done it. It is worthy of doing it.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CIVILIAN WORKFORCE
Good morning, Secretary Mabus, Admiral Greenert, General
Dunford. First of all, thank you for coming here today.
Certainly, thank you for your service. All of us here
understand the difficult challenges, and we look forward to
working with you to support the men and women of the United
States Navy and the Marine Corps.
Obviously, difficult decisions must be made, but looking
through the DOD budget over the years, I noticed that in 2003
the number of defense civilians was approximately 636,000
relative to 1,434,377 Active Duty military. That ratio is about
1.225. Today, there are 776,841 defense civilians relative to
1,332,991 uniformed services. That ratio, obviously, the
civilian employees versus military employees, obviously, is out
of whack significantly.
In 2010, the Defense Business Board recommended a reduction
of defense civilians to the fiscal year 2003 levels, or 15
percent, whichever is greater. According to experts, that would
save approximately $82.5 billion over 5 years to do that. And,
obviously, the authorizers are working on procurement reform
and other types of reform to help streamline the Department of
Defense to have savings that could be kept within DOD for more
end strength for Marines, procurement for the Navy, et cetera.
What is your position on that, to get those savings in the
civilian workforce. Secretary?
Mr. Mabus. Congressman, first, I think you need to break
that out into where those civilians are. I think the services
have done a pretty good job of making the trade that you have
to make in terms of uniform versus civilians. DOD is a much
larger place, though, than just the services, so as you are
looking at civilian employment, look wider than just the
services.
Second, in terms of the Navy in particular, those civilians
include people in our public shipyards that maintain our
nuclear submarines. They include the people that maintain and
modernize our aircraft. And one of the reasons that we are in
such a readiness trough now in both the Navy and the Marine
Corps, in aviation and in ship maintenance, is that we lost
some of those civilians during sequester, furlough, hiring
freeze, and we are just now catching up.
And finally, I do want to say a word about Navy civilians.
We lost 12 of them, killed in action in Washington Navy Yard,
and we would not have a fleet to put to sea without those
civilians.
So I think that the Defense Business Board has a good
point, but I think you need to also look at the specific jobs
that those civilians are doing instead of simply a broad metric
of what percentage to cut.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Secretary, several comptrollers who have
come to see, from both parties, and believe that the Secretary,
the Secretary of Defense, should have discretion to make
determinations on how we can over time bring the civilian
workforce into compliance to what has been historically the
ratios within the Department of Defense. We are operating under
the same pool of money that we have to make determinations of
where it is going to go.
And I am not arguing that depots are important or fixing
aircraft, the civilian employees that have a critical role in
what we are trying to do, but it is not anecdotal to say that
there has been a growth in middle management in the Department
of Defense, there has been a growth in other activities in the
Department in the civilian workforce. And if we have to make
decisions, is it better to look at the civilian workforce
versus cutting Marines' end strength, which we have cut
probably more than we should, or ordering new ships and
operations and maintenance of those ships?
Mr. Mabus. Again, I think that the important distinction to
make here is between the services and the Department of
Defense.
Mr. Calvert. And that is the Secretary's job. The Secretary
of Defense needs to look at everything across the board,
throughout the Department of Defense, to make those difficult
decisions.
Mr. Mabus. Absolutely, Congressman. I think it is all of
our jobs to make sure that we are not out of whack. But I also
think that we need to not just look at cutting a Navy ship to
build a Navy ship or cutting a civilian for a specific reason.
Mr. Calvert. No, I am just talking about bringing into
historic compliance. We had 636,000 civilian employees in 2003.
Today, we have 776,000. And we have dropped the military
component by well over 100,000 in that same time period.
Mr. Mabus. Congressman, I think you and I are very much in
agreement here. It is just where you look. And instead of
saying everybody cut 15 percent, look and see what the
civilians are doing.
Mr. Calvert. I am not saying that. I am not talking about
across-the-board cuts. I am talking about the Secretary, like
any business manager, making determinations throughout the
Department where they need to be made.
Mr. Mabus. And, Congressman, I agree with you, again,
wholeheartedly, and I hope that when those looks are made that
they will be looked at more in tail or overheard, business
terms, than in tooth, Navy, Marine Corps, forward presence.
Mr. Calvert. Admiral, would you have any pointers?
Admiral Greenert. I agree with what the Secretary said. You
know, Congressman, you could really help us by giving us--it
would be the Secretary of Defense and all of us--by giving us
the authorities to manage our civilian workforce like we manage
our military. And what I mean is to provide appropriate
incentives to do shaping of the force, to man the civilian
workforce like we man military, to function, to task, so that,
as you said, we have a core that is important, as the Secretary
said and you agree.
That is where the real rub becomes, sir, whenever we try to
manage. Then we go in and say, okay, how do we do this? And we
find that the ability to make changes is so onerous it becomes
across the board and then we throw the baby out with the
bathwater, as they say.
Mr. Calvert. And I have been told anecdotally, when you put
a uniformed person in there to do that job or you have to bring
a contractor in to do that job because you do not have the
flexibility to manage the civilian workforce. Is that correct?
Admiral Greenert. That is correct. We don't have the
flexibility to properly manage the civilian workforce, in my
opinion, yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. General.
General Dunford. Congressman, maybe to help put what
Secretary Mabus was speaking about in some perspective, in the
Marine Corps our ratio of civilians to Marines is 1 to 10; in
the Department as a whole, it is 1 to 2. We have in fact----
Mr. Calvert. You have done a great job.
General Dunford. Well, we do benefit from some of the other
civilians that are out there. But, again, looking at it from a
purely parochial perspective, we don't have much to cut,
although we are involved in a 10 percent cut. We will achieve
that by 2017.
But the real important point for us is someone has an image
of the civilians. Ninety percent of our civilians are outside
the national capital region. They are working at our depot.
They are providing force protection at our bases. They are
running our training facilities. They are running our family
programs.
So as I look at it as a service chief, I look at our
civilians as tooth, not tail. In other words, they are directly
contributing to the combat effectiveness and the readiness of
the United States Marine Corps. And if they are not, then I
agree with you 100 percent, then we need to take a hard look at
whether or not we have them.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. And I understand, and I just think that
we have a take a serious look at that, because we would rather
have the money stay in the Marine Corps and the Navy and to
give you better flexibility, Secretary Mabus, to operate your
Department.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Point well taken.
Mr. Ryan.
MENTAL SKILLS TRAINING
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen. This is clearly very challenging
times, and we appreciate your service and all that you are
doing day to day to try to meet the goals that are set for you,
as unreasonable as sometimes we seem to have placed them for
you.
I have got a couple of questions. First, General Dunford, a
few years back when we met we were working on this mind skills
program and mental fitness training with Dr. Liz Stanley from
Georgetown. I was a few years ago stunned by the fact that many
times the warriors' stress level was almost at its highest when
they were preparing to go off to war, the family situations,
just getting ready to leave. And we now know that that
diminishes your working memory capacity, your cognitive
functions, and all the things that you are going to need when
you are out into the field of battle.
And this mental skills training program has shown some real
signs of increasing working memory capacity, increasing
cognitive function, increasing resiliency so that we are really
making some key investments into the warrior that are going to
prepare them for the kind of high-level stressful situations
that they are going to be dealing with.
So there were some positive studies that came back, and
then there was a study that was put out for mental skills
training and basic reconnaissance in the Marines, and it was
funded by the Office of Naval Research. And it was a 2013
study. I am waiting for the results to see how that is going.
General Dunford. Congressman, thanks for asking the
question. And as you alluded to, I really started getting into
this probably back in 2010 when I was the commander of our
Marine Expeditionary Force on the West Coast. And we started a
pilot program that has come along apace with some other
research efforts that you spoke about.
Right now, we have the data that says this is absolutely
the right way to go, that this can, in fact, reduce the stress
of our Marines across, whether in predeployment, deployed, or
postdeployment. But as you point out, some of the most
stressful period of time is the predeployment phase. We found
that. That is analytically based.
Right now, what I am trying to do is figure out how to what
I describe as marinize it. We have 35,000 new marines every
year. We have got an Active Duty force of 182,000, another
38,000 marines. And what Dr. Stanley has been able to do to
date is work with relatively small groups and small units, but
not necessarily give us a program that can be applied across
the Marine Corps.
And to be honest with you, this is one of those items that
is on my checklist. I have been on the job just about 4 months
right now. And as I came into the job, I did ask some questions
about where are we in the research. I have had a conversation,
I guess, a couple of conversations with Dr. Stanley since I
have been in the job. And over the next couple months what I
will be looking to do is figure out how we can integrate these
types of techniques so that we are doing nothing more, nothing
less than exercising the brain the same way we do with the body
to contribute to the combat effectiveness of our marines. Part
of that is reducing stress.
Mr. Ryan. Great. Well, if you could check on the study, the
latest, see what the results are so we can get moving on that.
And, Mr. Chairman, I know I have talked to you about this
several times, on trying to dig a little bit deeper in, not
only the resiliency of the warrior, but in many instances I
think this can inoculate from some post-traumatic stress issues
that come down the line. So I appreciate that.
PIVOT TO THE PACIFIC
Admiral, just a quick question on the Asia-Pacific
rebalance. If you could give us a little bit on that and where
the Navy stands in the rebalance and rebasing, reassignments of
units, and that kind of thing.
Admiral Greenert. The rebalance I put in three categories:
forces, capability, and what I call understanding.
So with regard to forces, we are putting more forces in the
Asia-Pacific region, some in our forward-deployed naval force,
that means forward station. So in the next 2 years we will put
two more destroyers in Japan. This year we are putting another
submarine in Guam.
We have the Fort Worth, which is the number two hull
number, Littoral Combat Ship. She is on deployment over there.
That is the second deployment over there, would be out of
Singapore in that area. So when she completes this deployment,
it is a 16-month, she is about 5 months into it, changed out
the crew once, the next ship that comes over will stay in
Singapore, then another, and two more. So we will have four
Littoral Combat Ships by 2017, by the end of 2017, in
Singapore. So four Littoral Combat Ships, two destroyers, a
submarine in Guam. That is part of the force structure.
Our P-8, it is a maritime patrol aircraft, it is a 737-800
series aircraft, replaces a propeller aircraft, four-engine
propeller aircraft. They have been on deployment now for three
deployments out there. So that is in the Asia-Pacific and that
is the first area we have deployed this.
Our Joint Strike Fighter, by the end of this decade, will
deploy to the Western Pacific, so you see the trend. We are
putting all the forces out there, either forward station or
they will deploy there first. All on track, sir.
Number two, capability. We benchmark anti-air,
antisubmarine, electronic attack, cyber, all to how it would
perform in the Western Pacific against potential adversaries
out there. That is going apace. The modernization is delayed. I
spoke to that in my opening statement. It is in my written
statement. That one has slowed down. The point is, the
benchmark is in place.
And then lastly, understanding. It is really about
reassuring our allies, establishing partners, and really
establishing ad hoc partners where the case may be.
Mr. Ryan. Are there any new countries involved?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I want to make sure Mr. Womack gets his
oar in the water here too.
Mr. Ryan. Are there any new countries that are involved in
what you are doing out there?
Admiral Greenert. By new countries, friends that are doing
more, Malaysia, in particular, Indonesia, in particular. I just
mentioned Singapore, who has really come forward. You are
familiar with the Philippines interest level, Vietnam interest
level. So there is a pattern there. Southeast Asia is emerging.
And lastly, I would say, we have a great opportunity
emerging now with the President and Prime Minister Modi, the
recent get-together with India, and what that partnership
means.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Womack.
TRANSITIONAL OCO REQUIREMENTS TO THE BASE BUDGET
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I too want to offer my thanks to the service of these
gentlemen that are before us today, and, particularly Admiral
Greenert, your service. The time that I have spent in the last
year on the Nimitz and on the West Virginia and with some
special guys down in Coronado has been a real highlight of my
time in Congress, and never crease to be amazed at the
competence of our men and women in uniform.
And, General Dunford, your service, particularly your most
recent service in Afghanistan. I truly appreciate your
hospitality when we traveled there. It is remarkable what you
guys have been able to do.
You all have had to rely not only on base funding to
account for readiness shortfalls, but OCO, as we commonly refer
to it, and I understand that the need for OCO doesn't go away
when we leave the Afghan theater. OCO is used to get our
equipment home, get it into the proper maintenance posture and
ready for its next mission.
The conversation has come up again and again how to scale
OCO down, perhaps 1 day even to zero. I don't know if that is
realistic. And I know we don't live in an ideal world. But have
you begun to transition OCO enduring requirements in the base
yet? Or help me understand how we are planning in that regard.
Admiral Greenert. Well, Congressman, we started in that
direction about 4 years ago. And what happened was, either at
the defense level, the OMB level, or here in the Congress, the
decision is made to put more operations in OCO and then replace
where that came out of with maybe some procurement.
So I think what we need is we need an agreement by all
three of these entities to say, here is the plan, here is how
we are going to transition from maybe what is called OCO today
to a new supplemental fund used for emergent operations out
there. Today, my readiness accounts of, say, $21 billion, about
$3.6 billion of it is OCO, that is funded by OCO. And about 2
of that, I would say, probably eventually belongs in a base,
belongs in the base.
So I think we can do this, but I think we need a
deliberate, coordinated action so that I ask the Secretary,
hey, let's put this in the base, and then somebody pulls it out
of the base and replaces it with OCO and then does something
else with that money. That is confusing to our folks.
Mr. Womack. General.
General Dunford. Congressman, thanks. Two years ago, in
2014, we had a little over $4 billion in OCO. This year we have
a little over 2; and our request in 2016 is a little over 1, it
is 1.3 billion. So we have, in fact, come down about half each
year. But like Admiral Greenert, now I am starting to see
challenges of training for the contingencies that we are
involved in that were not anticipated 2 or 3 years ago.
So a combination of the operations and maintenance money to
train for the unexpected, combined with the continued
requirement to reset is the foundational requirements for our
OCO right now. We will be done with the reset requirement from
Iraq and Afghanistan by 2017, so this is the last year we will
request money for reset. But of course that assumes steady
state requirements in the United States Central Command,
AFRICOM, and elsewhere.
BUDGETARY RISK
Mr. Womack. My other question is, and I bring this up every
year, I think, it is levels of acceptable risk. And of course
this budget that we are dealing with, whether it is sequestered
budget or maybe even as high as the President's budget, that is
still to be determined. How are we able to square risk in
budgets? This seems to me to be a very difficult exercise,
because you almost have to plan two different budgets. I guess
you almost assuredly have to plan two different budgets. How
are we able to measure and assess risk?
Mr. Mabus. We manage and plan for risk in--it is one of
these hard choices you make--what is the highest probability of
what is going to happen, and what are the results if it does?
So high probability, small result; low probability, but a very
bad result on the end. And you have to balance force structure,
so people, platforms, and readiness, to meet, number one, the
most likely contingencies, and number two, to have the most
flexibility for the contingencies that you don't plan for. But
the very word ``risk'' means you take some chances in some
things that are low probability, that you simply don't have the
resources.
Mr. Womack. Mr. Secretary, if we have a sequestered bucket
in fiscal year 2016, in your opinion, in your professional
opinion, is it an acceptable level of risk?
Mr. Mabus. I will quote the Commandant here: We go from
risk to gamble. It is no longer risk. It is simply a gamble.
DWELL TIME
Mr. Womack. I have one followup question, Mr. Chairman, and
I know my time is up, but this will elicit only a short
response from General Dunford.
You mentioned in our opening one-to-two dwell time. Where
do we need to be on dwell time?
General Dunford. Congressman, optimally, it would be at one
to three. That is what I grew up with most of my career,
deployed for 6 months, back for 18 months.
Mr. Womack. One to three is sustainable?
General Dunford. We can maintain one to two. We are
maintaining it right now. One to three is optimal. What you
really start to see when you are at one to two is the inability
to train across the range of military operations. So you are
really preparing for the next deployment as opposed to
preparing across the range of military operations. That is the
difference between one to two and one to three, as well as,
obviously, the human factors, how much time you spend back at
home with the family.
Mr. Womack. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Womack.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
SEQUESTRATION IMPACT ON CYBER COMMAND
Mr. Ruppersberger. First, thank you for being here and for
all of your leadership throughout the years.
First thing, you have been testifying today, Secretary,
clearly, is crippling policy. Mr. Womack, I thank you for that
question and the answer that we are now putting our national
security at a gamble phase. And I think it is really incumbent
upon this committee, our other committees, to let our peers,
whether it is Democratic or Republican, this should not be an
issue of partisanship, it should be about the American national
security and what is right for our constituents.
And I think that this testimony, if the average person--
whatever their position is in Congress--understands where we
are. You know, budgeting is about priorities. It is not about
cutting across the board and you throw the baby out with the
bathwater. And we need to rely on you with our oversight
because of to say on the funding to make those priority
decisions because we have to deal with the issue of spending.
There is no question. That is out of control. Areas we can deal
with and that is our committee oversight also.
But with that, I want to thank the chair for your
leadership, and also for our ranking member for raising this
issue, and for the members on the other side of the aisle for
asking the questions to show where we are.
You know, Judge Carter is cochair of the House Army Caucus,
we are going to get the same thing from the Army and Air Force.
Now it is time for us, I think, and people who have insight on
what is going on with our national security, that we are
putting America at risk. And we can't let it go. So we have to
educate people that have another point of view as it relates to
sequestration.
With that, I want to refer you to Fort Meade.
Is that my district, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just about everything in this area is
your congressional district.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And the U.S. Fleet Command, that is the
Cyber Command. You know, you talk about the issues that are so
important, the danger of our country, you know, we talk about
the terrorism, we talk about the rush of China and the Iran
threat. And sequestration is, I mean--sequestration, got it on
my mind, and cyber is right there one of the most serious
issues we are dealing with. We see the attacks coming more and
more, constructive attacks, stealing attacks, and we really
have to be on our game as it relates to that.
Now, in the Cyber U.S. Fleet Command in Fort Meade, can you
provide details on the consequences that sequestration at this
point would have on U.S. Fleet Cyber Command, what cyber
capabilities on the U.S. Fleet Cyber Command fleet lose with
that sequestration level bucket? You might want to say to the
committee what the U.S. Fleet Cyber Command, what their mission
is. And I don't know who wants to answer the question first.
Mr. Mabus. I will take an overall shot at it, and then I
would like the CNO to weigh in as well. But what Tenth Fleet,
U.S. Naval Cyber does is it provides our cyber capability for
the Department of the Navy and it folds in under the U.S. Cyber
Command. And you are absolutely right, cyber is a new area of
warfare, and you only have to look at what happened in Ukraine
or any of a number of places to see how it is being not only
integrated into warfare, but a warfare area all its own.
What we have been providing is teams, cyber teams to the
Tenth Fleet and to U.S. Cyber Command. We are on track to
provide about 40 of those teams that are the warfighting teams
in cyber. I will have to get you for the record the exact what
would happen if our budget went down, but it would have an
impact on both the capacity and the capability of cyber.
[Clerk's note.--The Navy did not provide a response.]
Mr. Mabus. And it reaches farther than Tenth Fleet, because
cyber is a concern all around the world in every one of our
platforms and every one of our bases. And how we operate and
how we both defend and go on the offense in cyber is critical,
and Tenth Fleet and U.S. Cyber Command provide the underpinning
for that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Admiral, or whatever is called the air
gap between systems and that is to make sure that we can secure
our network, our computer network and physical, they penetrate
air gap, they can, I think, all classified information. And I
know we are continuing to work Cyber Command focusing on that.
So if you can answer my question, if you can address that area.
Admiral Greenert. Yes, sir. What that refers to really the
ability to what I call put sentinels in the system, automatic
sentinels. They scan all of your networks at each level to see
if there are attempted intrusions or there are intrusions and
in some cases take automatic action. So we need to upgrade our
systems to put these in. Right now that is done by people who
methodically kind of go through each and every network looking
for unusual activity. So we have got to get to what is normal.
What I would tell you, Congressman, is cyber is a very high
priority. I would very much hesitate to come to Secretary Mabus
and recommend much reduction in cyber, even at Budget Control
Act levels.
Mr. Ruppersberger. My issue in answering the question is
what would the results be if sequestration continues on. We are
going to have to deal with it.
Admiral Greenert. Here is what would happen. Well, here is
what would slow down: upgrading our networks on our ships and
even ashore with systems that are already, if you will,
resistant, that have this building capability that we are
referring to that we would put up there in the headquarters. So
going to application-based communications on our ships, going
ashore as well. Program is called CANES, it is called NGEN,
Next Generation. That would slow down. So we are more
vulnerable for longer at getting these replacement systems put
on. And so, as we say, the risk, the gamble would go on in a
very critical area, cyber.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger.
Judge Carter. Thanks for your patience down there. Poor Mr.
Graves.
CLOSE AIR SUPPORT ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
coming in late. I, as you can imagine, have a bill that is
giving me problems.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Chairman of the Homeland Security
Committee.
Mr. Carter. As my cochair over there mentioned, I represent
the Army, Fort Hood is in my district. I have a lot of interest
in the debate we had last year on close air support, and I ran
across some information that I wanted to ask you all about. In
a test last year, a team of U.S. marines called in an upgraded
Tomahawk missile strike at a nearby target, just like they
routinely call in arterial or aerial attacks, Cobra
helicopters. Bob Work, the deputy secretary of defense,
declared a similar test a potential game-changing capability
for not a lot of cost. This kind of innovation provides the
military with a powerful new weapon without actually buying
much new hardware.
Can you speak to any of the opportunities associated with
deploying Tomahawk cruise missiles as innovative alternatives
to putting close air support, jets, in the air? And can you
speak to any potential cost differential associated between
close air support missions executed by Tomahawk missiles versus
aviation?
Admiral Greenert. I think what Mr. Work was talking about,
as it refers to Tomahawk cruise missiles, a Tomahawk cruise
missile, you give it a point, you say go hit that point.
Incredibly accurate, and we have been going that way. The
Tomahawk called Block IV, what you can do is send it up there
and instead of sending it right to that point, it will loiter
and you can upgrade the point you want it to go to.
The next step is you keep updating that aim point, and you
have a constant feed to the missile as it is coming in, and it
changes, and it becomes, if you will, its own sensor. So what
you need is a link of constant information feeding it. We found
a way to do that, with the right network in the air of sensors.
The key to that is that link, that constant upgrade. We figured
out how to do that, Congressman, and that is the key of that.
So now a moving target, which used to be such a problem
because you were looking for a point, you can't avoid the
missile now as much with this accountability.
Mr. Carter. Well, that is pretty cool. But how does it
compare effectiveness and cost-wise as you look? And according
to this article, a bunch of marines called it in on a target on
the ground and they also used it to hit a ship.
Admiral Greenert. What is cool about it is you have the
weapon now, not in 2018.
Mr. Carter. You don't have to develop it, yeah.
Admiral Greenert. Yeah, it is now, with a couple of changes
and a data link we already have, with a missile we already
have, with sensors we already have. Just get them all talking
on the same link, and now you have that accountability.
Mr. Carter. And cost-wise, how does it compare with air
resources?
Admiral Greenert. A few million versus tens and tens and
tens of millions.
Mr. Carter. General, do you want to comment on it?
General Dunford. The only thing I was going to say,
Congressman, I mean, I can see where that Tomahawk missile
would be helpful for a high-end operational target or a
strategic target, but probably not routinely the most effective
weapon system for a tactical target or close air support.
Mr. Carter. Well, that is kind of what I was curious about,
because the way the article read, it sounded like it was being
used for that kind of tactical target. And of course we had the
big A-10 debate last year and there is still a bunch of ground
troops that like that aircraft, and so I was curious about
that. And I thank you for the answer to that question.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Chairman, I may have time for another question.
Can you elaborate on how the Navy is working to apply
advanced technologies to achieve more with less? What I am
referring to is in 2014, on occasion, the U.S. executed a
series of five air strikes against ISIS targets at a cost of
$2.5 million. The tactical victory entailed was one destroyed
truck, one antiaircraft artillery piece, two small boats, and a
fighting position. This seems to be a relatively high cost-
benefit scenario.
Today's realty is defined by fiscal constraint amidst this
complex national security environment. In light of this, we
need solutions that are cost effective. What are you looking at
as far as advanced technologies? And I would say the cruise
missile discussion would be one of them, but are there others
that you could enlighten us about?
Mr. Mabus. I can give you two very quick examples here. We
have deployed a laser weapon on the Ponce in the Arabian Gulf
right now. This laser weapon, the shots are measured in cents
per shot, and it is an almost endless magazine because all you
have to have is energy. You don't have to have a physical
weapon. And we are testing it now, and so far the tests have
gone very well.
Mr. Carter. That is good.
Mr. Mabus. That is an example.
The second example is the railgun, which we are also going
to put on a ship later this year to test in the maritime
environment. Last week, I got to go to the Naval Research Lab
and actually shoot one of those railguns, and it comes out so
fast, Mach 7, Mach 8, you don't have to have high explosive on
the other end, and all you have to have is the right shape, the
right kind of projectile. But, again, it is measured in very
low cost, and the amount per shot is fractions of----
Mr. Carter. And actually one of the things I was going to
ask in particular with the railgun, because they developed part
of that at the University of Texas, and I was there when they
fired the railgun, and it is pretty impressive. And they
pointed out that on a ship in a large size it can do major
damage a long way away without any explosives.
Mr. Mabus. It can do major damage to almost anything, and
it is about $30,000 a shot versus a million for a missile.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Judge Carter. There is always
a Texas solution somewhere.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
COUNTER NARCOTIC EFFORTS
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And since I am new, I am more listening and learning, but I
have couple things that have come up. When Chairman Rogers,
Chairman Granger, and a few others and I were at SOUTHCOM--I
don't know, maybe 6 months ago, I don't know how long ago it
was--we learned something that was rather astonishing, which is
that, obviously, the Navy and the Coast Guard have a crucial
role in interdicting narcotics. And we know that, I forget the
number, but something like 40,000 Americans die every year--
don't quote me on that number--from illicit drugs.
What we learned is that what SOUTHCOM sees, they can only
interdict, I think it was something like 20 percent. And,
again, don't quote me on the numbers. And so it is an issue of
assets.
So are there plans to increase our assets in our hemisphere
to deal with narcotics? And how would sequestration potentially
affect that?
Mr. Mabus. Congressman, that is one of the best examples of
what happens when you don't build enough ships. And it doesn't
happen right away. It happens 10, 15 years down the road. We
had frigates that were performing this mission in SOUTHCOM.
Those frigates were built in the late 1970s, early 1980s, and
they have reached the end of their lives. We are retiring the
last of those frigates this year.
The follow-on to those frigates are mainly the Fast Frigate
or Littoral Combat Ship that we are doing, but we didn't start
building them soon enough. And so there was a gap. There was a
gap in SOUTHCOM.
Now, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Fast Frigate will bring
far more capabilities when they get there, and we are building
them. We have got 24 under contract today. And so we are
getting them there. We can also use this platform, the Joint
High Speed Vessel, to interdict drugs. But it is one of the
crying needs that we have, is to have enough assets in places
like SOUTHCOM.
But when the size of the fleet goes down and you have to
prioritize where you put those assets, and you have Central
Command, you have the Western Pacific, you run out of assets.
And that is, as I said, the best example I can come up with of
the effects of not building ships today will have on the people
who are sitting here 10, 15 years in the future.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, obviously, that is real life and like
that there have to be, obviously--and we have heard them
today--dozens, if not more, examples of specific issues that
actually are harming our national security interests. In this
case, again, lives are being lost every single day. So it is a
real impact.
MANDATORY SPENDING REDUCTIONS
I just also--if I can ask one more question, Mr. Chairman--
first, I agree with what Mr. Ruppersberger said, that it is
really our responsibility to explain to people what their real-
life situation is, and it is real. And the number that was
never supposed to get here, which is sequester now is here and
we have to live with it.
Now, the ranking member also, I think, made a great
explanation of explaining that more than two-thirds of the
federal budget now is mandatory spending--we don't touch that--
and so we continue to have to deal with a diminishing source of
funds.
Last year, the President put on the table in his budget
some reforms of mandatory spending. So forget about whether
they were good ones or bad ones, he at least put some reforms
of the majority of the budget which we don't touch. This year,
he did not. And so we have a responsibility to do our job. The
administration has also a responsibility if we are going to
deal with this sequester issue, which I think we have to deal
with.
Do you know if there is any indication that the President
is going to be looking at putting forward any proposals to
reform some parts of the--which he hasn't done this year--on
mandatory? And again, it is up to us to do our part, and I
think we have not succeeded in doing it, but I think it
requires all of us to play. And also being on the Budget
Committee, one of our frustrations is that we have seen no such
recommendation. Any idea--because we see the impact of not
doing it--any idea if the President might be looking at
actually putting forward some amendment to his budget on that?
Mr. Mabus. Congressman, that is so far out of my lane that
I am going to get in trouble no matter what I say.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Let's keep the Secretary in the naval
lanes.
You would probably appreciate that, wouldn't you?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Again, I am still learning, Mr. Chairman,
as I said before. So I am just trying to see what the
parameters are. But, again, clearly we have real-life effects
of when we don't adequately fund our military.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We will make sure we do a mine sweep
earlier in the hearing. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Graves.
OHIO REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, thank you each for being here. And certainly no
matter where the seat is at the table, I am grateful to be at
the table, Mr. Chairman, and have this conversation. It is so
important.
Admiral, a question for you, if you don't mind. And you
have touched on it a little bit with your----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. One of them needs to be turned off or
something. I am not sure what is going on.
Mr. Graves. All right. We are on. We are good. Attempting
to reclaim my time.
Admiral, as it relates to the Ohio Replacement Program, can
you share with us your expectation of where that is on your
priority list and where you see that going and how it might
maintain that priority to see completion on the proposed
schedule?
Admiral Greenert. Well, it is at the top of the program
priority list. So when I come to Secretary Mabus, I will
describe to him, okay, here is the priority, Boss, that I am
laying before you. The Ohio Replacement is the replacement for
the Ohio, which is the sea-based strategic deterrent part of
the triad. Number one, it is homeland security, the protection
of the homeland. We have to replace it. The youngest Ohio-class
submarine is 17-years-old. So many of them, the first, they
will be over 40 years, they were designed for 30, whenever
their time comes, which is starting in the mid-2020s.
So we have to start building, that is bending steel, as we
like to say, in 2021, so that the boat is complete by 2029, so
it goes on patrol by 2031. There is no slack, Congressman. We
have to fund it. If we have to endure it in our shipbuilding
plan, if there is not some assistance outside, which has been
the case in the past for national programs like this, that is
about a $9 billion bill in 2021 alone.
The best we do in shipbuilding in a year is $14 billion. So
you can see how much of that shipbuilding account, which has
been going so well for so long. We are committed to it. It has
to be done. It is a national priority right now.
IMPACT OF BUDGET CONTROL ACT ON NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Graves. Great. Thank you for sharing that.
Mr. Chairman, if I might try to attempt to stay in the lane
for a second.
Mr. Secretary, I am hearing certainly, I guess, the
agreement about sequestration and where it has taken us. But I
think back to 2011 and the Budget Control Act, and I am trying
to recall if I remember the Defense Department openly speaking
in opposition to the Budget Control Act and the potential
implications.
Can you point to any remarks you made at that time that
indicated what a threat that would be to our country? Because
we find ourselves here today with a lot of people saying what a
bad idea it is, but I don't recall that being said back then.
Mr. Mabus. I know I said it, and I will search through
files that nobody looks at, which are my old speeches, to find
you some examples.
But I think at the time everybody thought that it was such
an awful thing that it would never happen. And that was what
was being said pretty much universally, that the consequences
for defense and nondefense were so horrendous that it just
couldn't come to pass. And we have seen how bad those
consequences are as a result.
Whatever people said in 2011, I think that it has been
pretty consistent down the path that the effects of
sequestration for the things that we are responsible for, the
Navy, the Marine Corps, were in 2013 devastating and will be in
the future. And of that, everyone has said it. What we said in
2011 when it was still a theory, I can't remember exactly, but
there is an old Yogi Berra quote that said, in theory, there
should be no difference in theory and practice; in practice,
there is. And in practice, sequestration is pretty awful.
Mr. Graves. Well, this is serious stuff. This is a Yogi
Berra kind of situation in my opinion. And I have looked and I
haven't found any public statements of your opposition at that
time. And, in fact, in 2012, in front of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, you indicated that you would work within
the constraints of the Budget Control Act with those involved.
A lot has changed since then. And you publicly since, probably
in 2013, 2014, that is when your comments turned more to the
negative.
I guess when I think about where we are and the role that
the Defense Department plays for our country in trying to
project risk assessments, and not seeing that, and no one in
the Defense Department is seeing that at that time, can you
point to any one person who now has accepted responsibility for
putting our Nation in a position in which, it has been stated
today, where the risk assessment is a gamble? Anyone accepting
responsibility for that, putting us in that position?
Mr. Mabus. I am not sure I understand the question in terms
of--Congress passed the bill. We have had to live with that and
we have had to express what the risks are to this country, and
that is what we have tried to do today, that if we go back to
that, what the gamble is going to be.
Mr. Graves. Your statement today was, we didn't think it
would happen.
Mr. Mabus. Well, I think that is true for everybody who was
here.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
COMPOSITION OF TODAY'S FLEET
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
I know members have some questions. I do. I want to talk,
Admiral Greenert and Mr. Secretary, a little bit about the
makeup of today's fleet. And the perception is it is pretty
light on capital warships, destroyers and cruisers, and we have
a greater reliance on other types of ships.
Given the headlines we see today, ``China Submarines
Outnumber U.S. Fleet,'' one of your admirals made some comments
relative to that, ``China Rebuffs U.S. Requests to Halt South
China Sea Island Work,'' I mean, I am not sure we should ever
leave a pivot to the Middle East because I think we have some
major commitments there. We certainly have commitments to the
Mediterranean. But I would like to know a little more about the
capability of the fleet that we have given what we see the
Chinese developing, the Russians developing.
I know people mock what the Iranians did in the recent
days, but in reality that is to some a show of force, and
sometimes, if we are not prepared, we can be vulnerable. So I
would like some comments relative to the robustness of the
fleet that we have, given the traditional view of our need for
more capital warships.
Mr. Mabus. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening statement,
we have and we are building a balanced fleet. We are building
two DDGs a year. We are building two Virginia-class attack
submarines a year. We are building amphibs to get to the
minimum number of 33 that the Marines need. We will get there
by 2018. And we will continue to build all three types of
amphibious ships that we have.
We have a need for other types of ships too. We have a
demonstrated need for 52 small surface combatants. They do
different tasks than the large surface combatants. It is one of
the reasons that we are working so hard to make sure that we
keep the cruisers into the 2040s.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, there was a time when the cruisers
were supposed to be put into retirement, and so there has been
sort of a recognition that--yeah.
Mr. Mabus. Absolutely. And there is a recognition that not
only quantity, but quality and capabilities. We have, I think,
the right balance of capabilities. And I am going to turn to
CNO in terms of very specific capabilities, but one of the
things that the CNO has focused on here today is if we go back
to sequestration-level funding, one of the main hits is going
to be to things like the modernization, to things like
upgrading capabilities, to things like the technological edge
that we possess. So we are building a balanced fleet. We are
going to have enough----
SUPERIORITY OVER ADVERSARIES AND RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So the balanced fleet that we are
building and our committee is invested in, I assume we continue
to have overwhelming--we used to call it--overwhelming
superiority over other players, particularly China, which has
done a remarkable job challenging us in the South China Sea. So
we still have the naval edge there?
Admiral Greenert. Today, yes, sir. I talked about it. If we
go down the road we are on, sooner or later we are going to get
there. We won't have it in the future.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. One of the issues here, and normally I
raise this issue with the Army, the rules of engagement here. I
mean, it seems we are already engaged and confronted on a
fairly regular basis. Tell me if we are not. What are the rules
of engagement given the type of confrontations we have had?
Admiral Greenert. That is a long topic.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is a long topic.
Admiral Greenert. We have adequate rules of engagement
for----
SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE FLEET
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It goes to our sailors that are in the
Pacific. It goes to the issues of the bravery of our Navy
SEALs. There are issues of rules of engagement here. And there
is sort of a growing perception that we are sort of tying our
hands of some of those who are so well trained, so capable, so
motivated, so patriotic.
Admiral Greenert. Well, Chairman, a few things for the
record. Today we have 71 submarines. China has 53. Forty-four
of them are diesel. But they are building nuclear submarines.
So there is a metamorphosis going on, but it is not there yet.
So it is out there, though. We are on the track.
We have to have the balance of fleet. You mentioned it
twice, it was in your opening remarks. We have recently had
destroyers, Aegis destroyers, $2 billion ships running around
chasing pirates, thugs, doing counterpiracy. As the Secretary
said, we are balancing the fleet. We are building Joint High
Speed Vessels to do piracy, to do humanitarian assistance, to
help the Commandant of the Marine Corps' folks move marines
around there.
We need today 38 amphibious ships, gray hull ships to do
combat. To do the business of the world today, we would need
50--to do humanitarian assistance and all those others--
amphibious ships. So we build, with your support, things like
the Afloat Forward Staging Base so that we can provide counter-
SOF, special forces, do counterterrorism, do the kind of
missions that resonate with the capability you have. It is the
right expenditure of money.
Today, we have 87 what we call large surface combatants.
Those are the capital ships you mentioned earlier, Chairman.
Twenty years ago we had about the same number in a fleet we
were so proud of. We had 400. So the combatant balance is
pretty good today. We are going down in submarines, you
mentioned it yourself, Chairman, and that is a function of
submarines we built 30 years ago, two, three, four a year, we
are building two today. So that is going to go into a dip
before we come out of that dip and get to the 48 we need.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, this committee has been very
supportive of our submarines----
Admiral Greenert. Very supportive.
Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. The two Virginia class.
Certainly there are investments in the Ohio class. I am just
wondering where it measures up to what the future challenges
are. We have the near horizon. We have the far horizon. And
over the years people have been somewhat dismissive of what the
Chinese are doing.
And, obviously, we always weigh in on the side of diplomacy
and good relations, but in reality they are denying us areas
where there has been free transport, the world's commerce in
oil passes. There have been issues of us denying us access to
areas where we have traditionally maintained actually the
world's commerce. I want to make sure we still have that.
Admiral Greenert. Chairman, I can't think of a place in
this world of oceans that our Navy can't go today. Nobody is
denying us anything. We talk about threats and we will throw
out scenarios and future scenarios and people will tell you,
you will be denied to go in there. That is a scenario, we could
speculate to that and I could talk a long time with you,
particularly in a classified arena. But I will tell you this,
Chairman, if we go on the path we are on and we go to Budget
Control Act numbers, it is a different world. It is a different
situation. I would be giving you a different story 3 or 4 years
from now.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, that is all the more reason--
getting back to my earlier comments--that we need to know
exactly what the impacts will be to what we are about to embark
on here. I think we are on your side, but we actually need,
should we say, more meat on the bones as to what actually we
would be losing if we get into this situation.
Let's see. Mr. Visclosky.
Any question?
PERSONNEL MISCONDUCT, WOMEN ON SUBMARINES, SEXUAL ASSAULT
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to have three more personnel-type questions. I
will do all three of them at once, and as you have time to
answer in full committee, I would appreciate it. Anything you
can't get to, please, get back to us in writing.
Secretary, I want to touch on the Glenn Defense Marine Asia
scandal. I understand that naval officers have been charged in
the case. Three admirals were censured just a couple of weeks
ago. News Defense reported earlier this month that 36 flag
officers are under investigation with only 219 flag officer
billets, so this is a serious problem for you. Can you comment
on how this is impacting the Navy's ability to properly manage
operations?
And, Admiral, I am interested to hear your views on the
underlying cause of this case. Could you tell us what processes
were missing in the payment review that allowed such a scheme
to last for over a decade? And so what we are doing to keep
this from happening again.
Another question that I have has to do with the Navy
opening up submarine duty positions to women in 2011. In June
2013, you submitted an implementation plan to open all
occupations with limited number of closed positions and equal
professional opportunities for females in every officer
designation enlisted ranking in the Navy in January 2016. So I
would like you to tell us what is ongoing and where the Navy
will be in meeting this January 1 update.
There was also an issue where there was an incident where a
female officer was videotaped in the shower, and I would like
to know where you are with the punishment and discipline with
the sailors involved.
And then last, Secretary, you came before us, we had big
discussions about what to do about sexual assault. One of the
things that you asked for was for an increase in resources for
the Naval Criminal Investigations Service and judge advocates.
Could you please describe to the committee what additional
resources you made available in fiscal year 2015 that supported
your desire to strengthen NCIS and Navy JAG to investigate and
prosecute sexual criminals, and do you plan to continue or
strengthen those resources in 2016?
Thank you. And if you would start with the Asian scandal
first.
Mr. Mabus. I think one important thing to remember about
GDMA is that the reason that situation came to light was that
we set up some tripwires that raised a red flag and NCIS
started investigating it. They investigated it for 3 years with
no leaks. They found an NCIS agent who was passing information
to GDMA, to Leonard Francis. They fed him false information to
convince him that the coast was clear. We stopped this. It was
Navy that found it. It was Navy that did it.
Now, it shouldn't have gone on nearly as long as it did. I
assigned the assistant secretary of the Navy for RD&A,
research, development, and acquisition, to look at how we do
these husbanding contracts, not just in Asia but around the
world, and also the head of the Naval Audit Service to go in.
We have substantially strengthened the way we do husbanding
and the internal controls in husbanding. To give you a couple
of quick examples. The way Glenn Defense Marine was able to get
away with so much of this was you would have a list of things
when a ship went into port that the ship would need. Glenn
Defense Marine would say we----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, though,
my question was, can you comment on how this is impacting the
Navy's ability to properly manage operations?
Mr. Mabus. It has not impacted our ability to manage
operations, Congresswoman.
Ms. McCollum. So you are able to move positions and fill
positions even though people are under investigation and people
are able to retire, even though they are under investigation? I
might have misinformation. I am just trying to clear it up.
Mr. Mabus. Because the investigation is taking so long,
because the decision on the people who may or may not be
implicated is taking so long, it is frustrating, because it
limits our ability in some cases for people to retire or for
people to move around. We are completely on the timetable of
the U.S. Attorney's Office in terms of when these things come
out. When they do and no criminal charges are filed, I have set
up a consolidated disposition authority to say, it might not be
criminal, but did it meet Navy ethic standards? And that is
where the three letters of censure came from. Those were
recommended to me and I signed those.
We are able to manage it now. If the timetable stays as
slow as it is, we are going to have some problems in the
future. And I am sorry I misunderstood your question.
We are meeting women in subs, the timetable that we set
forward, women are reporting right now to Virginia-class
submarines, and I will get back to you. I have some very
specific numbers. And we have expanded NCIS and Navy JAG and
sexual assault.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the
committee having more information. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Representative has posed some
questions. I think some more answers are required for the
record.
[Clerk's note.--The Navy did not provide a response.]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for raising the issue.
Ms. Granger.
F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Ms. Granger. I have questions for Admiral Greenert and
General Dunford regarding the F-35.
Admiral Greenert, you have said that the F-35C will allow
the Navy to ensure access and project power. Can you tell me
why the capabilities of the F-35, what they bring the Navy and
why that is so important?
Admiral Greenert. Well, the F-35, first of all, it is
stealthy. So right off the bat you can avoid certain bands of
radar, and I will stay out of the clarification, but search
radar. So that is good. That gets you access right there.
What people don't talk about is it has got tremendous
range. You almost double the range from an aircraft carrier
with F-35C. It carries more ordnance, has a detection radar for
air to air, which is much advanced, and it can network with
other aircraft and other of our assets, so ships and the like.
So what you have is you have not only something that can
get you access, deliver ordnance if you need to, jam and detect
and share information for targeting for otherwise. So each of
those is a tremendous leap unto itself, not just stealth. There
is so much more.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Because we normally focus really on
the stealth almost exclusively. Thank you.
And, General Dunford, the Marine Corps plans on declaring
initial operation capability later this year. Are you going to
make that? Is there anything we could do to help you achieve
that milestone? And I will ask the same thing, how important is
the F-35 to the future of the Marine Corps?
General Dunford. Congresswoman, thanks very much for asking
the question. I was out to visit the squadron about 10 or 11
days ago, and I left very confident that we will meet the
initial operational capability for that squadron in 2015. And
then we will have a squadron of F-35 deployed to the Western
Pacific in 2017. So our fielding of the F-35B program is very
much on pace.
There are a number of issues that have to be addressed.
Each one of the aircraft has 54 separate modifications. That is
one of the things I wanted to go out and look at. But I am
convinced we have the right people on the scene making those
modifications, and we have also leveraged some Air Force
capability to make sure that we get those modifications made in
time. So it is complex, but absolutely optimistic that we will
be able to get that done.
Admiral Greenert had talked about the unique
characteristics of the F-35. For us, it is really two issues.
One, it is a transformational capability. It is not a better F-
18. It is not a better Harrier. It is a transformational
capability. It does what our close air support aircraft does,
but particularly in the information realm it is an
extraordinary change in capability. But also it is the future
of Marine aviation. We are reducing three type/model/series
aircraft, all of which are older then two decades, to move into
the F-35.
So part of my message today talked about readiness at home
station. Fifty percent of our F-18s today are in what we call
an out-of-reporting status, meaning they are not available for
training. And the only way we are going to get well over time
is to complete the transition to the F-35. That is how Marine
air will be capable and ready in the future.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Crenshaw.
CARRIER ONBOARD DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Crenshaw. I have got just a quick question about
oversight. We take that seriously here in the subcommittee. And
I know we have probably all flown on what they call a COD that
flies out to the aircraft carrier. And last year, I think you
all asked for some money to analyze and look at some
alternatives to replace the COD. And then, as I understand it,
all of a sudden the Osprey, which I have flown on, it is a
great airplane, that selection was made, but there wasn't a lot
of backup as to it seemed like a quick decision which hopefully
saved money.
I am just curious, from our oversight standpoint, how you
made that decision, and will we get to see kind of the analysis
that you all did, looked at alternatives. Just briefly, can you
tell us about that whole selection process?
Mr. Mabus. Sure. And absolutely we will give you all the
documentation, the backup that went into that. We have been
looking at the COD replacement for a good while, as you know.
The further we got into the analysis of alternatives, the
clearer it became that we had an aircraft, the Osprey, the V-
22, that was a hot line, it was being made, that we could do
the Navy version to do the COD mission with a change order to
inside a multiyear.
And so it was a very affordable aircraft that would not
only meet the needs of the COD, but also the COD, which you
have flown on, I have flown on, requires a tail hook, they have
to get in the landing pattern, and they have to be a part of
the arrested and catapulted off aircraft.
The Osprey does not. They can be used in different parts of
the carrier. They can also be used on other ships that the COD
cannot. And so it is a more flexible platform. And the further
we got in, the clearer that that option became. We have got
voluminous backup. And, again, I will be happy to get you that
and to do it in writing and also do it personally or with the
folks who went through the analysis.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Womack.
AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK AIRCRAFT
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I had to excuse
myself for another hearing.
I have a question for Ander Crenshaw. Is it the arrest or
the catapult that you don't like on the COD? Because I know it
is maybe both of those. I don't know. I kind of like the COD
myself.
I have got a Growler question.
Mr. Mabus. You would be the one----
Mr. Womack. Say again?
Mr. Mabus. You would be the one person.
Mr. Womack. I really enjoyed that. I did.
For the Admiral, I have got a Growler question. Last year--
and if this has already come up, I apologize--but last year the
request was for, like, 22 and we were able to provide 15. And
now I understand that that requirement has basically been met
with the 15, that there is no other need for the Growler. So in
consideration of the electronic magnetic spectrum and the
future of that space, what can you tell me about the need for
additional Growlers?
Admiral Greenert. First of all, I appreciate the support of
the Congress and the committee on the urgent need that we had.
I felt 22 was the appropriate number. We are tweaking that in.
15 is certainly helpful. That is the platform. The real payload
is the key, the jammer. And so we need to get to the next
generation jammer. That is what gets you the access.
But to your point, we are doing right now in the Department
of Defense a study that looks at all electronic attack, to your
point. What is the situation in electromagnetic warfare across
the spectrum in our maneuver? So as I sit here today,
Congressman, I say, I think we have enough. That gives us a
total of, I think, 153, it takes us to. That is about right. I
am going to hear from the whole Department of Defense because
we are the jammer provider, if you will, electronic attack
provider in that. So more to come shortly.
Mr. Womack. Good. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Ruppersberger.
MQ-4 TRITON AIRCRAFT
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah. The Triton unmanned aircraft
system. I know that the Navy's maritime surveillance fleet is
reaching the end of its service life and the Navy is
recapitalizing this mission. Given the critical importance of
maritime surveillance to our national security and our economy,
we cannot afford a gap in this capability. Do you agree?
Admiral Greenert. I agree, sir. And there is language we
have to meet, and particularly in that regard, not to mention
it is an important requirement.
Mr. Ruppersberger. A big part of the recapitalization plan
is MQ-4C Triton unmanned system. And this will provide
persistent surveillance with an advanced maritime radar capable
of providing detailed surveillance of millions of square miles
of the ocean. So my question is, does the Navy have sufficient
resources to meet its global requirements for maritime
surveillance? And have you explored opportunities to accelerate
new and advanced maritime surveillance capabilities like the
MQ-4C Triton?
Admiral Greenert. The answer to that is yes. In our
President's budget 2016 request, we have sufficient resources
to do that transition, as you describe, from the EP-3, from the
legacy systems that provide that, into the MQ-4 and its family
there. We have that. We are looking at accelerating it. If an
opportunity provides itself, we will accelerate it.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Judge Carter, any comments?
KOREAN PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Carter. Real quick, I want to talk about Korea. I have
got a brigade from Fort Hood that is scheduled to resume
command in the summer. There has been a lot of discussion about
behavior of the folks of North Korea, tensions they are
creating. Can you discuss how the Navy has changed its posture
in the vicinity of the Korean Peninsula to complement support
forces there and speak to any allied partnerships the Navy is
working with to counter the North Korean threat to reassure our
allies?
Admiral Greenert. Well, our posture on the peninsula, we
don't have a naval posture that is indigenous to Korea. But the
forces in Japan are in direct support. In other words, they
would all change operational command over to Korea if there is
a contingency there. So as I mentioned, we are bringing two
destroyers. Each of those has 96 missile cells, if you will, so
that is pretty formidable.
Another submarine in Guam. That submarine would do, among
other things, ensure that the waters in and around the Korean
Peninsula are protected, if you will, for our purposes in that
regard.
We are strengthening our alliance with the Korean Navy as
we speak in that whole joint force concept. And so what I mean
is, sir, it is not just force structure, it is our ability to
operate together in a joint and combined entity there. And we
increase the complexity of our exercise every year, and the
Korean Navy is coming along very well. They have a substantial
ballistic missile defense capability. They have the sensor, and
they are looking to choose the weapon. When I say sensor,
sensor on destroyers, and they have three with an option to
build two more that they are looking at right now.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP SURVIVABILITY
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Diaz-Balart, any comments?
I just have a couple questions. I am concerned about China.
In our trips to the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, I
understand we have got some Littoral Combat Ships, a/k/a
frigates, now in Singapore. The general consensus from our
visits was that the 800-pound gorilla has won in terms of its
dominance in the region, and I am concerned about that. And I
know that we have huge capabilities, but there is a general
consensus when we meet with the leadership that they are
throwing their lot in with the Chinese. I worry about that. I
think we need to work much more closely with the Filipinos.
The notion that not only their aircraft carriers may not
ever match our capability, but numbers, again, count if they
are working on the submarine fleet, admittedly most of them
diesel. That is a defense projection that we need to seriously
consider, the notion that they would ever shut down the world's
channels for commerce. People say it will never happen, but in
reality I think we need to be prepared for that. You aren't
dismissive of that, but in reality we need to provide the
capabilities for you to match them or overmatch them.
I do want to ask one last question. Continuing discussion
within the Navy in terms of the vulnerability of Littoral
Combat Ship, where do we stand on that? I know we have some
issues here of upgrading, sort of taking a look at new designs
and so forth. Where do we stand on that?
Mr. Mabus. Last year, about this time, Secretary Hagel
directed Navy to look at a more lethal, more survivable, but
continue to be affordable small combatant Littoral Combat Ship.
We set up a task force to do that. We made it very transparent.
People from this committee's staff, people from the Hill,
people from our testing organization, people from the Office of
the Secretary of Defense were taken through the process.
And I think the process was as exhaustive and as thorough
as any process we could have done. They looked at more than
14,000 designs, modifications, this sort of thing, and came up
with a more lethal, more survivable, and continuing to be
affordable, about an additional $75 million a ship, that brings
capabilities that the fleet said it needed, an over-the-horizon
missile that will be organic to the ship, a Towed Array Sonar
for countersubmarines.
And the direction was to look at--we have a need for 52 of
these--was to look at the last 20. We will start building those
20 starting in 2019, and all these modifications will go into
those ships. The hull won't be modified, so you can do this
within the existing ships. Our plan now is we are doing the
engineering work, we are doing the technical work, we are
hopeful that we can bring up, in advance of 2019, the upgrades
to these ships.
And the reason that I renamed them frigates, is you look at
what frigates are supposed to do and you look at what these
ships do and they are frigates. The last thing is, because it
is a modification and not a new design, not a new hull, you can
go back and modify any of the first ships that were built if
you feel a need to do that.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The committee continues to have an
interest in this issue, and certainly we are highly respectful
of the industrial base that produces the models. But the whole
issue of survivability is tied to capability and force
structure in a rapidly changing world, and I am sure you will
stay on top of it.
Mr. Visclosky.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP TESTING
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to follow up on the chairman's question about
the Littoral Combat Ship. I appreciate the Navy has completed
its review and that there would be modifications, but I also
understand that the director of operational test and evaluation
has gone on record and stated that the proposed modifications
to the LCS designs do not satisfy significant elements of
survivability.
He apparently has stated that the LCS is not expected to be
survivable in high-intensity combat because its design
requirements accept the risk that the ship must be abandoned
under circumstances that would not require such an action on
other surface combatants. Did you have a reaction to that
observation?
Mr. Mabus. Sure. Number one, Operational Test and
Evaluation were in the room during this process. They were in
the room when the decision was made as to what to do.
Number two, I think it is important to remember that this
is a small surface combatant. You expect it to do different
things than you do from a large surface combatant or from other
types of ships. You can make it, you can make any ship more
survivable. As the task force looked at it, as you went down
the more lethality or more survivable pathway, it became a
destroyer, it became a $2 billion ship, which is not the
mission. The CNO said we have got $2 billion destroyers out
chasing pirates right now. A $500 million LCS or FF now can do
that and do that much better.
In a high-intensity conflict, we are not going to be
sending these ships out by themselves. They are going to be
part of a much larger structure, a much larger strike group,
and they will benefit from all the lethality and all the
protection from that entire strike group.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, if I could, two more
questions.
RUSSIAN NAVAL CAPABILITY
Admiral, people are concerned about Russia in Eastern
Europe. What about the Russian Navy?
Admiral Greenert. The Russian Navy is spending a good sum
of money, billions of dollars to recapitalize their submarine
building and in their surface building capability. They have
invested in submarines and they are producing a new class of
cruise missile submarine and SSBN, which makes sense, that has
been their mantra for some time, their strategy.
In this decade, unlikely they will have dramatic
improvement, based on where they are going right now, in their
surface fleet. However, if they continue on the path they are
on, and I am talking about investment and shipbuilding, I would
say next decade they will have some substantial improvement in
frigate-like, 2,300, 2,500 tons, and destroyer-like capability.
So they are definitely modernizing.
Air, I haven't seen much recently. They are operating more,
they have kind of gas money, but not as modern.
AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT VEHICLE
Mr. Visclosky. One last question, if I could, Mr. Chairman.
General, there is research the Marine Corps is undertaking
as far as the Amphibious Combat Vehicle. Given how marines are
placed in situations of danger or in combat--I think of the
evacuations in Somalia, I think of Iraq, Afghanistan--looking
ahead, just as far as the tactics and strategies the Marine
Corps is looking at considering, what is that balance and
relationship between amphibious landing craft and the
difficulty in designing one that meets your requirements and
airlift?
General Dunford. Thanks, Congressman. We have got a plan
right now that really addresses our tactical mobility across
the range of military operations. We require two marine
expeditionary brigades to come from the sea and conduct
amphibious assault, and so our program will account for that.
We also have other vehicles that account for the protection and
the land mobility that are necessary for a wide range of other
operations.
So I think the simple answer to your question, Congressman,
is that we have got balance in our ground tactical vehicle
program.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would like to thank all the members
for their attendance and questions.
And, gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us.
The committee is adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow, when we
will conduct a hearing on the budget of the United States Air
Force. We stand adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the
answers thereto follow:]
Joint High Speed Vehicle
Question. In recent testimony both CNO and SECNAV have been
supporters of the Joint High Speed Vessel, yet the budget request does
not increase the number. Does the Navy plan to request more in future
budgets? What is the likelihood of the JHSV being included in DoD's
Unfunded Priorities List?
Answer. The Navy's 2014 update to the 2012 Force Structure
Assessment re-validated the requirement for Joint High Speed Vessels
(JHSV) at ten ships. The Navy did not request any additional JHSVs in
the FY 2016 President's Budget because the battle force inventory will
already reach ten ships in FY 2018 and 11 ships in FY 2019, thanks to
the additional JHSV that Congress included in the FY 2015
Appropriations Act. JHSVs were not included in DoD's FY 2016 Unfunded
Priorities List
SWO Training Program
Question. What oversight is there of the surface warfare officer
(SWO) training program?
Answer. There is extensive oversight of the Surface Warfare Officer
(SWO) training program beginning at the fleet level where the SWO
training program is administered by Commander, Naval Surface Forces
(CNSF) through the chain of command to the Commanding Officers of every
U.S. Navy surface ship The Commanding Officers are responsible for
application of the SWO training program within their commands and for
developing and managing a command training program to facilitate the
SWO qualification process within the overall ship's personnel training
program. These Commanding Officers are charged with the mentoring and
training of their Officers, and they themselves are mentored and
observed by their Immediate Superiors in Command (ISIC).
The CNSF SWO training program requires all Surface Warfare trainees
to attain SWO qualification within the first 22 months of shipboard
service. Every ship develops a training plan for each individual
Officer for his or her professional development. The ship's Training
Officer, Senior Watch Officer and Commanding Officer closely monitor
their progress. Every Junior Officer is assigned to under instruction
watches rotating through all the required watch stations under the
supervision of qualified SWO's to develop watchstanding proficiency and
learn the required skills. They are also provided opportunities to
conduct daily and special evolutions until they demonstrate competency
in these skills in preparation for SWO qualification. Additional time
is made available and cross deck opportunities are arranged when
extenuating circumstances with the ship's operating schedule or
personal hardship preclude an Officer from completing the watchstanding
prerequisites within the 22 month requirement.
Question. What percentage of SWOs recommended for non-attainment by
their commanding Officers are subsequently approved (for non-
attainment) by Commander, Naval Surface Forces, and what type of
reviews are conducted at each level of the approval process to ensure
that the Officer does not in fact have the ability to qualify?
Answer. The Surface Warfare Officer Qualification program provides
every Junior Officer with a fair and standardized process to qualify as
a Surface Warfare Officer with greater than a 96% success rate. All
positively endorsed non-attainment recommendations have been approved
by CNSF. Statistics for disapproval in the review process below CNSF
are not maintained. However, there are many cases where the ship's
Immediate Superior in Command (ISIC) has facilitated cross-decking
struggling Junior Officers for evaluation to other ships with different
Commanding Officers to ensure impartiality in the process.
When a Junior Officer is recommended by their Commanding Officer
for SWO non-attainment, the report is reviewed and endorsed by the ISIC
for an 0-6 and/or Flag level review prior to forwarding to CNSF for
final adjudication. The Officer recommended for non-attainment is
afforded the opportunity to comment on the Commanding Officer's
recommendation as an attachment to the report. The ISIC review verifies
the Officer recommended for non-attainment was afforded a fair
opportunity to qualify and provided adequate support and mentorship by
their command.
Question. How have those numbers and that process changed over the
past several years? This part of my question was ignored last year, and
I again request an answer. Please investigate.
Answer. Over the past three years, Commander, Naval Surface Forces
annually approved an average of thirty-one SWO non-attainment packages
per year from an average accession year group of 864 SWO Junior
Officers. In 2012 there were 36 non-attains falling to 28 in 2014.
There has been no change to the SWO non-attainment approval process,
but there has been a significant change in the preparation of all SWO
Junior Officers for success through the recently implemented eight week
Basic Division Officer Course (BDOC) at the beginning of their initial
sea tours. This course imparts baseline understanding of core SWO
skills in all Division Officer fundamentals, damage control,
seamanship, navigation, shiphandling, engineering, maritime warfare,
anti-terrorism and force protection, and leadership.
Command Climate
Question. If an officer or sailor on a ship believes he or she was
the victim of a dishonest afloat commanding officer, what checks and
balances exist in the Navy, and what recourse does he or she have?
Answer. If an officer or Sailor believes they are a victim of a
dishonest Commanding Officer, they may elevate the issue above their
chain of command by filing a formal grievance, such as a Complaint of
Wrongs Against the Commanding Officer (Article 138), a Complaint of
Wrongs Against a Superior Outside your Chain of Command (Article 1150),
or an Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint, depending on the circumstance.
Service members who feel they have been reprised against by a superior
in their chain of command may also file a Military Whistleblower
complaint with the Department of Defense Inspector General or the Naval
Inspector General.
However, we encourage personnel to attempt to resolve complaints at
the lowest possible level and use command channels available within the
command. There are many resources within the command to help resolve a
vast number of issues, such as the legal staff, chaplain, human
resource personnel, equal opportunity advisor, and immediate
supervisors.
Navy Inspector General
Question. I am told that there is a shortage of Navy Inspector
General investigators, particularly in the field offices. How many
investigators does each field office employ, and how many complaints
does each field office receive annually?
Answer. The Office of the Naval Inspector General (NAVINSGEN),
Department of Navy (DON) level, employs 24 and Echelon II/III/IV
employs 175 full time investigators to handle approximately 4,000
Hotline contacts annually.
Workload: The 4,000 annual Hotline contacts fall into General,
Military Whistleblowers or Reprisals, and Congressional contacts. A
Course of Action (COA) is determined for each contact (Assistance,
Discard or Dismiss, Investigate, Refer, or Transfer). Current
statistics show that most contacts end up being assistance cases (e.g.
pay, allowance, medical, etc.) and the least number of contacts end up
as investigations. For those contacts that end up in investigations,
most (32%) end up not substantiated and only 23% end up substantiated.
Current time to complete an Assistance contact is 14 days, a Discard/
Dismiss contact is 18 days, an investigation is 417 Days, and a Refer
or Transfer is 26 Days.
Manpower: In addition to DON investigative workload, NAVINSGEN
utilizes its investigative staff to administer the DON Hotline Program
and to serve as the designated Defense Hotline Component Coordinator
for the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General Hotline Program.
NAVINSGEN tasks many of the contacts to 32 Echelon II commands. The
number of contacts and investigations handled by Echelon II and
subordinate commands (Echelon III/IV) varies widely depending on
command size. Small commands may have none over the course of a year;
where large commands (e.g. Fleets) may have over 1000 contacts per year
and over 100 issues requiring investigation per year. It is important
to point out that these are not field offices, rather Echelon II/III/IV
investigators report directly to their Commanders. Echelon II command
IG offices have from one investigator to eight investigators depending
on the size of their Area of Responsibility.
Question. What are you doing to ensure that there are sufficient
investigators for every complaint to be able to receive due process?
Answer. In 2012, the Office of the Naval Inspector General
increased its Headquarters staff by 13 investigators, but must continue
to rely heavily on Command Inspector General resources to administer
the DON Hotline Program and to provide due process to every
investigative matter. In addition to increasing the number of
investigative personnel, the Office of the Naval Inspector General has
taken steps to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing
personnel resources. To this end, the Office of the Naval Inspector
General recently established a separate Training and Certification
Division. This division will provide the Navy Inspectors General
community-wide integration of training, leadership development, and
individual training with the intent of improving DON Hotline
investigation timelines and quality.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt.
Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and the answers thereto
follow:]
USS Halsey
Question. In July 2014, former crewmembers of the USS HALSEY (DOG
97) brought to Ranking Member Visclosky's attention the high incidence
of suicide and related behavior on the ship. In subsequent meetings and
correspondence, the Navy confirmed two recent suicides by crewmembers
of the HALSEY--April 30, 2014, and June 27, 2014. Further, the Navy
provided Mr. Visclosky with details on the ``postvention'' programs
that had executed in support of the crew of the USS HALSEY.
Admiral Greenert, could you please provide the Committee with an
update on the USS HALSEY? Have there been any additional incidents of
suicide-related behavior since Ranking Member Visclosky's meeting with
the Vice-CNO, Admiral Michelle Howard, in July 2014?
Answer. There have been 6 people out of a crew of 315 (<2%) who
exhibited suicide-related behavior aboard USS HALSEY since July 2014;
this is consistent with the Navy average for a ship on deployment.
There was one in each of the months of September, November, December
2014, and January, February, and March in 2015 Each has been a unique
circumstance, most related to stressors extant prior to checking aboard
HALSEY.
Question. Is the Navy still dedicating additional resources to the
crew of the
USS HALSEY? If so, how long will these additional resources be made
available? If not, please explain the decision to withdraw the
additional support.
Answer. From 7 July 14 to 5 February 2015 (during HALSEY's
deployment) significant additional resources were given to USS HALSEY
to include the Navy Unit Behavioral Health Assessment Survey (NUBHNAS),
a Special Psychiatric Response Intervention Team (SPRINT), Region
Suicide Prevention Coordinator and regular Chaplain support to include
classes and individual counseling (not normally available to DDGs),
access to USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (CVN 73) Medical Department for two
months, training and assessment by a Fleet Master Chief Petty Officer,
visits and assessments by several Flag Officers and four visits by
operational/administrative Chain of Command Navy Captains.
During their end of deployment transition, USS HALSEY had both the
DESTROYER SQUADRON (CDS) Chaplain and a Clinical Psychologist from the
Military Family Support Center (MFFC) ride the ship for three weeks
(normally ships only have 9 days for this visit); during this time more
than two-thirds of the crew attended classes, and all who sought
assistance received individual counseling to help ease their transition
back to shore-side life with their families.
Now that USS HALSEY has returned from deployment, the crew has the
breadth of shore-based resources available to them to include support
from CDS and Regional Chaplains, Suicide Prevention Coordinator (SPC),
and specialists at Makalapa Clinic and Tripler Hospital. The Commanding
Officer has remained in contact with the SPRINT doctor and the NUBHNAS
doctor for consultation and advice on how best to minister to special
needs of her crew. HALSEY's Command Triad (CO, XO, Command Master
Chief) and Independent Duty Corpsman (IDC) are particularly sensitive
to these cases and situations and they keep in close contact with USS
HALSEY's families, Oahu's military mental health assets, and they make
a wealth of information available and regularly emphasize to their crew
the importance of mental health, seeking help, and looking out for
their Shipmates.
An additional resource recommended to the crew, but unable due to
operational commitments was the Navy's Afloat Cultural Workshop. They
currently are working to schedule this for the first three weeks in
May.
Question. Did the assessment of the command climate of the ship
identify any additional measures that are warranted to deal with the
high rate of suicides?
Answer. Several command climate assessments have yielded
progressively more positive results for the majority of the crew. Over
the course of the past eight months, morale has appreciably increased
with mission accomplishment and a sense of purpose and in many respects
the crew is a family-like atmosphere with stressors being manageable.
Those Sailors whose stressors were not manageable were removed from the
ship to receive a higher level of care.
The initial assessment one month after the second suicide
identified severe stress and anxiety for a larger than normal number of
Sailors onboard. That was what led to the SPRINT team employment and an
increased number of esprit de corps initiatives, morale building
activities, and other activities to build unit cohesion. The
assessments conducted at the three, five, six and seven month point of
deployment showed progressively more positive results with respect to
anxiety, stress, and the ability of Sailors and their chain of command
to manage such stressors and anxiety.
There have been a handful of Sailors who have come forward with
exceptional circumstances and situations in which they have been unable
to cope (as referenced in earlier question about suicide-related
behavior). They have been given the attention and care they need to
include being transferred to a limited duty status.
The command will continue to foster a culture of wellness and
bystander intervention as well as conduct regular training and self-
assessment (as noted by the May workshop scheduled) and remain plugged
in to shore-based resources offered by the Medical community, Chaplain
Community and Military Family Support Center.
Suicide Prevention
Question. In written testimony before the Subcommittee in 2013,
Admiral Greenert wrote that the Navy had 123 programs addressing
suicide and resiliency and planned to review those efforts. In 2014,
Secretary Mabus and Admiral Greenert, in response to an inquiry
requesting an update on the large number of suicide prevention and
resiliency programs in the Navy, you both noted the creation of the
21st Century Sailor and Marine initiative. The description of that
initiative from its website states, ``The majority of the programs and
policies under 21st Century Sailor and Marine are not new, but rather
are now being grouped together in order to prepare our Sailors, Marines
and families with the tools to face all challenges.''
Can you explain to the Committee how the 21st Century Sailor and
Marine initiative increased the efficiency of the Department of the
Navy's resiliency programs? Specifically, we are interested in how the
Navy and Marine Corps reviewed the 123 established suicide prevention
and resiliency programs? What was kept, modified, let go, or expanded?
Answer. The Department of the Navy (DON) remains focused on
preventing suicide among service members. We are committed to
leveraging effective resources to build resilience in our Sailors and
Marines. The 21st Century Sailor and Marine (CSM) initiative is a set
of objectives and policies integrated across a spectrum of wellness.
The five key areas (readiness, safety, physical fitness, inclusion, and
continuum of service) include multiple programs consolidated under one
umbrella for building the resilience of the force.
In January 2013, the Navy convened Task Force Resilient, which
included a comprehensive review of suicide prevention and resilience
programs, and exploration of factors impacting resilience. The review
resulted in the establishment of the 21st Century Sailor Office to
focus on creating and maintaining more coordinated and streamlined
efforts in resilience programs to support Sailors and their families.
The stand-up of the Navy's 21st Century Sailor Office has had the
desired effect--better coordination and integration of resilience
efforts. In the past year, Navy instituted an integrated communications
plan, expanded Operational Stress Control Mobile Training Teams,
developed Bystander Intervention to the Fleet training, and placed
Deployed Resilience Counselors on aircraft carriers and large deck
amphibious ships. In addition, the office is developing a Resilience
Management System, to automate the collection and reporting of all
destructive behaviors and resilience program data for a common
operational picture. Navy is also reviewing its Total Sailor Fitness
curriculum to develop a comprehensive curriculum. Navy's vision is a
tightly integrated and effective portfolio of programs delivered with
training scenarios tailored to where that Sailor is in his or her
career.
While a commensurate review of resilience programs has not been
conducted, the Marine Corps has already adopted a holistic approach to
addressing resilience. An example of an integrated program is the
Marine Total Fitness program, which represents an institutional
commitment to sustaining a ready and resilient force by focusing on
fitness across four areas--mind, body, spirit, and social. The Alcohol
Prevention Program is collaborating with Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response (SAPR) to create effective prevention messaging in response to
the correlation between alcohol and sexual assault. Additionally, when
a Marine is referred to a Substance Abuse Counseling Center (SACC), he
or she is screened for risk of suicide and intimate partner violence,
as well as mental health and co-occurring disorders. Finally, the
Marine Corps has implemented MAPIT, an integrated training approach for
behavioral health programs, which is intended to improve the total
fitness of all Marines.
Question. As the 21st Century Sailor and Marine initiative enters
its third year of existence, will it continue to evaluate each of the
programs and policies under its purview? Should we expect additional
reductions in the number of programs? If so, are there any impediments
to making these reductions that the Committee should be aware of?
Answer. While the Department plans to continue to evaluate the
efficiency and effectiveness of programs, there is no specific formal
review process identified. The overall goal is to implement integrated,
evidence-based behavioral health programs, which may result in
efficiencies through consolidation In some cases, there are programs
that exist due to mandate, and cannot be further scoped down.
Question. In Calendar Year (CY) 2014, there were 53 active
component and 15 reserve component suicides in US Navy. In CY 2013,
there were 41 active component and 5 reserve component suicides in US
Navy.
In 2014, the number of suicides in the Navy's active and reserve
components increased. Understanding that it takes time to thoroughly
investigate the causes of each incident, but the tripling of suicides
in the Navy reserve component from 2013 to 2014 is most concerning.
What mental health resources are currently available to Navy
reservists? Will additional resources be directed to the reserve
component this calendar year?
Answer. The Navy Reserve remains very concerned about the increase
in suicides in 2014. Even one suicide is too many. The Navy continues
to raise awareness regarding the combination of indicators most common
to suicide-prone individuals such as post-traumatic stress,
relationship problems, legal and financial problems, periods of
transition and mental health issues.
Because there is no single solution to successful suicide
prevention, the Navy Reserve relies on a command-led effort that
leverages a comprehensive array of outreach and education elements to
ensure our Sailors have the resources necessary to not only deal with
the challenges unique to service in the Navy Reserves--but also to
assist their Shipmates when necessary.
We have launched several key initiatives including: (1) mandatory
Operational Stress Control (OSC) skills training for units within six
months of deployment, (2) new guidance for Navy unit commanders and
health professionals to reduce access to lethal instruments under
certain conditions, (3) an interactive, scenario-based suicide
prevention training tool, (4) an OSC curriculum specific to our Reserve
Sailors, and (5) specialized Chaplain Corps professional development
training on suicide prevention. Our Sailors continue to learn about the
bystander intervention tool known as ``A.C.T.'' (Ask-Care-Treat). We
also invest in the resilience of our people to help them deal with any
challenge.
There are a number of mental health care and support resources
available through which Navy leadership, Reserve Sailors and their
families may assess and address signs and symptoms of suicide. The
following is a summary of mental health resources available to Reserve
Sailors:
Navy Reserve Psychological Health Outreach Program (PHOP):
Established in 2008, these teams are distributed regionally at each of
the 6 Navy Reserve Component Command headquarters. PHOP teams are
comprised of licensed mental health providers that offer outreach to
Reserve Sailors and support Reserve commands. They provide mental
health screening, Suicide Prevention training, and facilitate
connections with effective resources and follow-up support for Sailors
with mental health needs. PHOP team members conduct regular site visits
for deployment preparation and family events, and can assist with
crises as needed. They also conduct resiliency check-ins (RCI), a non-
stigmatizing screening of all Reserve Sailors. A Reserve Sailor can
access a PHOP counselor at any time--24/7/365. Additionally, command
leadership can request PHOP team members engage specific at-risk
individual Sailors, and can request on-site PHOP support during events
that impact the mental health of their community, such as natural
disasters.
Military One Source, Suicide Prevention Lifeline, and All Military
and Veterans' Crisis Lines: Phone numbers to these confidential help
lines are widely advertised on a variety of materials provided at the
Navy Operational Support Center or group events, posted on the Navy
Reserve website, and highlighted in publications such as The Navy
Reservist, on a variety of social media sites, and on multiple other
media platforms.
TRICARE: Reserve Sailors and their families have the same TRICARE
coverage as the Active Component during mobilization, which includes
mental health assessment and treatment services. When not mobilized,
Reserve Sailors may elect to enroll in TRICARE RESERVE SELECT, which
provides coverage similar to TRICARE.
Veterans Administration (VA) and Military Treatment Facilities
(MTFs): Reserve Sailors who are in their post-deployment period or on
active duty orders greater than 30 days can access support via the VA
or MTFs.
Fleet and Family Support Centers (FFSCs): All Reserve Sailors are
able to access support services offered by FFSCs which are located on
all major Navy installations.
Behavioral Health Integration Program (BHIP): Mental health
professionals are being integrated in primary care settings to improve
access and outcomes through the BHIP. Reserve Sailors who are in their
post-deployment period or on active duty orders greater than 30 days
can access behavioral health services via primary care providers at the
VA or MTF.
Navy Reserve Chaplains: A Reserve Sailor can access this
confidential resource available 24/7 for Reserve Sailors and families.
Question. In CY 2014, there were 35 active component and 11 reserve
component suicides in Marine Corps. In CY 2013, there were 45 active
component and 11 reserve component suicides in Marine Corps. In CY
2013, the USMC had a suicide rate of 23.1 suicides per 100,000 service
members; the Navy's rate in CY 2013 was 13.4.
In recent years, the active component of the Marine Corps has
unfortunately had a greater rate of suicide than the US Navy. Has the
creation of the 21st Century Sailor and Marine initiative allowed the
Corps to make improvements to its resiliency and operational stress
control programs?
Answer. The number of active component Marine Corps suicides has
been on the decline, down 22% from 2012 to 2014. Though only two months
of data are currently available for 2015, Marine Corps suicides are
down 60% compared to the same two month period in 2014. There is not
one specific cause for changes in the number of suicides. There is a
complex, dynamic relationship among the many variables that lead up to
suicide. The Navy and Marine Corps continue to target reduction of
known risk factors for suicide and to enhance protective factors that
may prevent suicide.
The 21st Century Sailor and Marine initiative supports Marine Corps
prevention programs directly, indirectly, and through a strong
conceptual foundation. All Marine Corps efforts to make Marines more
resilient, manage operational stress, enhance safety, fitness, and
readiness are fully congruent with 21st Century Sailor and Marine
values. While maintaining consonance with 21st Century Sailor and
Marine, the Marine Corps also develops distinct prevention programs and
policy to identify programs that will be most effective for the Marine
Corps culture. Our programs are supported by research; evidence based
practices, data collection, surveillance, and accepted standards of
program evaluation.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Visclosky. Questions submitted by Mr. Israel and the answers
thereto follow:]
Base Security in Iraq
[Classified response--provided separately]
Question. Please describe the mission of the U.S. Marines currently
stationed in Iraq? Does this budget include everything you need to
accomplish that mission?
Answer. -- -- --
Question. How does this budget reflect the need to protect our
forces who are forward deployed, and specifically those involved in
counter-ISIL operations?
Answer. -- -- --
Question. Please comment on the recent incident whereby militants
penetrated the outer perimeter of the Ain al-Asad airbase.
Specifically, I'd like to know what you are doing to bolster security
around this base in order to ensure another breach does not occur.
Answer. -- -- --
P-8A
Question. The Fiscal Year 2016 budget indicates an increase in the
number of P-8A antisubmarine warfare aircraft that the Navy wants to
procure. This is a change from last year's budget request. Can you
explain this change and why it is important to purchase the P-8As at
the rate that the Navy is this year?
Answer. The request for sixteen (16) P-8A aircraft in the
President's Budget request for Fiscal Year 2016 returns the Navy's P-3C
to P-8A transition plan to the optimal procurement profile required to
complete the transition in the minimal amount of time, at the least
cost and warfighting risk.
The P-8A optimum transition plan is based on a steady procurement
profile of 16 aircraft per year in FY-14/15/16. Buying aircraft at this
rate enables the government to gain significant savings in ``per unit''
cost pricing under the Full Rate Production (FRP) schedule. It prevents
future transition and warfighting gaps and returns the fleet to planned
fatigue life utilization rates. This request also enables the prime
contractor (Boeing) and its sub-contractors to execute and maintain
steady state production schedules and to achieve other manufacturing
efficiencies, which all translate to lower overall costs to the Navy.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Israel.
Questions submitted by Mr. Ryan and the answers thereto
follow:]
Ship Lighting
Question. You have previously stated that just by changing the
lighting on ships to LED's, 3% of total energy on ships can be saved.
It is my understanding that to date, almost 13% of the Navy fleet has
converted to tubular-LED (T-LED) lighting, which has been successful
and yielded cost savings. In this regard, can you please advise on the
Navy's efforts to bring T-LED lighting to shore on bases?
Answer. The Navy believes strongly in the potential for new
technologies, including LED lighting, to improve lighting quality and
reduce energy and maintenance costs on our shore bases. In order to
enable our adoption of these technologies as quickly as possible, we
have expanded our use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC).
These contracts allow contractors to identify and install, where
appropriate, technologies that provide energy savings and also share in
those savings. We expect LED's to be widely evaluated and used in these
contracts. We also intend to work with industry to address any
technical issues relating to the compatibility of existing fixtures
with T-LEDs. We hope that engagement will enable us to more broadly and
quickly adopt the technology.
Question. Given the significant cost savings and energy efficient
benefits that can be realized from tubular-LED (T-LED) technology, as
exhibited by its successful adoption onboard Navy ships, would you
agree that this warrants the Navy to consider revising the Unified
Facilities Criteria (UFC) to allow for the option of T-LED technology
on bases?
Answer. The existing Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) supports the
installation of T-LED systems in new construction. The UFC also
supports the replacement of existing lighting systems with T-LED
systems (full fixture and tube replacement). In the case of
retrofitting non-LED fixtures with T-LED bulbs, we intend to work with
industry to address any technical issues relating to the compatibility
of existing fixtures with T-LEDs. We hope that engagement will enable
us to more broadly and quickly adopt the technology.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Ryan.
Questions submitted by Mr. Ruppersberger and the answers
thereto follow:]
UCAS-D
Question. The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstrator
(UCAS-D) program has accomplished a number of historic firsts for Naval
aviation--including the first unmanned catapult launch and the first
arrested landing on an aircraft carrier. The Navy has invested well
over $1.5 billion in this program. However, now, despite the fact that
there is considerable life left in both planes, the Fiscal Year 2016
budget zero funds the program. Considering the uncertainty with the
Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance Strike (UCLASS),
wouldn't the nation be better served by continuing to utilize UCAS-D to
inform future programs and reduce risks rather than retiring these
state of the art planes?
Answer. All risk reduction activities within the scope of the
$1.47B program with these air vehicles have been completed to the
fullest extent possible. Over the past two years, the Navy has
extensively reviewed all UCAS-D continuation options and concluded
there are no viable, cost effective solutions for continued UCLASS risk
mitigation. We have conveyed this to OSD AT&L and both OSD and the Navy
are in alignment with this conclusion.
The X-47B is strictly a demonstrator air vehicle, with no
operational utility. As a demonstrator, the X-47B implemented a
different technical architecture from UCLASS, which will be the first
operational sea-based capability for the Navy. The X-47B has a
different control station, landing system, data link, and network
interface. The X-47B has no sensors such as an EO/IR turret and no
weapons carriage or release capability. As such, using the X-47B for
further UCLASS risk reduction would provide limited return on
investment, as many hardware and software modifications would be
required to convert the X-47B to a UCLASS representative architecture.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Ruppersberger.]
Friday, February 27, 2015.
FISCAL YEAR 2016 AIR FORCE BUDGET OVERVIEW
WITNESSES
HON. DEBORAH LEE JAMES, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
GENERAL MARK A. WELSH III, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
Opening Statement of Chairman Frelinghuysen
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good morning. The committee will come to
order. This morning the subcommittee continues a series of
defense posture and budget hearings with our military services,
our combatant commands and other major components of the Armed
Forces. Our hearing this morning focuses on the Air Force
budget request for fiscal year 2016.
It is my honor to welcome back to the subcommittee the
Honorable Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air Force.
Welcome back, Madam Secretary. And General Mark Welsh, III,
chief of staff of the Air Force. Welcome back, General.
General Welsh. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Welcome to you both and thank you for
your leadership and service to our great Nation, and our thanks
to all the men and women that you represent, both in uniform
and civilian.
The Air Force budget request this year reflects a
determined commitment to modernization. There are several key
investments in the future fleet of fighters and bombers, the
nuclear enterprise and other important missions, from the KC-46
tanker to the combat rescue helicopter. At the same time, this
budget seeks to recover readiness in the wake of recent budget
turbulence and reverse years of decline in end strength.
Unfortunately, the variable that will have the biggest impact
on your budget next year and for years to come is not part of
your request. The subcommittee has heard me say this before and
yesterday morning, and I will say it again, that unless there
is some dramatic legislative change, the law of the land will
require the Appropriations Committee to mark up bills this year
to the level dictated by the Budget Control Act, aka, the BCA.
In the case of the Air Force, the President's base budget
request is roughly $10 billion above the funding level
projected under the BCA, as projected under the law. So I need
to say right up front that we will all need to work extremely
closely together to ensure that funding appropriated for the
Department is sufficient to take care of our airmen and
maintain your readiness at the highest possible level.
As we build our fiscal year 2016 bill, we would like to
have your input. And make no mistake, and as I said yesterday
morning, we do have to cut $10 billion with you or we will cut
$10 billion without you, but we need to do it. I must also
mention the budget makes some decisions that many in Congress
will resist, and you know this well as a former A-10 pilot,
General Welsh, that there will be a resistance on many in
Congress to divest the A-10. I understand that the defense
appropriations bill is a zero sum product and every money
saving proposal Congress declines will have to be made up
elsewhere, taking money from some other priority. Throughout
the process, our committee is committed to ensuring that the
decisions we have to make are fully informed by the best advice
our military leadership can provide, and we will continue to
call on you to give your most frank assessment of how living at
the BCA levels over time might affect our national security and
how that would have to be managed. And on a personal level, I
certainly, and I think most members are very interested and,
hopefully, in the course of questions your frank assessment of
the defense posture of both China and Russia that relate to air
matters.
Again, I welcome you both. Your written testimony will be
entered into the record, and we look forward to a dynamic and
informative discussion this morning. And happy to yield to Mr.
Visclosky for any comments that he may wish to make.
Opening Comments of Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Appreciate you holding the hearing. And, Secretary General,
appreciate your service, appreciate your hard work and
enthusiasm for those under your command and direction, and look
forward to your testimony. The chairman alluded to the
budgetary situation we face, and I would point out that there
were a number of issues last year that I congratulate the
chairman for having the intestinal fortitude to suggest to the
broader membership of the House of Representatives, while
people look at the defense budget and think there is an
infinite amount of dollars, there is a finite cap, and we have
to prioritize. The chairman did, but the broader body still
believes we can be all things to all people. Hopefully people
become a bit more enlightened as we proceed and understand that
you, as well as we, have to make some very difficult
prioritization decisions, but again, look forward to your
testimony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
And Secretary James, good morning, welcome.
Summary Statement of Secretary James
Ms. James. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Visclosky, and to all of the members of the committee. It is
certainly my honor and privilege to come before you this
morning. It is also my honor and privilege to be able to sit
with this gentleman to my left and your right, General Mark
Welsh, who I have gotten to know so well over the last year or
so. Just a phenomenal Airman and a leader and a great partner
for me. So thank you for having us here.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Madam Secretary, could you move the mike
a little bit closer? I am not sure that is picking up there.
Thank you. Excuse me.
Ms. James. Mr. Chairman, when I testified before all of you
last year as a brand new Secretary of the Air Force, I outlined
my three priorities, and just to review them with you is,
number one, taking care of our people; number two, balancing
and getting the right balance between readiness of today and
modernization for tomorrow; and number three, making every
dollar count, and that is to say, we get it in the United
States Air Force that we have to treat the taxpayer money as
precious, we can't afford to waste a single dollar of it,
certainly not in these tough budgetary times, and so we are
working hard to make every dollar count.
That was then, and those three priorities have not changed,
but what has changed for me personally is I have now had 14
months in the seat and I am way smarter and way more
experienced than I was 14 months ago, and I have also traveled
extensively across the country and to a number of locations
around the world, 60 bases in 28 states and territories as well
as 12 foreign countries.
And what I want to tell you is that in each of these
visits, I talked to our leaders on scene and I listened very,
very hard to our rank and file Airmen and I asked them a lot of
questions about people issues, about readiness issues. I looked
at the aircraft, the platforms. And I want to summarize some of
my key takeaways from the last 14 months.
First of all, today, we are the smallest Air Force that we
have been since our inception in 1947. I was in government in
the 1990s, and when I look back at the size of the Air Force in
the 1990s, which to me was a less complicated period of time
than the time we have today, it is stunning the amount we have
come down in terms of manpower. This has happened at a time
when demand for our services is at an all-time high.
Furthermore, we have the oldest Air Force in terms of our
platforms since our inception in 1947. The average age of our
aircraft is about 27 years old, but there are many fleets that
are substantially older than that. And here is, to me, the most
pressing issue of all: More than half of our combat air forces,
half, are not sufficiently ready for a high-end fight, that
means a fight where we would have interference, people trying
to shoot us down, people trying to interfere with us in space
and in the air.
Yet as we sit here this morning, I want you to know our
Airmen are providing two-thirds of America's nuclear arsenal,
performing intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, strike
missions in Iraq and Syria in the fight against ISIL, we are
flying mobility missions in the Pacific, we are reassuring our
European allies, and guarding the homeland, all at the same
time, and all of these missions are very critical and they are
performing admirably. But my key takeaway from the last year is
we are a force under strain, and we are working hard to meet
the combatant commanders' most urgent needs, but a budget
trajectory that results in sequestration, Mr. Chairman, simply
will not allow us to sustain this pace.
So if we must--and I listened very carefully to what you
said. If we must live under sequestration, I am here to tell
you, I fear we are either going to break or we absolutely will
not be able to execute the defense strategic guidance that has
been laid out for us. We cannot do it under sequestration. Now,
we have said many times over the last couple of years that
sequestration is damaging to our national security, and so, as
you know, rather than living with that level, we are proposing
in our budget figures that are higher than what sequestration
level would allow us. Specifically for the Air Force, it is
about $10 billion more than what sequestration-level funding
would give us. And I am, again, here to tell you as
passionately as I can that that $10 billion represents the
difference between an Air Force which is much closer to what
the combatant commanders need and what our Nation expects and
the ability to do our strategy than we would have under
sequestration, and it also recognizes just how important the
Air Force is to every joint operation around the world.
Now, even if we get that $10 billion more, I don't want to
tell you that that solves every ill and solves every problem,
because it does not. This increase provides both the forces
needed to meet our most pressing needs for the combatant
commanders, and it also allows us to fulfill those top three
priorities I told you about in the beginning.
Now, let me talk briefly about each of the three. People,
taking care of people. Listening to our Airmen over the last 14
months, there is no question in my mind the number one issue on
their minds has been the downsizing. And given the state of the
world, given everything I just told you, General Welsh and I
agree, the number one thing is we have to stop this downsizing.
Enough is enough. And, in fact, we need to upsize a little bit,
modestly, both Active, Guard and Reserve, to a total end
strength of 492,000. This would allow us to redirect some
people to the nuclear enterprise, increase our cyber mission
teams, plug some holes, such as maintenance, that we have
across the entire Air Force, which are so very, very important.
And part of that, as I said, will be for the Guard and Reserve,
to buy back some capability and increase our reliance. By the
way, we will be reporting to Congress on March 4, just a few
days from now, on our efforts to fully address the Commission's
report, the National Commission on the Future Structure of the
Air Force.
Also in the people rank, I want you to know we are
expanding services to include our sexual assault prevention and
response program. So we are upping the training, switching the
training out, we are expanding our SVC program, Special Victims
Council, and we are providing full-time Sexual Assault Response
Coordinators (SARCs) in the National Guard community. Currently
they are only part-timers. We also have support for childcare,
fitness centers, educational benefits, and 1.3 percent pay
raise for all. So that is some of what we are doing to take
care of our people.
Second priority is getting the balance between readiness
today and modernization for tomorrow's fight. And as I said,
very important, because only about half of our combat air
forces are fully ready for that high-end fight. Therefore, our
proposal will fully fund flying hours to the maximum executable
level. We will invest properly in weapon systems sustainment
and ensure that our combat exercises, like the Red Flag and the
Green Flag programs, remain strong.
I want you to know General Welsh, in particular, myself as
well but not as much as he, we consulted closely with the
combatant commanders as we put together this budget. So it
reflects more than just our best military judgment; it reflects
theirs as well. And so part of this budget and part of this $10
billion extra will allow us to support their most urgent needs,
which I can tell you is Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR), ISR, ISR, and that is 60 steady state ISR
patrols as well as extending the life of the U-2 and the
Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) program. So, again,
just a little bit about how we are meeting their most urgent
needs.
We also need to support vital space programs, strengthen
the nuclear enterprise by adding funding to our
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) readiness and a
number of other areas. So that is the readiness of today.
For modernization, very important that we continue to place
nuclear now at number one when it comes to modernization, so we
are developing the follow-on to the Minuteman III ICBM as part
of our 5-year plan and accelerating the long-range standoff
weapon by 2 years. We have got additional investments for
cyber, ISR, preferred munitions and space as well. And of
course, we have our top three programs, the KC-46, the F-35,
and the long-range strike bomber. All of these will remain on
track with our budget profile as we have presented it to you.
My third priority, make every dollar count. Again, we don't
want to waste a single dollar, and so we are doing a number of
things. We are driving steadily toward auditability of our
books in the United States Air Force and in the military at
large. We took an aggressive 20 percent reduction in our
headquarters funding, which includes civilians, contractors,
and redirecting military personnel. We didn't have to do it in
1 year, but we did, because we could get the savings more
quickly. Keeping those top programs on track and looking for
cost savings is part of our program as well, maximizing energy
savings. We have got a whole list of initiatives in this area.
So all of this is the good of the budget, but not so good,
because, as I told you, even under our figures. It doesn't
solve all the issues, you already named it, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Visclosky, we are, once again, proposing with reluctance,
but nonetheless, the retirement of the A-10 aircraft over time.
We are also proposing to slow the growth in military
compensation, and we ask all of you once again if you would
please consider a new round of base realignment and closure
(BRAC). And we realize none of these are popular, they are all
difficult, there are difficult circumstances, we get that, but
if sequestration remains the law of the land, it is going to be
way, way, way worse. As I said, we won't be able to do the
defense strategy. Something simply has to give.
So here are some of the things. We have talked about this
before, and I realize all of this is highly unpopular, but if
we had to live with sequestration, we would have to divest our
KC-10 refueling fleet. We would have to reduce some of our
total force flying hours, our weapons system sustainment,
ranges, simulators, all the types of things we need to get
readier, to get that 50 percent to higher levels of readiness
for the high-end fight. We would have to reduce F-35
procurements by 14 in fiscal year 2016. The adaptive engine
program, which holds great promise for fuel efficiencies and
the future of engines for the United States Air Force, would be
cancelled. And our program for ISR would also suffer. So a lot
of that good I just told you about, we would have to cancel
Global Hawk Block 40, the U-2 would have to go, AWACS
reductions, fewer of those combat air patrols.
So sequestration, bottom line, it threatens everything, and
I am just certain in this country we can do better than this.
And I know the difficulties, but I certainly hope that we will.
In conclusion, I want all members of this committee to
know, and the American people who may be listening today, that
your United States Air Force is still the best on the planet,
but we mustn't take that for granted, because we are a force
under strain, as I just said, and we mustn't let our edge slip
away. So, Mr. Chairman, with all of the difficulties, I ask all
of you to please consider hang in there and try to make the
case for us that sequestration needs to be lifted, lifted
permanently, lifted across the whole of government. I am no
expert in the domestic agencies, but the Department of State,
and the Department of Homeland Security are key partners for us
in national and Homeland Security. It would be very difficult
on them as well. So, again, I thank you, sir, and I would now
yield to General Welsh.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Welsh, the floor is yours.
Summary Statement of General Welsh
General Welsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Visclosky, and members of the committee. It is always an honor
to be here with you, and it is a pleasure and an honor to sit
here beside Secretary James, who, as you can tell, has become a
very passionate advocate for our Air Force and Airmen.
My pride in our Air Force and the Airmen who give it life
hasn't changed since the last time I testified to you, but my
level of concern has. We wrote the blueprint in this country
for the world's greatest Air Force and we know what it looks
like, and other nations have been watching and they are now
trying to follow the model. The capability gap that separates
our Air Force from others is narrowing, and as it does, the
asymmetric advantage that air power provides the United States
military is shrinking.
We must modernize our Air Force. We want to work with you
to do so. We know it won't be easy and it will require
accepting prudent operational risk in some mission areas for a
period of time, but the option of not modernizing isn't really
an option at all. Air forces that fall behind the technology
curve fail, and joint forces without the full breadth of
airspace and cyber power that modern air power brings to the
battle space will lose.
When we deployed to Operation Desert Storm in 1990, our Air
Force had 188 fighter squadrons in the inventory. This budget
will take us to 49. There were 511,000 active duty Airmen
during Operation Desert Storm. We have 200,000 fewer today. And
as those numbers came down, the operational deployments and
tempo went up steadily.
The Air Force is fully engaged, and now more than ever, we
need a capable and fully ready force. And we can't continue to
cut force structure to pay for the cost of that readiness and
modernization, or we risk being too small to succeed. Our
smaller aircraft fleet is also older than it has ever been. In
1991, it would have been ludicrous for us to talk to you about
considering using World War II's venerable B-17 bomber to
strike targets in Baghdad during the first Gulf War, but if we
had used it, it would have been younger than the B-52, the KC-
135 and the U-2 are today. We currently have 12 fleets of
aircraft, entire fleets of aircraft that qualify for antique
license plates in the State of Virginia, and we have four
fleets of aircraft that could very happily enroll in American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP) today.
If we remain at Budget Control Act (BCA) funding levels,
the Air Force will no longer be able to execute the strategic
guidance. It is pretty straightforward. Our short-term
readiness recovery will stall, our long-term infrastructure
investment will remain a dream, we will be forced to recommend
the dramatic fleet reductions that the boss recommended, and
modernization will be further delayed, allowing our adversaries
to further close that capability gap. You understand it is an
ugly picture, we just want to make sure it is clear.
We understand that we must be part of the Nation's solution
to the debt problem and we are ready to do that, but we do need
your help in some areas so that we can be ready for today's
fight and still be able to win in 2025 and beyond. Our Airmen
deserve that, our joint team needs it, and I believe the Nation
still expects it.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my personal
thanks to each of you for your persistent support for our Air
Force, for Airmen and their families, and we would be happy to
answer your questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, General.
[The joint statement of Secretary James and General Welsh
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have a full house this morning, and
not an antique among us here, with all the members and their
keen interest in your budget in this process.
First line of questioning, Vice Chairman Granger.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD MODERNIZATION
Ms. Granger. Thank you both for being here and for your
opening remarks. Before I ask my question, you know, I have
been on this subcommittee for quite some time, and for years we
have heard the military come in and they say, we will do it
with what you give us, you know, we are professional, do it.
So, Secretary James, to have you say, we cannot do it, really
brings it home about how very, very serious this situation is,
and I think everyone on this panel certainly understands that.
I hope you are reaching out and trying to make others that
don't serve on these panels and these subcommittees really
understand what will happen if we continue this law.
My question has to do with the National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force has called for concurrent and
proportional modernization across the Air Force; however, the
Air National Guard continues to operate aircraft that are on
average over 5 years older than those for the active duty
squadrons. I am concerned this is slowly pushing the Guard
toward a second tier status.
So, Secretary James, General Welsh, what is your plan to
ensure that the Air National Guard is modernized so they can
continue their significant contributions to both national and
Homeland Security?
Ms. James. So maybe I could start, Ms. Granger, and then
the Chief can jump in. So I want to assure you that the Air
National Guard and the Air Force Reserve for that matter are
absolutely full partners and they are integral to everything
that we do, and as we build our budget plans, they are right
there at our side around the conference table and we are
building these things together, which means as we introduce new
aircraft into the inventory, and you are aware, I know, of the
Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35 and the KC-46, as an example, we
have agreed that as we roll out some to the active duty, some
will be to the Reserve components as well, and, of course, we
are making those basing decisions over time. So that is one
example.
When I say they are at the table with us, of course, they
are at the table with us for the difficult judgments as well.
And so much of your question goes to at what pace do we
modernize? And who gets what when? And so it is very much a
balancing act, but I want to assure you that we are fully
behind our National Guard and Reserve. And when you see our
report, which will be rolled out on March 4, our response to
the Commission, you know, blow by blow, each of their
recommendations and what are we doing about it, you are going
to see that huge agreement across the board. A lot of it comes
down to money and pace.
General Welsh. Yes, ma'am. Just three quick things to add
to that. First is that when we talk about squadron numbers, I
mentioned we are going to 49 squadrons, every time the Air
Force talks on number, it is total force. Those are Active Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve forces. And so it is all
included in one discussion all the time.
The big difference in fleet ages is based on the C-130
average fleet age. That is the big impact on this. The way we
got here is instructive, I believe, because there really was no
evil intent that created it. The active Air Force and the Guard
and Reserve had C-130 E models for years. The Guard and the
Reserve had the oldest E models in the fleet, so when the new H
models appeared, we filled the Guard and Reserve units first to
replace the oldest airplanes first. So for a period of time,
the Guard had all the new C-130s. And then when the J models
came along, we put those into the oldest squadrons, which are
the active duty C-130 E model squadrons that were remaining, so
the active duty got the newer J models. That is who we got to
where we are, and we will continue this rotation to replace the
oldest airplanes.
So, you know, all the State Adjutant Generals are meeting
with the Commander of Air Mobility Command. If they have C-130s
in their States or C-17s in their States or C-5s in their
States, and all the Reserve wing commanders will have those
things during the same meetings. The Commander of Air Combat
Command has done the same thing by the combat air forces, the
fighter and bomber fleets.
All the modernization we are planning is now being done
collectively. Everyone is seeing the plan from the day we start
it, and it is vetted. I vetted it with the TAGs last week again
in their national get-together to make sure that everybody is
connected, everybody has a voice, and we are not doing things
on our own. We will continue to work this way.
F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Ms. Granger. Good. I had one other question. It has to do
with the joint strike fighter. This is, of course, a very
important year, and in your opening remarks you talked about
the Air Force plan to reduce the buy from 44 to 30 under
sequestration. And so I would ask you, what impact will that
have on the cost of the F-35 and what would the longer-term
impacts be on the program?
Ms. James. So the most direct answer to your question is
whenever you reduce your quantity, it ups the cost. I couldn't
tell you maybe off the top of my head exactly how much, but at
a time when the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is just around the
corner from being Initial Operational Capability (IOC), we are
so close and we have been working so hard to make sure that the
costs are trending down, it would be a shame to have it go in
the opposite direction.
Now, what impact could that have on partners and so forth?
One possible impact is if we reduce our buy because of tough
budget, maybe they do the same, and that drives the cost up
even more. So I think it is too early to tell, but, again, we
don't want to do it. We want to keep that buy up.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Ms. Granger.
Ms. McCollum.
EXCESS INFRASTRUCTURE
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the
ranking member as well for the ability to ask my question early
in the sequence.
Madam Secretary, the gap between the President's budget and
the Budget Control Act levels only grows larger if Congress
rejects the cost savings proposal reforms in this budget. It
makes no sense to me to cut funding for readiness and
modernization so Congress can protect outdated weapons systems
and excess facilities. In a briefing this week, which I
appreciate the Air Force coming in and giving me, I was told
almost 30 percent of the Air Force's facilities are excess to
your mission. That is stunning. 30 percent. What is even more
stunning is Congress continue to protect and pay for all these
unnecessary facilities. There isn't a company in America that
would carry 30 percent of their facilities as underutilized or
non-productive and stay in business. And so you are constantly
being asked, you know, where's your business model. We need to
work with you in providing that business model.
Madam Secretary, so I am going to ask you to outline the
Air Force cost saving proposals in this budget and what they
achieve over the 5-year defense plan. We need to be making
long, hard, tough choices.
And then the other thing is I am learning in the military
budgets, you carry a large portion of your budget which is a
pass-through, 20 percent of it almost in non-blue. So at
sequestration levels and not putting this forward, does that
even have a larger impact? Because if people are looking at the
big number and thinking, oh, this is just an across-the-board
cut, and I see the general shaking his head, this non-blue
pass-through of 20 percent is even more important.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit a question for the record on
sexual assault. Thank you for your kindness.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Madam Secretary, would you care to
respond?
Ms. James. Yes. So, Congresswoman McCollum, first of all on
BRAC, I used to be one of those business people before I came
back into government. And you are absolutely right, I was in
one of those companies that would have never spent money on
excess buildings or excess capacity. And the figure that you
stated is about right. That is our latest capacity analysis, I
would say. So, you know, we want to be able to move forward on
the next round of base closures so that we can free up dollars
to be able to plow back into other important areas. In BRAC
2005, according to my figures, as difficult as that was, and
this is just for the Air Force, took us about $3.7 billion of
an investment to do those actions, and we are now saving about
a billion dollars annually, and we project a billion dollars
going forward. So as a former business person, that is a pretty
good return on investment. So we do need the BRAC, and thank
you for bringing that up.
We have a variety of cost savings, everything from regular
program reviews over our major programs to make sure that we
don't let those costs tick up, so keeping those costs under
control. We have--I told you we are attacking headquarters
reductions, which are hard, because when you are talking about
civilians or contractors or military people who are working at
headquarters, those are important jobs too, but we are trying
to redirect our military personnel, reduce civilians and
contractors where we can, especially now.
I will say on the contractor side, we are holding what we
call contractor court. So every contract now at a headquarters
level, we are insisting that the major commanders come forward
and literally justify, do you still need this, do you still
not--can you do without it, and so forth, and we are finding
savings there as well.
Energy, there are great opportunities for savings in
energy. And the last one I will give you is something called
Airmen Powered By Innovation. So this is putting the word out
across the Air Force, you are on the flight line, you know your
job better than we know your job. Come forward with some ideas,
because we want to implement your ideas whenever possible to
save money and to save time. And that is getting some traction
and our airmen really like it, and we are picking up a lot of
ideas.
As for the pass-through question on the non-blue and would
that be subject to sequestration, I am not sure the answer to
that. Do you know, Chief?
General Welsh. That would be subject to, I believe, the
Congress and the other agencies who benefit from it, the
National Reconnaisance Office (NRO), the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI); it is mostly national intelligence program
and NRO funding, a little bit of combatant command support
money, but your point, ma'am, is perfect. If you look at the
Air Force blue budget, just the Air Force budget that we spend
on Air Force modernization, readiness, et cetera, we have had
the lowest share by service percentage of the DOD budget since
1987. And it looks like we are equivalent to the others, but
that flow-through has grown from 7 percent years ago in the
early 1960s to 20 plus percent today. It is $30 billion in the
2016 budget.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Mr. Crenshaw.
ROCKET ENGINES
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome back to
you all.
Let me ask you a question about rockets and satellites. You
know, the Air Force depends on satellites. In fact, our
national security pretty well depends on our ability to have
satellites and I guess you could say that the economy as well,
GPS, all those kind of things. And one of the things that this
subcommittee has tried to do is certify more rockets and
launches and to kind of broaden that base. And as I understand
it now, we have basically got two rockets, we have got the
Atlas 5 and the Delta 4, and those are the rockets that we use.
And then I think everybody knows by now that the Atlas 5 rocket
engine is made in Russia. I was surprised to learn that about a
year ago, and then now that the Ukraine and all that business,
it probably creates a little bit of a problem, a lot of
negative issues about that.
And so I was one of the members that in 2014, 2015, we put,
I think, $45 million in 2014 and $220 million in 2015 to try to
help develop and certify some new rockets that had different
engines.
And I guess my question is, Secretary James, has the Air
Force continued to try to develop different rockets, et cetera,
et cetera? I mean, how are we--what are we doing with that $265
million?
Ms. James. So the short answer is yes, absolutely, and we
are trying to be as aggressive as we possibly can be about
this. So as you pointed out, sir, the issue is we don't want to
continue a reliance like this on a Russian-produced engine. So
the question is how do we get off of that reliance as quickly
as possible? And the appropriation that you all gave us is
going to help us do that.
So as we speak, we are funding with those dollars what are
called technology maturation and risk reduction initiatives. So
stated another way, this really is rocket science, this is hard
stuff, and so the beginning dollars out of that $220 million
are doing some research into how do we create materials that
are strong enough to resist enormous temperatures and resist
enormous pressures that are involved with space flight. So
doing an engine for space flight is not like doing a jet engine
for a jet aircraft, and certainly way beyond, what most of us
know as Comprehensive Cost and Requirement System (CCAR), for
example. So it really is tough science, and so technology
maturation and risk reduction is step one.
We also will be using some of the money that you have
already given us, and remember, we have budgeted money from
here on out as well, to begin to fund several launch service
providers to start developing actual engine alternatives. And
what we want to do is we want to make sure that the
alternatives that they start developing for us would ultimately
be made available for other companies to buy. So this would
have to be encompassed in, you know, a Request for Information
(RFI), a Request for Proposal (RFP) and so forth, the
documentation to put it out to industry. So that would be the
next step. And, again, this will be over years that we are
going to have to try to get this done.
As, you know, there is a law now that the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) from last year says that we can't use
the RD-180, the Russian engine, for competitive launches beyond
2019 unless they were bought prior to the Russian invasion of
the Crimea.
Mr. Crenshaw. I was going to ask you about that. So that is
congressionally mandated after 2019. Are we on track to be able
to have something other than that?
Ms. James. We are on track to be aggressive, but what the
technical experts have said to me is because this truly is
rocket science, this is hard problems, that is an extremely
aggressive schedule and we may not make it. So we are going to
try, but it is highly questionable. And that is not my opinion,
that is the opinion of technical experts.
Mr. Crenshaw. So in your opinion, we may not be able to,
you know, kind of meet that deadline?
Ms. James. It is questionable.
Mr. Crenshaw. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Would the gentleman yield for one moment?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. Visclosky. You have $85 million in your budget request
for 2016. And following up on the gentleman's line,
understanding the difficulty in hitting 19, because you have
technical issues to deal with, is 85 enough?
Ms. James. Well, it is 85 in 2016, it is 295 if you add it
all up over the 5-year Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). And
part of the program that we envision is a public-private
partnership. So you say is 295 enough? The answer is probably
not, but in public-private partnerships, private money comes
into the equation as well. So, you know, we may have to adjust
this as we learn more, but we thought that was a good starting
point.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Before going to Mr. Ryan, the Budget
Control Act is a law too, and it mandated, and that is why it
is important, and I think you have given us some help here, it
is important to set some priorities here. These are all
things--we certainly want to wean ourselves away from the
Russians, but in reality, you know, every dollar does count. So
I am appreciative of the fact of the second service that has
come here for the public hearing, that you have sort of laid
out a game plan of what you might do and what the consequences
would be if we stick to the BCA, which that is the law.
Mr. Ryan.
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome. Thank you. I know you are obviously in a very
tough spot here to try to meet the obligations that we have
with the resources that you are getting, and hopefully we can
get you more than I think we are on line to get you at this
point.
First, I want to say thank you. We have a program that you
helped us fund to the Air Force Research Lab and the American
Makes, which is the Additive Manufacturing Institute in
Youngstown, Ohio, in a partnership with the University of
Dayton and Youngstown State University to help figure out how
to 3D print parts for the Air Force. This is obviously a very
cutting-edge program. And Ms. McCollum brought up capacity with
our bricks and mortar, also with energy savings. I think this
is a huge opportunity for us to save the taxpayer money, save
your budget money, and help bring our country into a new wave
of innovation and technological advancement that could spur
whole new industries, like the Defense Department has done so
many times over the course of its history.
So if you could talk a little bit about what your further
plans are maybe in additive manufacturing to help with reducing
costs and where the Air Force wants to go with that. If you
could talk about that for a minute, and then I have just one
quick follow-up question on readiness.
Ms. James. So I would like to just begin, Congressman, by
associating myself with everything you just said. I mean, we do
think that there is great potential in this, we intend to keep
with it. I can't give you more full details at this point, but
certainly could do so for the record.
[The information follows:]
The Air Force is helping lead advancements in additive
manufacturing (AM) technology for aerospace and appreciates
opportunities to work collaboratively with the other Services,
agencies, and industry and academia. We appreciate congressional
support for the Air Force's AM efforts. As cited by Mr. Ryan, the Air
Force is partnering with America Makes, the National Additive
Manufacturing Innovation Institute, and has several on-going and
planned projects to accelerate the adoption of additive manufacturing
and 3-D printing technologies in the United States manufacturing sector
and to increase domestic manufacturing competitiveness.
AM can potentially decrease lead times and costs, enable complex
geometries for improved performance, and reduce weight for Air Force
air and ground systems leading to improved readiness, affordability,
and energy efficiency. We are actively performing research,
development, and implementation of a variety of classes of AM
technologies, including both structural and functional applications.
Current AM implementation paths include tooling, prototyping, low-
volume production, reverse engineering, and repairs. As a specific
example, we have a sustainment focused effort on identifying,
baselining and transitioning AM best practices for the Air Force Air
Logistics Complexes (ALC). We see this as an opportunity to shorten
lead times and increase system availability by incorporating AM into
ALC processes and procedures.
There are cost saving opportunities using additive manufacturing
for part replacement, repair, and tooling. Our general approach is to
first identify and evaluate candidate components that are cost and
readiness drivers that lend themselves to AM processing, next build
demo articles for comparison and identification of technical gaps in
the AM process, and lastly develop the rest of the infrastructure,
training, etc. needed for full implementation.
AM implementation is not straightforward and poses unique
challenges for many Air Force applications. In almost every
implementation path, some aspect of material, process, or component
qualification is necessary to ensure that system requirements are met.
Therefore, our implementation strategy is a staged approach, and will
follow established and best practice systems engineering discipline and
processes. Today, we are advancing the science and, at the same time,
recommending implementation of AM for design iteration, prototyping,
and tooling applications. Soon we will be applying AM for niche
applications, including short-life and attritable parts. In longer
term, we see success in challenging applications such as embedded
electronics/sensors and aircraft structural components.
General Welsh. Congressman, let me give you--the most
excited person I have met yet about the concept of 3D printing
was an Air Force special operations aviator, who is responsible
for maintenance in places, remote places on the African
continent and the Southwest Pacific, places where we chase bad
guys. His idea is printing spare parts for airplanes off a 3D
printer. And he has already got the concept figured out, how
they are going to do it, how much he thinks it will cost, what
he will be able to not pack into the load-out that they carry,
how much weight that will save, especially when they have to
carry it from a location that where they can land a bigger
airplane and then truck it into a smaller location.
This guy can't wait for this to be proven to the point
where he can put one into some kind of big case and carry it in
somewhere to use it and to fix airplanes that come in and meet
him on the ground and then go do their mission.
This is an exciting technology, and technologies like this
are the lifeblood of a service that is born from technology. We
love this stuff.
READINESS AND TRAINING
Mr. Ryan. Great. Well, thank you.
And Mr. Chairman, I would love to take anybody from the
committee who would like to vacation in Youngstown, Ohio, to
come see what is happening in the additive manufacturing space
in the country. If I could slide in a quick question on
readiness. I know, General, you spoke to the point of squadrons
and more related to the equipment. Can you talk a little bit
about readiness with training, with regard to training, because
I know when we were going through the whole sequestration
debate, we were talking about airmen and airwomen not getting
trained, going off-line for a certain amount of months and how
that would kick in a full retraining that would need to happen?
So where are we with regard to that issue with training of the
men and women in the Air Force?
General Welsh. Congressman, we can't afford for what
happened in 2013 to happen again. We can't ground 33 squadrons,
we can't cancel Red Flags, we can't cancel weapons school
classes where we develop our Ph.D. Warfighters, we can't do
those things, so we will prioritize even at BCA, as much as we
can, training.
The Balanced Budget Act over the last 2 years allowed us to
focus on individual and unit readiness and begin to bring it up
from a place where roughly 25 percent of our pilots and
squadrons were fully combat capable, up to less than 50
percent, but approaching 50 percent now, because of the
progress over the last 2 years.
If we remain at BCA, then that will stagnate. It won't
collapse, because we prioritize it, but it will stagnate there,
the climb won't continue.
We have a different readiness problem that is a longer term
problem and gets to the training piece that you mentioned, and
that is that over the last 10 to 15 years, we have prioritized
investment and operational activity because of the demand
signal we have had. And as a result, we haven't been investing
steadily in those types of infrastructure that I will call
mission critical infrastructure that produce combat capability
over time: nuclear infrastructure, training ranges, test
infrastructure, space launch infrastructure, satellite command
and control architectures, and simulation infrastructure. We
took money from flying hours because we were going to train
more in simulators, and then didn't fund the simulators. That
investment in infrastructure at BCA will continue to be a
dream.
Mr. Ryan. And I know we are seeing it in Youngstown at the
Air Reserve station in Youngstown. So I appreciate it, and
let's figure out how to keep working together to make sure we
don't have to deal with that any further.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Calvert.
ATLAS 5 AND DELTA 4
Mr. Calvert. Thank, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, going back to Mr. Crenshaw's comments on
launch, there are two certified launch vehicles in the ELVs, as
was mentioned, an Atlas 5 and a Delta 4. On its own, Delta 4
can achieve, as I understand, 100 percent of DODs launch
requirements and uses American propulsion systems, obviously
made in the great State of California, but you have also said
confidently that the Falcon 9 vehicle will be--probably should
be certified in the coming months.
So I would hope that with these two vehicles, there would
be no loss of capacity for the United States and we can end our
reliance on Russia, and be careful in the future about putting
in the supply chain critical needs that may not work out so
well in the future with countries that may not be such a
reliable partner.
CIVILIAN WORKFORCE
But the main discussion I want to talk about here is that
we are all having to make difficult decisions as we move
forward to reduce costs. Being a business person such as
yourself, I look at the Department of Defense, and I certainly
recognize that we need to protect our depots and maintenance
operations here in the United States, but I also believe that
reducing civilian end strength at the Pentagon is vital to
addressing some of the funding concerns that the Department is
voicing. Right now our military continues to cut end strength,
as being testified here from several folks, but support staff
is yet to experience a corresponding reduction.
In 2003, there was one civilian supporting 2.25 active duty
personnel. The current ratio is one civilian supporting 1.71
active duty personnel. If we reduce that to the historic
average, that would save approximately $82.5 billion every 5
years. And this is not an across-the-board cut; this is giving
the Secretary discretion to make managerial determinations,
DOD-wide, not making these across-the-board cuts and--but how
do you feel about that? And are you making those types of
decisions at the Pentagon presently?
Ms. James. So, Congressman, I am not in favor of these
across-the-board cuts. I am in favor----
Mr. Calvert. I am not talking about across-the-board cuts.
Ms. James. Okay. So let me just--I will give you my
thoughts about our civilian workforce. So we have been paring
back our civilian workforce since fiscal year 2012. I believe
we are down about 24,000. All these statistics, it is always
hard to keep track of. Your statistics are a little different
from mine, but be that as it may, the workforce has gone up and
down over time. Since I was last in government, as compared to
where our civilians are today for the Air Force, we are down,
by my calculation, upwards of 50,000. So----
Mr. Calvert. Well, let me--if I can correct you, Madam
Secretary. In 2003, there were 636,000 civilian employees;
today there are 776,841. In 2003, there was 1,434,377 uniformed
personnel; today it is down to 1,332,991. So civilian employees
have gone up and military employees have gone down. That is a
fact.
Ms. James. From that baseline, that is a fact.
Mr. Calvert. And if you look over since 2003, the number of
civilian employees has consistently gone up every single year.
Ms. James. That is a fact.
Mr. Calvert. And the number of military personnel has gone
down every single year.
Ms. James. So, sir, you heard me say I think the downsizing
on the military has gone far enough. So you heard me say we
want to upsize that a bit. We are constantly scrutinizing our
civilian workforce. We are going to continue to do so. 24,000
cut since the baseline of fiscal year 2012. I mean, I heard all
your baselines. I am just trying to give you progress here. But
I do want to point out that upwards of 90 percent of our
civilian personnel are not in Washington, D.C., they are not
headquarters types. They are doing very important work around
the country----
Mr. Calvert. And I understand. Madam----
Ms. James [continuing]. Part of depots and part of Reserve
and so forth.
Mr. Calvert. Madam Secretary, in 2012, you had 730,000
civilian employees; in 2014 it was 776,000 defense-wide. Now, I
know the services are different than DOD-wide. I get that. You
know, the marines that testified here yesterday have one
civilian per every 10 military personnel. Now, every service is
different. I don't know what the Air Force is. But we are
talking about DOD-wide, giving discretion to managers to make
managerial determinations and bringing this ratio back to
historic averages. I don't understand the resistance to doing
that through attrition and other managerial, you know,
operations over a period of time.
General, do you have any comments?
General Welsh. Just one comment, sir. I don't think anybody
would argue with your premise here. In the Air Force, we have
actually cut 24,000 civilians over the last 3 years. We have
also cut about 30,000 full-time contractor equivalents. We are
doing--we are taking this very seriously.
We are looking for everywhere we can trim. Our civilian
workforce is just under 180,000. About 74,000 of those are
mainstream Air Force mission area folks. They are doing
maintenance on Air Education and Training Command (AETC) flight
lines, they are running financial management shops, they are
running depots. And then there are a number of other people.
The other 55 percent are covered by restrictions that we can't
easily push aside. They are covered by working capital funds,
requirements, they are covered by being Air National Guard
technicians. They are people that we just can't cut. Some of
them take some pretty involved action, including some requiring
action from the Congress. So we will continue to work at where
we can limit this growth and----
Mr. Calvert. Let me mention that I have a bill that will do
exactly that, so--thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, one thing about Mr. Calvert, he
has persisted on this issue. And as we look around and address
issues of acquisition and procurement, I mean, we obviously
hear from our defense industrial base. There are more green eye
shades, more checks. And obviously we need to check every box,
because we are not going to send anybody up into any sort of a
plane without having made sure that every safety feature, but
there is a general feeling here, and to some extent, I think it
is worthy of our attention.
Ms. James. And I think----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. He certainly has brought it to your
attention.
Ms. James. Yes. And, Mr. Chairman, I think an awful lot of
that, at least I believe an awful lot of that, is concerned
with sort of headquarters staff, what we would call overhead in
the private sector. And there is where we aggressively took a
20 percent reduction in our funding in 1 year, not 5, so we are
on the case when it comes to that.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And I know that Mr. Ruppersberger is
next, and I am sure he will weigh in on this subject.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I will change the subject.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Oh, good.
SEQUESTRATION
Mr. Ruppersberger. I think the number one subject is
sequestration, and I think we have to keep on focusing, because
it is a system that is making us weaker as a country. I don't
think the public are aware how serious this issue. And when you
have the Air Force, we had the Navy yesterday, I am sure the
Army will say that it makes us weaker. When yesterday we had
testimony saying there will be a gamble of whether or not our
military can protect us. I don't think anyone who was elected
to Congress wants that, so it is important, I think, that we
get the facts out to the American public, and I appreciate your
candor in where we are.
CYBER WARFARE/ISLAMIC STATE
Just to follow up on that issue, I would like you to
discuss the Air Force's ability to coordinate and assist with
our allies and partners around the world, and what impact the
sequestration would have on the Air Force ability to support
our partner nations who are fighting ISIS and Operation
Inherent Resolve.
Also the same question so we can move it quicker, the
chairman would like that, cyber warfare is constantly changing
and an evolving field. There is a--the 175th Network Warfare
Squadron. I am not sure, where are they located?
General Welsh. Which number was that, sir? 170----
Mr. Ruppersberger. 175th Network Warfare Squadron.
General Welsh. I don't know.
Mr. Ruppersberger. They are at Fort Meade. Located in Fort
Meade.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is a--he is relating to his
congressional district, General.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I didn't say it. These cyber war--I
finessed it. These cyber wars were engaged in active defense on
finding threats before they find you. How would sequestration-
level budget affect the Air Force ability to stay ahead of the
curve on cyber warfare and continue to find these threats
before they have an opportunity to strike? If you could answer
those two questions on the cyber and also on the ability for us
to work with our allies in dealing with the issue of ISIS and
other terrorist threats.
General Welsh. Sir, on the fight against the Islamic State
of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) issue, I don't think our ability to do
that will be impacted. I believe the Congress will provide the
funds required to continue the activity.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Why do you think that?
General Welsh. Well, I am hoping that, and you have till--
you have till now. I hope you wouldn't leave this in the middle
of this activity.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I would too, I am just asking the
question.
General Welsh. And so my assumption is that activity will
continue. And Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding
will probably be what drives the support we provide to that.
Now, the impact will be on our people, because what the
rest of the Air Force will be dealing with when you talk about
the cuts the Secretary mentioned, if we are at BCA cap levels,
is that we are going to have a smaller Air Force in every
mission area, so the people who deploy and rotate to support
this activity will be doing so more often. That will just add
more stress to the force over time and make the readiness
problem and all the rest of the mission sets even more
difficult.
On the cyber side, sir, the same thing. We will support the
cyber activity no matter what level of funding we get this
year. We will continue to be participants in the joint
information environment development in supporting standup of
the cyber mission teams that your squadron that you mentioned
are part of. That will not slow down.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, we had a session with a Member
of Congress, former military in the Air Force, who said that
because of the issues of sequestration, that squadrons really
are brought home when they are rotating and told to sit for 6
months, which sets them back maybe a year to 6 months. Is that
an example of what is going on?
General Welsh. I don't know of that happening today in the
Air Force. In 2013, it certainly did happen.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. It was a statement that was made
by one of our Members who was formerly in the Air Force.
And I just want to say this: I said yesterday that it is
important, I think, for this committee, for the Armed Services
Committee, for the Senate Armed Service and the Appropriations
Committee that we know these threats, and you are telling them
what this is. We are supposed to expertise in this oversight.
And it is important, I think, that we all--and this is not a
Republican or Democratic issue. This is an issue of the United
States of America and the safety of our citizens. And I think
it is important that we have to get the message out to our
leadership on both sides of the aisle how serious this
sequestration is, and not allow management, you know, through
priorities versus across the board.
But I just want to point out today that Mac Thornberry, who
is a good friend of mine, we served on Intelligence for 12
years, has just--is sending a budget to--sending his budget,
the Armed Services budget, which will include $577 billion for
defense spending and would bust the sequestration cap by more
than $50 billion. And the reason he is doing that is what we
are talking about today. And I also know that he has the
support of 31 of his 36 Republicans on that committee. I also
know that Chairman McCain has said that sequestration level is
unacceptable, and he is moving on to do the same thing. Our
chairman and ranking member understand how serious it is, they
have addressed this issue, heard testimony, as have Members on
both sides of the aisle. So, you know, we will hopefully be
able to re-evaluate where we are. It is not about--we have to
deal with the issue of cost, there is no question, and
spending, but we need the right formula. We don't need an
incompetent formula, that if you are involved in a trial or
lawsuit would probably be super malpractice, because how
incompetent a sequestration system is versus the priority of
budgeting.
Yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Thank you.
Gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Cole.
SEQUESTRATION
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to agree with my good friend from Maryland. We all
agree, frankly, around this table about the consequences of
sequester, and we very much appreciate you pushing, you
educating, frankly, not only the committee, but through modern
technology the American people and hopefully the leadership on
both sides. I will say this, though: I mean, our problem here
is nobody around here can fix this around this table. It is not
a policy, it is the law of the land, it was a law passed by
Congress, signed by the President, actually recommended by the
President. It was his suggestion in the budget negotiations in
2011.
And the budget he submitted that you are basing your budget
on, frankly, is politically, you know, fantasy. It is not going
to pass, and he knows that. So at some point we are going to
have to get to something we did 2 years ago successfully,
something like a Ryan-Murray, you know, negotiated budget.
Sadly, I don't think that will come until after the
appropriations process. So, I mean, this committee is going to
be forced to live by the law unless there is a negotiation that
begins sooner, which I would prefer happen, and I think, again,
everybody around here would, but we are going to have to live
within the numbers that we have under the law, and sadly, that
means we are going to have to make a lot of tough decisions.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
I do have a couple of questions beyond that point, and one,
I am privileged to represent a district that hosts Tinker Air
Force Base, and we are very, very proud to have the facility
and we think it is great, we think it is wonderful leadership.
It is no question, it is a tremendous economic boost for our
area, and we have tried to be generous in return. I think the
original--I know the original land that the base is located on
was donated by the community to then the United States Army Air
Force at the--we recently, or a few years ago purchased at $54
million a shuttered GM facility and donated that to the Air
Force, we lease it to you for a buck a year for 100 years. I
don't think--and we just purchased a $40-odd million land tract
from a local railroad to help with the KC-46 mission there, all
at the local community's expense, and we are happy to do that.
We think that is a bargain for us, frankly.
Can you tell me, are there other efforts like that
underway? Because you have so many facilities that are
wonderful contributors and people are proud to host, so I
presume other communities are willing to do the same thing. Do
we have a formal program to try and encourage them to do those
sorts of things?
Ms. James. We do, Mr. Cole, and we call it public-private
partnerships. And so there are other great examples. You gave a
terrific one there, but there are other great ones around the
country where we are increasingly partnering with local
communities near military bases, and it is usually a sharing of
dollars and resources and a sharing of access to a particular
facility so that our airmen benefit and perhaps so does the
community. So there is that going on. And there is also
enhanced use leases, where we enter into agreements, you just
mentioned one, and either there is some Air Force land that is
utilized for some purpose, which would be of mutual benefit,
things of that nature.
And by the way, this is another way we are trying to find
efficiencies through both public-private partnerships as well
as enhanced use leases.
Mr. Cole. I would really appreciate just for the record
another time if you could send me a list of those kind of
examples. I think they are wonderful to know and, frankly, to
remind other people that those kind of opportunities exist.
Ms. James. We will do that.
[The information follows:]
Budgetary constraints are motivating the Department of Defense, its
installations, and community partners to re-evaluate the way we do
business and seek alternatives to the status quo. Air Force Community
Partnerships, both public-public and public-private (P4) partnerships,
offer opportunities to leverage resources and capabilities of
installations, state, and local communities or commercial entities to
achieve mutual value and benefit. Benefits include reducing operating
and service costs and risks and achieving economic goals and interests.
There are now 48 installations in the Air Force Partnership Program
who have identified over 1,000 initiatives across the spectrum of
installation services and mission support; many of these initiatives
are undergoing further refinement and development with potential
application AF-wide. Initiatives identified to date undergoing
refinement and development include: agreements with communities
pertaining to operation of a water, waste water treatment plant;
medical, security, emergency response, and civil works training; refuse
management; ground or pavements maintenance; construction/maintenance
of ball fields; operation of Airmen support services like libraries,
golf courses and youth programs; and air field operations and
maintenance services. Initiatives are truly the ``tip of the iceberg''
as partners are now developing more technically complex initiatives
requiring at times a mixture of leasing, Federal Acquisition Regulation
contract and financial parameters.
Specific examples include: Shared water/waste water treatment
systems; city salt brine application service; emergency pole
replacement response and training; medical training and skill
certification; emergency response, police and civil engineer training
consortium; national incident management system training, exercise
collaboration and communication interoperability; shared small arms or
long range weapon firing range; refuse management and other operations
and maintenance agreements with local cities; military and dependent
workforce transition assistance; shared sports fields; air shows; UPS
mail delivery; morale, welfare, recreation funding increase/reducing
cost to provide Airmen support programs; environmental mitigation cost
reduction; electrical cost and renewable energy reduction; aircraft
operations; medical care facility and Air Force prisoner confinement.
OPERATIONS AGAINST ISLAMIC STATE
Mr. Cole. Last question. We are putting a tremendous strain
on your resources and right-of-ways, but right now obviously
you are heavily engaged in air operations against ISIL, and I
am just curious if you could give us some sense of how much
that is costing, how many resources that we have tied up in
doing that, and, frankly, do you have what you need to complete
the mission, what are the additional things you might need?
Ms. James. Well, not to sound like I am bragging, but your
United States Air Force very much is in the lead within this
joint force and within----
Mr. Cole. You are allowed to brag, Madam Secretary.
Ms. James. Am I allowed to brag? Okay.
Mr. Cole. Yes, you are.
Ms. James. All right. So, you know, we are doing everything
from fighter missions, to refueling, to mobility missions and
so forth. I can safely say between 60 to 70 percent of the
total strike missions have been the United States Air Force.
Well over 90 percent of the ISR, the refueling, mobility, this
is the United States Air Force. I believe the costs are about
$1 billion to date, but I am looking at the Chief for
verification. Okay. About $1 billion to date for the overall
cost of the operation. And, again, this is a coalition, it is
15 member nations, but this is the----
Mr. Cole. Could you give me an idea of the relative ratio,
I mean, how much are--and I appreciate each and every one of
them, but how much of the countries that are working with us in
this actually providing, I know there is a certain amount of
symbolism here, but again, every plane helps, every pilot
helps, so how much of the load are they carrying?
Ms. James. I believe there are, if my figures are correct,
about 600 or so coalition aircraft, of which 300 would be the
United States Air Force, if you are just looking at the
aircraft.
Mr. Cole. Could you give us the overall American effort?
Because I know it is not just the United States Air Force. But
we obviously have naval aviators and I would assume marine
aviators involved.
General Welsh. Yes, sir. They are. The aircraft off the
carriers are flying about 10 to 11 percent of the sorties that
are being flown right now. The coalition is flying for strike
sorties in Iraq in particular and for some in Syria between 25
and 35 percent depending on the target areas. It is a great
coalition effort actually. Everybody is performing well. The
cooperation and the coordination has been outstanding. As you
know from reading the papers, there is some independent efforts
that are being thrown in that are now being coordinated with
our Air Operation Center in the Middle East. The majority of
activity is being coordinated through and by our Air Component
Commander there, supporting the Army Ground Commander. The task
force is doing this. There is a lot of great work being done.
It is not a huge air effort in terms of big air campaigns. If
you think about 15 to 25 strikes a day, compare it to 950 to
1,000 in the first Gulf War per day.
So the level of effort is focused. It is a very controlled
effort because of the situation on the ground. And we are just
waiting for the ground force to be developed and then we will
support them in a robust way.
Mr. Cole. Appreciate that very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No plug for the AWACS today?
Mr. Cole. Do you want to give me another round here?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Ms. Kaptur.
STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for
your service to our country and all those that work for us at
Air Force. I won't have time for you to answer this question,
but I want to state it publicly, related to our nuclear weapons
program. And I will ask, for the record, what measures are
included in the 2016 budget, our request to improve the state
of our nuclear enterprise, asking you to distinguish between
funds that will be devoted to sustaining the existing force
versus modernization. There have been so many problems in that
program, shocking actually. We would ask you to develop an
appropriate reply in the record for that. But I would like to
focus on the cost savings related to the relationship between
the Air Force and the Air Guard.
And I agree with what my colleagues here have said about
sequestration, sort of a guillotine approach with no thinking
as to where we are going to place funds inside the important
budgets that you manage. Let me first turn to the F-35. I
represent a fighter wing and a Guard wing in Ohio, the 180th,
just a phenomenal unit. And as you look at the cost savings
requirements that you are forced to in both your acquisition
and operation, how thoroughly has the Air Force analyzed the
cost savings related to Guard-based operations versus Air
Force? So my first question relates to the F-35 program and the
Guard. And then, secondly, on the State Partnership Program,
which is something I have a great deal of interest in because
of what we are facing in many parts of the world, including in
Ukraine right now, I am interested in ways to support and
improve that program. I have watched it in operation on many
levels. It is underfunded. And changes in your budget
regulations have removed the flexibility of the Air Guard to
mix funds with Air Force to pay for the total cost of the
program.
In prior years, the Guard would fund payroll and Air Force
paid travel. But our State Partnership Program can't operate in
the same way anymore. Ohio is partnered with Hungary.
California is partnered with Ukraine. What can Air Force do to
remove barriers to promoting the American relationships so
vital to us through the State Partnership Program, so on F-35
and the State Partnership Program?
General Welsh. Yes, ma'am. Let me start with the State
Partnership Program and start by thanking many of you for the
participation of your Guard units in this program. This is a
phenomenal program that has been going on for more than 20
years and has built long and enduring personal and professional
relationships with about 79 different countries around the
world now. This is a remarkable multiplier for our Air Force
and for our United States Military--because the Army does the
same kind of programs. The travel pays that you are talking
about, ma'am, on State Partnership Programs in the past, it
depended on what status you were traveling under. If a State
unit was traveling under Title 32 authorizations, then the
Active Duty Air Force could not pay travel for Guard members.
If they traveled under a Title 10 authorization on the State
Partnership Program, then we could pay travel expenses.
I am not aware that that has changed. But I will go find
out. Because if that has changed, it is a surprise to me. Those
have been the rules for as long as I have understood them. And
if it has changed, I just missed this one. And I will check. I
will let you know.
[The information follows:]
Although Air Force Instruction 65-601, Volume 1, Budget Guidance
and Procedures, was updated on March 26, 2015, the authorities for the
State Partnership Program (SPP) funding have not changed. For SPP
events conducted overseas, National Guard members are typically placed
in a duty status by orders issued under the authority of 10 U.S.C.
12301. For SPP events conducted within the United States, National
Guard members are placed in a duty status by order issued under 32
U.S.C. 502. The biggest help would be to ensure pay and allowances are
accounted for when using the National Guard to perform security
cooperation activities under the authority of Title 10 U.S.C. 12301.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate
that, General. I think there has been some type of change. I
don't know what spurred it. But I would be very grateful for
your attention to that. If we look at long-term relationships
that we have been developing with several countries around the
world, I just think this State Partnership Program is one of
those important efforts that can help us bridge the development
work that needs to be done on the ground and relationship
building that is going to have to occur over a long period of
time. So I thank you very much for that.
EUROPEAN REASSURANCE INITIATIVE
Let me finally ask in view of what is occurring in Ukraine
with Russia's invasion of Ukraine in violation of Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity, looking forward in the
2016 budget at our relationships through NATO and Air Force's
participation in various aspects of that, what presence does
your budget anticipate in the Baltic states and also in Poland?
What types of flyovers or joint maneuvers, how are you thinking
about 2016 in terms of that region of the world?
General Welsh. Ma'am, we have fully funded the U.S.-
European Command commander's request for presence both in the
aviation detachment in Poland and for North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) air policing support in the Baltics for
support-to-ground exercises in both Eastern and Southeastern
Europe. We have also fully funded the European Reassurance
Initiative that kept an F-15 squadron on active duty in Europe,
as opposed to closing it down and bringing it back to the
States. So we were fully committed to supporting General
Breedlove in his role both as commander of U.S. European
Command and as the Supreme Allied commander of Europe (SACEUR).
F-35 AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASING
Back to your initial question, just to close it out, the F-
35 bed down for the Guard, the next two units to be selected
for F-35 bed down will be Guard units, the 5th and 6th base
will be Guard units. And those bed down time periods are 2022
and 2023. So you will see more F-35 bed down in the Guard here
in the early 2020s. The cost model you referred to has been
where we have been working on this together for the last
several years----
Ms. Kaptur. General, may I interrupt? Could you provide
some of those cost savings to the record? Is there a way for
you to do that?
General Welsh. What we can provide you is the information
on the Individual Cost Assessment Model (ICAM) model that
covers everything from cost of an individual operating F-35 at
a Guard base versus activity duty, to the cost of bedding it
down and doing supporting infrastructure. I will be happy to
get you that, ma'am.
[The information follows:]
The Individual Cost Assessment Model (ICAM) estimates annual home
station operations and maintenance manpower costs for Air National
Guard (ANG) F-35 Unit Type Code (UTC) packages to be approximately 59
percent of the cost of an equivalently manned regular Air Force
component UTC packages. A 24-Ship UTC package in the ANG would cost an
estimated $23.5 million annual compared to $40.1 million for regular
Air Force UTC packages. This is attributed to the lower costs of a
primarily drill status ANG workforce. In addition to the annual cost
savings, a Drill Status Guardsman cost approximately 42 percent for
officers and 40 percent for enlisted compared to their Active Duty
counterparts on average over the entire life cycle of the Airmen
(including pay and benefits over both the career and retirement).
ICAM is a simulation model providing high-fidelity estimates of
individual Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve
Airmen pay, benefits, and compensation costs. It models Airmen through
their careers from accession to end-of-life and calculates the annual
and burdened life-cycle manpower cost. ICAM models the major career
events and associated cost implications of accession, permanent change
of station, promotions, deployments, component changes, separations.
Cost elements include pay and allowances, medical and retirement
accruals, incentives, training, Medicare accrual to name a few. Being a
simulation, ICAM can support experimentation on changes to pay and
compensation assumptions and policy. ICAM is provisionally approved for
the Air Force Standard Analytical Toolkit. AFRC/A9 developed ICAM in
close collaboration with AF/A9, SAF/FM, and NGB. The annual cost
estimates can be applied to unit constructs as described below using F-
16 Unit Type Codes (UTCs).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Womack.
ISR DEMANDS
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my thanks to the
Secretary and to the chief for their testimony this morning and
their great service to our country. I truly appreciate their
commitment. And it is obvious in listening to Secretary James
in her address this morning, it was more than just a document
that was read. I couldn't help but notice that you were into
it. And I appreciate your passion. These are times that we are
going to have to all be passionate about what we do. I want to
go back to ISR for just a minute. You really can't get enough
of it. My experience--even though it was before the current ISR
technological platforms were in place, but it just drives so
much of our success on the battlefield. My numbers could be a
little off here, but I think in 2014, according to my data,
there were 35,000 ISR missions alone in the CENTCOM area. These
threats are terribly dangerous. They are growing by the day.
So let me ask you this question: Is the Air Force need for
ISR increasing in order to complete the missions in the Middle
East? And is our ratio of ISR to conventional capability
changing in that area of activity.
Ms. James. Let me start, Congressman. And then the Chief, I
want him to jump in on this as well. As you said, the desire
for more ISR, it is going up, up, up, on the part of the
combatant commanders. And I can understand why. ISR provides
precious information. It can avoid loss of life, innocent life
if you really are persistent in knowing who is who and what is
what. You can actually do in some cases attack missions. It
provides a lot of information. And that information is power.
So I get that.
The problem is several-fold. Our job is we have to make
sure that we have priorities in our Air Force, but we have to
have a balanced portfolio. In other words, if we swing too hard
in one way and let everything else go by the wayside, then we
won't be doing our job properly. So we try to always maintain
the balance. And so sometimes the ISR challenge becomes
enormous for us. But with that said, like I said in the
beginning, part of that extra $10 billion did allow us to buy
back some ISR that we were otherwise going to retire or to
invest in more of these combat air patrols. And that was a good
statistic that you have about the value of ISR. I have it
slightly different. But we are making the same point.
In support of Central Command alone, ISR missions have
identified more than 1,700 Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs)
which otherwise might have killed U.S. and allied combatants.
We have responded with ISR to 1,500 troops in contact events.
18 million images have helped provide that information. And,
finally, in the Iraq-Syria campaign, 22 high-value individuals
have been removed from the battlefield thanks to ISR. And I
think that is military speak by they are either dead or
captured. So it is a very valuable thing. But, of course, our
job is we have to have the balance.
General Welsh. Intelligence information to support
decision-making has become the coin of the realm in warfighting
today. It just is. That is where the demand is coming from. The
ratio has clearly changed. In fact, in the Air Force, roughly 7
years ago, we actually shut down 10 fighter squadrons to
provide the manpower and resources to stand up more ISR. It is
part of the capacity problem. And now we have many combatant
command demands for fighter squadrons. But we did it because
that was the only place we had to go to get resources. We build
to combatant command requirements, not to Air Force
requirements. So when the combatant commanders tell us that
their number one priority is ISR, as we build our budgets each
year, we go back to them and we will sit with them, as I did
again this year, and ask each of the regional combatant
commanders would you prefer for us to invest in more ISR or
would you prefer for us to invest in maintaining things like
close air support capacity for you.
That is where we come to these very difficult decisions on
recommending things for, like, the A-10 fleet to go away. We go
to them for their priorities. And we try and fund those and
meet them. That is who we build an Air Force to support.
Mr. Womack. Are we going to be adding more ISR space here
in the country, more State-wide based programs? Is that in the
plan to keep up with the demand for more ISR?
General Welsh. Sir, we have expanded the ISR mission in
both the Air Force Guard and the Air Force Reserve
significantly over the last 5 years. And we will continue to
look for opportunities to do that. Right now, there is no
additional demand for more multi-piloted aircraft because about
7 percent of our aircraft fleet is actually remotely piloted.
And that probably won't climb dramatically any time soon.
Mr. Womack. Are we having any trouble finding the analysts
and doing the training for the State-side missions?
General Welsh. We are having trouble retaining the pilots
for the Remotely Piloted Aircraft force. But other than that,
this is an exciting career field. We have a lot of people who
want to come into the Air Force to do it. They really enjoy the
work. The pace of the work is what has been crushing the pilot
force because we haven't got it fully manned, only because the
requirement keeps going up. So we have been chasing this
training problem for the last 8 years. And we just can't get
ahead of it because operational demand won't slow down. And we
will continue to do the best we can. But we are just about at a
breaking point in the pilot force if we don't stabilize the
demand for a period of time to let us get ahead of the training
problem.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. All set?
Mr. Womack. Am I out of time?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am glad that the gentleman from
Florida turned off his radioactive iPad. There is some time
before we go to Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Womack. I thought we were being jammed and Admiral
Greenert had sent some growlers over here to kind of jam us.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Make it quick. We want to make sure that
Mr. Graves gets in some questions.
Mr. Womack. I will hold this question until the next round.
I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Didn't mean to pick you on, Mr. Diaz-
Balart. The floor is yours.
FOREIGN SOURCES FOR WEAPONS COMPONENTS
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
with all of you. As one of the newest ones here, please pardon
my ignorance. There is a lot of conversation about the Russian-
built rocket engine. Are there other key components of weapons
systems that are built by other nations and other nations that
are potentially either unstable or problematic and what would
those be?
Ms. James. Well, the one that is high on my list at the
moment is the RD-180. Now, of course, we do have other
components--in fact, it has been the policy of the United
States Government for some years to try to have
interoperability with our allies. And so there are various
other things that are produced by Europeans and the like. There
is none other that quite rises to the occasion of the RD-180
that gives us pause at the moment though.
General Welsh. Not at the moment. But, sir, the Department
of Defense, specifically the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L), Mr. Frank
Kendall and his staff, along with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy and their staff, actually have a review
process by which they look at this routinely, to try and ensure
that we don't run into problems like this.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So we don't have key components built by
China for example? We don't have key components built by China,
for example, for weapons systems? I understand the European
Union. But some potential adversaries like Russia, obviously,
is problematic as you just mentioned. But how about China?
Ms. James. To the best of my knowledge, we are not doing
that, no.
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (OCO)
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Okay. We all understand how difficult your
budget situation is and we are all concerned about that. OCO,
which we understand also gives some flexibility and is
essential, but that is also one of those things that is
constantly targeted by, frankly, all of our colleagues because
there have been reports of waste, et cetera. I understand the
importance of OCO. And I understand how it is fundamental for
you to do your mission. But what steps have been taken or are
you looking at taking, if any, to make sure that it becomes
less of a target for our colleagues? And in order to do that,
obviously, you have got to make sure that it is as efficient
and effective as possible. So what steps are being taken to
make our job easier to defend your funding vis--vis OCO.
Ms. James. As a general proposition, and we can get you an
exact numbers, but, of course, OCO has been coming down over
the years, as you would expect, as the situation in Afghanistan
has transitioned to a new level. But with that said, it is kind
of an interesting point of fact that the Air Force's piece of
this is more of what I will say a steady state situation. So it
might not be exactly steady state, but the point is what we are
doing in the Middle East and the kinds of refueling and
mobility, this is kind of the day-to-day work of ISR. So we
project that this is going to be continuing for the foreseeable
future. So I don't think you are going to see a dramatic,
dramatic fall-off in OCO. And in terms of how do we make sure
we make every dollar count, it is kind of the same sort of
rigor that we are trying to apply to the contracts and the work
that takes place in OCO as we are trying to apply to the base
budget types of contracts and work.
General Welsh. Sir, I would add that we have made a good-
faith effort to try and move OCO funding into our base budget
over the last probably 5 to 6 years. We will get you the exact
numbers of how we tried to do that. Not having the reset as we
came out of Afghanistan that everybody was anticipating has
made that difficult to continue along the path we were on. But
we have been building the path and we are moving down it to
move those things that should be in our base budget into our
base budget and get them out of your job jar for OCO, unless
you consider it in terms of the base support for the Air Force.
ISLAMIC STATE
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, lastly, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just
very briefly, General, when you mentioned the number--so this
is kind of, pardon the pun, at the 30,000-foot level--you
mentioned the number of sorties that the United States and the
coalition is doing versus what we did in, you know, in Iraq,
for example. Is that number sufficient to destroy ISIL? Is it
sufficient to--one of the criticism that you hear out there is
that potentially we are not doing enough as ISIL continues to
potentially expand. So, in other words, it is pretty
dramatically less when you put it in those terms. And I know
they are efficient and effective strikes. But it's not that
many of them. And it almost seems that is not a totally--it is
not a serious effort to destroy it, to eliminate it. It might
be an effort to contain.
So, again, how does that compare? How can you with whatever
you said, 25 I think was the number you said, is that not part
of the problem, why we keep seeing them in the news all day?
General Welsh. Without arguing the strategy here, the
strategy that is in place, sir, laid forth by General Austin
and endorsed by the Secretary of Defense and the President, was
to try and do everything you could to deny ISIL the ability to
mass, the ability to take more territory, the ability to
continue to grow unobstructed and move unobstructed across the
battle space that they are operating in while a ground force
was put together, that we would then support from the air as
they went in to do the very hard work on the ground, to do
things like clear out the city of Mosul and actually recover
and maintain control of territory from ISIL.
Air power can do lots of great things for you. It can
influence all kinds of behavior on the ground, which it is
doing today. It can destroy things. It can affect people's
opinions and their moods every day. But it is not going to
control terrain over time in a way, especially urban terrain,
the way ground forces can. And so our job--in this particular
case, we have the lead for now. We are seeing that they don't
mass any more. We are seeing them move into defensive
positions. We are seeing them form defensive structures, that
helps with targeting. We are seeing them change their behavior.
All of which shows that air power has had an influence even
when applied at this level. And we have got to get the rest of
the strategy online to conduct the defeat part of the
operation.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Exactly. If you could just give me those
numbers once again because it was rather dramatic. I hadn't
heard that before.
General Welsh. I am just talking, this is right of the
newspaper, sir. The average number of strike sorties a day, I
saw an article the other day, was roughly 15 to 25 a day. I
think that has been fairly accurate. There is a lot of other
sorties being flown, but it is about 15 to 25 actual targets
being attacked a day.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Versus?
General Welsh. Versus the first Gulf War, which some people
have asked me well, why doesn't it look the same? We were
flying literally 1,000 plus strike sorties a day in the first
Gulf War. It is just a completely different level of effort.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, General. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. And before I go to Mr.
Graves, one of the issues here--I know we do some remarkable
things with the Air Force. And what personally interested me is
the issues of rules of engagement. Because obviously
containment is one thing. But if we are supporting our ground
troops, we need to be able to support them night and day. And I
do know there's some issues there that are of deep concern to
me, that we are not at times doing the things we ought to be
doing. Mr. Graves.
A-10 AND CLOSE AIR SUPPORT
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary James,
General, thanks for being here and for your testimony and for
your explanations and your willingness to work with this
complete as we all work to comply with the law and the BCA, as
difficult as that may be. The chairman mentioned in his opening
remarks a spirited debate that will likely rise over the next
several weeks, if not months, about the proposed PB 2016
retirement of the A-10, a spirited debate probably in this
body, in this room, in the House, but probably likely also
internally with you all as you came up with the proposal,
noting that the General is quoted as saying the A-10 was my
first fighter and he loves that airplane.
So I know he has a deep passion for it as well. But that
aside, the replacement is proposed for over 4 years. And I
guess the F-35 is proposed to make that replacement over time.
How can you ensure us that the 4-year retirement of the A-10
and the replacement plan that is in place will continue to
provide the close support that will be needed over the next 4
years or 5 years? Can you help us understand how that might
happen?
Ms. James. This is another one where I would like to start
but for sure want the Chief to jump in. So the original
proposal to retire the A-10, I am going back a year now, the
original proposal to retire the A-10 over 5 years or so, I had
no piece in making that decision. Because by the time I arrived
in the Pentagon and got sworn in and confirmed and so forth,
pretty much the budget materials had already been established.
So last year, I didn't have a particular piece in the
decision. But this year, I do have a very strong part of the
decision to go forward and continue to propose it. So I just
want to point out that with the greatest of reluctance for
budgetary reasons that we are proposing it, not because we
don't believe in close air support. We do. It is a sacred
mission. And we got it. And over the course of the last several
years during the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is on
the order of I want to say about 70 percent of the close air
support missions have been flown by the other aircraft who are
also contributing to that mission. So I am talking about F-16,
F-15, B-1 and so forth. Whereas, the A-10 has also been a very
strong contributor. But my point is we have other aircraft that
can do the mission.
So during this period, if our proposal goes forward and we
are allowed to gradually retire, we would continue to use the
A-10 for as long as we have it in the inventory to be a
contributor to the mission. We would continue to use these
other aircraft. And then gradually as the F-35 comes on board,
that could also be used for not only close air support but for
other missions as well. Because that is designed to be a multi-
role platform.
Mr. Graves. So you are confident that close air support
will not be diminished over the next 4 years in this proposed
retirement over the next 4 years of the A-10?
General Welsh. Congressman, what the BCA means, and
sequestration would be more of this, what BCA means is less
Close Air Support (CAS). It means less air superiority. It
means less strike. It means less command and control. It means
less ISR. So we were going to have less capacity to do every
mission we have in our Air Force. That is just what the law
does to us. So what we do is go to the commanders and say where
do you want to take your risk? We have a fleet of other
aircraft who can do close air support in this environment well.
We would like to have every tool we have right now. But
they want more ISR before they want more CAS. 18 percent of the
CAS sorties since 2008 have been flown by the A-10. The
workhorse of our CAS fleet today, in reality, is the F-16. It
has flown thousands more CAS sorties over that time period than
the A-10. There are some scenarios the A-10 is much better at
than other airplanes. There are some scenarios the AC-130 is
best at. There are some scenarios the B-1 is best at. But we
have aircraft that can do this mission in this environment. The
F-35 will not be a great CAS platform at IOC in 2016. It was
not intended to be at that point in time. It won't be fully
developed.
In 2021, when it reaches full operational capability, it
will be a different story. We are in the process of developing
new weapons capabilities for it. We are looking at how we move
the CAS culture from the A-10 into our F-16, F-15E, and the F-
35 units as they stand up, both active and Guard units and
Reserve units. This is a mission we have been doing since the
Second World War. We will not slow down. So you know, I am a
Marine Corps infantry officer's son. We are not walking away
from close air support.
Mr. Graves. That is very good. I think that is what the
committee wants to hear is that that support and confidence is
still going to be there. And then from a basing perspective, do
you anticipate that as the F-35 comes online that it will
replace the A-10 at the bases at which they are being retired
from? Or is there a base selection process?
General Welsh. That is the plan. And one of the concerns we
have is the transition plans we have built for the units,
especially in the Reserve component, we are worried that if we
don't transition on schedule, then those transition plans are
now going to be at risk. And we don't want that to happen
either.
Mr. Graves. Thank you again for your testimony.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Graves. Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
talk about readiness if I could. And, Madame Secretary, I found
it interesting that you mentioned the average aircraft. The B-
52 is 27 years old. And I could be wrong, but my assumption is
that the average Air Force person in uniform is younger than 27
years old.
Ms. James. You are right.
FULL SPECTRUM READINESS
Mr. Visclosky. So I appreciate the need to procure
equipment. But I am struck in the budget request--and I would
acknowledge, first of all, that on the procurement line for
aircraft, there are other procurement lines for missile and
space, the base is much smaller so percentages can be
misleading--but there is almost a 30-percent increase in
procurement. Given the testimony on readiness, the increase is
just about 11 percent. And I would also acknowledge for the
record that the absolute dollar amount is a higher increase for
operation and maintenance. Is it true if you are at current-
year levels and not operating under the caps that it may take
until 2023 to recover full spectrum of combat readiness?
General Welsh. It is, sir. And the reason it doesn't show
up in that readiness account and why that number is 11 percent
is because, the reason that we will have to wait another 8 to
10 years even to recover full combat readiness for the Air
Force is something I mentioned earlier--it is the
infrastructure that produces combat capability. And that is in
multiples accounts. Some is in a nuclear account. Some is in
our Facilities Sustainment Restoration and Modernization (FSRM)
accounts, our Military Construction (MILCON) accounts. It is in
other places. But it is things like developing training ranges
with current threat simulations. It is developing the
simulation infrastructure that allows us to create a virtual
constructive environment to train our new 5th generation
aircraft in, because we can't afford to do it in the live
world. We can't afford to build that threat base and keep it
current.
And so there is a lot of things that go into the
infrastructure of an Air Force that allows you to train and
develop your people the right way and give them full combat
capability that we have not been funding well enough for the
last 10 to 15 years.
Mr. Visclosky. Chairman, I would make an observation, I
thought the chairman did it very well yesterday in his opening
remarks, that all of us, in our own fashion, blame
sequestration for a lot of the world's ills. But there are
other events that take place as well. I am struck that this
time last year, when you were before the panel, we were not
dropping ordnance on the country of Syria. There are always new
demands. And I understand within the last 2 years, the Air
Force has also been forced to cancel its red flag exercises and
an entire weapons school class. I started--when you enumerated
to an earlier question all of that infrastructure that you need
for that readiness and the fact just, I guess, over 50 percent
of our pilots are, if you would, they are all capable but fully
ready. Do you have a list, do you have a breakdown as far as
the investments needed in each one of those infrastructures you
have mentioned to accelerate that?
And my question also fundamentally is--and I am not arguing
the procurement side--but that person that is using whatever
that equipment, plane, munition is, for their safety, for their
effectiveness, as well as the welfare of our country, they got
to be as ready as possible and trained as ready as possible.
And if it is going to take us to 2023, I think we need to
invest more on that side of the ledger. Do you have a breakdown
as to if there was an increase in some of those accounts, that
we could squeeze that date to the left instead of to the right.
General Welsh. Yes, sir. We can give you the breakdown of
that. The individual readiness stuff is what we have been
focused on. The BBA has helped us start that recovery. But if
we can't continue that momentum, it will stall again. But we
can give you the numbers with regard to each of those things,
sir. And the infrastructure thing is what I would call critical
mission infrastructure. It is a limited group of things. We
haven't added a whole bunch of excess things to that list. It
is not a get-well across the board. And some of the reasons for
that lack of investment are Air Force reasons. We have
prioritized other things and now it has caught up with us.
Mr. Visclosky. My desire is to push that to the left
instead of the right. If you could provide that for the record,
I would appreciate very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Welsh. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
The Air Force's fiscal year 2016 President's Budget request
includes the following infrastructure investments:
$3,183.1 million for facility sustainment, restoration and
modernization (FSRM) which supports, provides, and enables
installations as power projection platforms for our forces. The FSRM
programs ensure built assets are kept in good repair to meet mission
needs. We resourced our facility programs to reach a maintenance and
repair floor of 1.9 percent of our facilities plant replacement value.
Industry studies indicate maintenance and repair investments should be
between 2 to 4 percent of the entire plant replacement value. We
minimize our risk through the disciplined use of asset management
principles to ensure critical mission infrastructure is maintained
adequately and accept greater risk in other areas.
Military Construction (MILCON) is one of three critical components
of maintenance and repair. For fiscal year 2016, we requested $1,592.9
million for MILCON which supports, provides, and enables mission
critical infrastructure that contributes to combat capability over
time: nuclear infrastructure, test infrastructure, space launch
infrastructure, satellite command control and communications
architectures, as well as simulation infrastructure. The fiscal year
2016 MILCON request includes three nuclear projects, $144.2 million;
one test project ($12.8 million); one space launch project ($21.0
million); one satellite command control and communications project
($36.4 million); and four simulation projects ($54.1 million).
The fiscal year 2016 President's Budget request preserves the
minimum requirement to meet the Department of Defense's current
strategic guidance. Even at the President's Budget request level, the
Air Force remains stressed and shortfalls exist. A return to
sequestration-level funding, as dictated by the Budget Control Act of
2011, carries great risk and will negatively impact the critical
infrastructure components listed above.
CHINA AND RUSSIA
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would like to have your view of our, I
hate to use the expression near-peer competitors, but where do
we stand relative to Russia and China? When I first got on the
committee, we had the ability to fight two wars. We had the
notion, and I believe that we continue to have overwhelming
superiority. But we work pretty closely with the Armed Services
Committee and we monitor their hearings. And you invoked Frank
Kendall in your earlier comments. And I hope we are keeping an
eye of what our, these countries are doing. Could you comment
on that?
Ms. James. Yes. I will start, Mr. Chairman. There have been
actions and then there have been investments, I will say, on
the part of China and Russia which are very worrying to the
United States. Certainly they are worrying to me. If we look at
China, for example, there have both been air and sea incursions
in the Pacific, I will say in the South China Sea which are
worrying. There have been investments in space and anti-
satellite capabilities which are worrying.
Similarly with Russia, wow, who would have predicted the
invasion of Ukraine a year ago? I would not have predicted it
for one. So those are very serious actions. And Russia has
investments as well. As we always say, God forbid we should
ever really have to engage in a conflict of this high-end
nature. But if we do, we don't want it necessarily to be a fair
fight. We want to be able to prevail in an overwhelming----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So where are we on that sort of
technical edge here? I don't want to get into policy. But, in
reality, we could ask you how many times your pilots have had
to deconflict their missions with people rising to meet them.
Ms. James. Right. So I would say the gap is closing. So if
we are not careful, we could lose our technological edge is the
way I would put it.
General Welsh. As you know, both Russia and China----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are on your side.
General Welsh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And this is the one most worrisome
things here. And often with the Navy, numbers do matter. Go
ahead.
General Welsh. Yes, sir. In warfighting, quantity does have
a quality all its own. That has always been true. Russia and
China are both upgrading their air forces. They are a couple of
the countries that have watched the model very carefully.
China, in particular, is accelerating that development. The
concern we have, the major concern we have is as they develop
new aircraft and new defense systems, those systems will be
more capable than the things we currently have in our fleet in
many ways. And so if we don't continue to modernize, we will
find ourselves within the next 10 years, I believe, at a
disadvantage in a number of scenarios against not just Russia
and China--I hope we don't fight Russia or China anytime soon,
or anytime ever ideally--but they do export equipment. And
within 3 to 5 years typically after they market something, they
put it out to the rest of the world for buying.
There are about 53 countries today that fly top-end Russian
and Chinese aircraft. And I assume that 10 years from now, that
will be the case again. And those aircraft will be better than
everything we have on the ramp today except our 5th generation
capability in the F-22. That is where the F-35 is operationally
mandatory for us to be successful in those scenarios in the
future.
LONG RANGE STRIKE-BOMBER
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is mandatory. And I am highly
supportive of probably the most expensive endeavor we have ever
made. And that is sort of why we serve on this committee. We
want to invest in the long-range bomber. I see some figures
that seem to be, considering the history of other bombers,
comparatively low. What is the estimate these days for the new
stealth bomber?
General Welsh. We have remained with a cap of $550 million
recurring flyaway costs in constant fiscal year 2010 dollars.
We believe we are on track for that. In fact, I believe we are
going to beat that. We will see. The source----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The numbers you are suggesting that we
might have to invest are pretty considerable. And if history is
any indication, the numbers will probably come down
considerably.
General Welsh. Clearly the unit cost is based on a contract
buy of 80 to 100 aircraft. If we buy 10, the unit flyaway costs
will be much higher.
NEXT GENERATION AIR DOMINANCE
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You are identified with what is called
the next generation of air dominance. I know that is sort of a
DARPA-related area, but it is pretty important. What do you
foresee in that scheme of things, that type of looking ahead
into the future? Is this another aircraft? Or is this maybe a
greater reliance on UAVs? What do you see in the future in that
envelope?
General Welsh. Mr. Chairman, we don't know what it is yet.
That is why we are just starting the developmental planning
effort. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has
been working this for a while. We are beginning a formal
development and planning effort in the Air Force where we will
include people like DARPA, Air Force Research Labs, Air Combat
Command, a number of advisers from both industry and threat
experts from around the country. The intent is to look at what
should air dominance look like 30, 50 years from now. It could
included manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft, cyber
capabilities. We don't know what it looks like yet.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am going to go--have you voted? Has
anybody voted here? Mr. Visclosky is here. I guess I need to
remain in the chair. Maybe some of you could vote and we can
continue. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Just real quick, the chair mentioned the
long-range stealth bomber. And that is highly classified, I
know. But I think there are a lot of doubters. I am not a
doubter. You hear that as well. It might be a good idea
sometime on a classified basis to hear more about why that is
important to our national security. And the other thing, the
other program I want to ask you about was the combat rescue
helicopter. That is the program we have now. We want to have
the best trained, best equipped military. We also want to make
sure everybody comes home safe and sound.
I think because of Afghanistan and Iraq, they say that 50
percent of the rescues can kind of take place because they are
all worn out from all those missions. And I think there is a
time maybe last year you all were thinking about not replacing
that. And you would said it would cost $430 million. We put
$100 million. And so my question is, it seems to me that is
pretty important. You look at that Jordanian pilot, maybe he
had a search and rescue--those are the kind of things that are
really important to bringing people home safe.
So how committed are you all to making sure we have the
replacement and you are filling that hole? And if we have to go
to the spending caps, is that going to be one of the
casualties? Because we would all like to know what the impact
of all the sequestration is. And it seems to me that is really
important. It is not optional. But where are we, how committed
are we to make sure that we replace that program?
Ms. James. So we agree on the importance. And even if we
have to live with sequestration, our best advice would be do
not touch that program.
Mr. Crenshaw. Great. So you are filling that hole and you
are still working----
Ms. James. That would be our best advice. But, of course,
we don't want sequestration, as you know, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Mr. Womack [presiding]. Mr. Visclosky.
NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to talk about the nuclear enterprise if I could. Has the
relevance of the two legs of the triad you oversee changed?
Over the years, has their evidence changed?
Ms. James. They remain extremely relevant. All three legs
of the triad remain extremely relevant, just as they have for
the last 60-plus years.
Mr. Visclosky. Is there any discussion in the
administration as to whether or not going forward it will be a
triad or there configuration will be different? And I must tell
you, the impetus of my question is we talk about having a
nuclear strategy and often we get wedded to programs; and we
have a bomber program; we have a missile program; we have a
submarine program, and they just have a life of their own into
infinity.
Ms. James. All discussions that I have been privy to, Mr.
Visclosky, suggest to me that we are going to absolutely stand
behind a nuclear triad. It remains very important. And, as you
know, we are taking steps in our Air Force to kick it up a
notch with respect to making sure that we modernize, that we do
different things for people in training and revitalize.
Mr. Visclosky. Do you have an overall estimate for your
modernization program? NNSA suggests that theirs would be about
$50- to $60 billion.
Ms. James. I can tell you what is different in this fiscal
year 2016 budget and the accompanying 5-year plan. I am afraid
I cannot, off the top of my head, give you beyond that. But we
can try to do that for the record.
[The information follows:]
The Air Force 2016 Future Years Defense Plan includes $25.6 billion
for nuclear modernization. This includes research, development, test
and evaluation costs for B-2 and B-52 bombers, Minuteman III, nuclear
weapon life extension programs such as the B61-12, and service life
extension programs for the air launched cruise missile. Also included
are costs for the long range strike bomber, long range standoff
missile, ground-based strategic deterrence, UH-1N replacement, F-35
dual capability integration, nuclear command control and communications
initiatives (NC3), and procurement of NC3 infrastructure. Finally,
military construction investments, including weapon storage facility
recapitalization at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY, Barksdale Air Force
Base, LA and Malmstrom Air Force Base, MT are also included.
Mr. Visclosky. And as far as the potential change in
strategy as it relates to the Life Extension Program, is the
Air Force comfortable with that?
Ms. James. Well, we certainly recognize that we have to do
something about the Minuteman III, that it is not going to last
forever. And so the program that we are working on we call the
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. And we have got to fund what
that future will be. And this 5-year plan begins that effort
and how precisely it is accomplished is still a bit of a point
that we are exploring. But whether it is a brand new weapon
system altogether or whether there are elements of it that are
rebuilt, I will say, this is the part that remains to be
explored.
LONG RANGE STRIKE-BOMBER
Mr. Visclosky. And if I could, Mr. Chairman, ask about the
issue of the bomber. We continue to invest in Standoff
munitions and weaponry. I certainly appreciate the age of some
of our bomber assets. But given the estimate of the cost and
the historical experience we have had--I would point to the B-2
and the cost per aircraft and the original estimate as to how
many were going to be bought and how few, in fact, were
procured--what is the justification for a new bomber?
Ms. James. We feel that the new bomber will take us into
decades to come in an anti-access, anti-denial type of an
environment. So the most complex and difficult type of threat
environments that we might encounter in the future years. So
that is the overall purpose.
General Welsh. So we actually--the operational analysis
that went into the number that was procured takes into account
the requirement to do nuclear deterrence alert with the B-52,
if you are required conduct nuclear activity and support a U.S.
Strategic command, and also the capacity of weapons sorties
required to win a major theater fight and do the Air Force
piece of that. The number of fighter squadrons that I mentioned
before is about a third less than what it was before. So you
don't have the same capacity to do fighter bomber-type sorties
as we did in the past. It will take us 80 to 100 bombers to
provide the sortie rates and the weapons capability to complete
a major theater fight. And we would be glad to share that
analysis with you. But that is what went into developing the
80-to-100 number.
Mr. Visclosky. Relative to the overall budget, because,
obviously, you have a huge procurement program that is underway
with the joint strike fighter, you have got the tanker
replacement, combat rescue helicopters, trainers, JSTARS,
AWACS. The estimate on the bomber has been fairly static at
$550 million. And I don't want to be skeptical but I would be
for purpose of an answer. What is the degree of certainty that
that is going to be the range per plane going forward with all
of the other stress as far as the procurement budget?
Ms. James. Well, we are very committed. And we have kind of
learned some lessons from the not-too-distant past about what
happens when you don't keep stressing affordability,
affordability, affordability. But to echo something that the
chief said, this is a unit flyaway cost which is dependent on a
certain quantity that is bought. So, you know, between that 80
to 100 is the quantity we are projecting. If suddenly the
system were to be curtailed and we would only buy 30 aircraft,
that unit cost would go through the roof.
Now, like with all units costs, that doesn't necessarily
include all the costs. It doesn't include the sustaining costs
and all the other costs that go into it. But that is, you know,
the way that we measure these different weapon systems is by
that unit cost.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Welsh. Sir, can I make one last comment on that?
Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Yes, please, General Welsh.
General Welsh. If we don't replace the bomber fleet
eventually, by 2035 to 2040, we will have 16 B-2s or we will
have a 100-year-old airplane flying by the middle of the
century with a B-52. That makes absolutely no sense,
Congressman, none.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
B-61 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Air Force is on the cusp of flight-
testing a new tail kit assembly for our nuclear fleet. Can you
talk a little bit in general terms about that? I know the issue
has always been the ability to integrate the bomb into whatever
the aircraft is. Can you talk a little about that? It is not
exactly inexpensive.
General Welsh. No, Chairman, it is not. This is actually a
joint program between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy in support of a U.S. Strategic Command and
a NATO requirement. We currently have four different variants
of the B-61 bomb that has been around, as you know, for a long
time. We are consolidating the two parts of the program, our
Life Extension Program for the B-61 that will consolidate those
four into a single variant that we have for common use. And
then the tail assembly is a U.S. Air Force development program
under the Department of Defense to try and give more precision
capability to the actual nuclear delivery which U.S. Strategic
Command (STRATCOM) hopes it will allow them to use different
operational approaches in that mission set.
The testing is ongoing now. The program is on track. We
don't know of any major issues with it at this time. We have
been doing tail kits on bombs here for a while very
successfully. And so I think this program, unless something
really unusual happens, will probably proceed apace.
F-22
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is one of those expenses that is out
there. And it is obviously--the whole issue of historic nuclear
deterrent is something which we still need to consider and
embrace. On the F-22, I was always a supporter of the Raptor. I
haven't heard much about it, although there was something in
some of the newspapers that it has been, some of those planes
have been active recently. Tell me where it is in the overall
scheme of things. There again, a lot of planes promised and
then not that many delivered. How many do we have at the
moment? How many are actually, you know, ready to fly?
General Welsh. Yes, sir. We have about 120 operational F-
22s. We have 187 total. So the training enterprise, the test
infrastructure uses the rest of them. Typically about two-
thirds of a fleet will be operational. That is the way it is
with the F-22. They are actually flying regularly now in Iraq
and Syria, particularly flying into Syria. We use the F-22 now
in ways that we have never been able to use an airplane before.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Satisfy my curiosity: For the time and
investment we made in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Raptor was
surprisingly absent from the battlefield. Why is it such a key
component now when before it was not?
General Welsh. The threat architectures in Iraq and
Afghanistan didn't require the F-22 quite simply.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. They do now?
General Welsh. Well, in Syria, they have a very capable air
defense system. They have an integrated air defense system over
portions of the country. When we are flying sorties into that
area of the country, we like to have the F-22 airborne in case
that system activates.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Let's hope it doesn't activate. But it
is good for the public to know why. They certainly have a
pretty capable system unless it has been degraded in some way.
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you both
for your testimony today. General Welsh, I have a request, in
the counsels that you keep, if there is any way that you can be
a voice for the Ukrainian military and their ability to receive
telecommunications equipment so they don't constantly face the
threat of the Russians jamming their inadequate communications
system. I really think it is necessary. And perhaps you will be
in a place where you can make a difference.
General Welsh. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Also I wonder, General Welsh, if you or the
secretary could provide for the record comparative U.S. Air
capability versus other countries as a part of your testimony
today, in terms of personnel, their readiness, and also
equipment, and the amount of money spent by various nations.
That would be very valuable for us for comparative purposes. Is
that possible?
Ms. James. Yes.
[The information follows:]
Russia and China continue to place significant importance on
airpower to mitigate US aerospace and regional air superiority. Both
countries have expressed an intent to not only achieve parity with the
US Air Force, but to surpass it in some notable areas (such as in
advanced fighter aircraft). The Russian Forces Air Force's military
modernization goal is centered on the 2020 State Armament Plan and
places emphasis on new aircraft such as the fifth-generation PAK-FA
fighter and long-range PAK-DA strategic bomber. Additionally, Moscow is
manufacturing newer, more accurate long-range munitions, including air-
launched land-attack cruise missiles. Modernization for China's Peoples
Liberation Army's Air Force (PLAAF) is progressing at a steady pace,
with the goal to improve the service's capability to conduct offensive
and defensive operations, such as strike, power projection and early
warning and reconnaissance. Key areas of importance include continued
production of fourth-generation multirole aircraft (i.e., J-10),
development of the fifth-generation J-20 fighter and production of new
bombers (i.e., H-6K) to increase PLAAF strike capabilities. While
Moscow and Beijing have made progress in some key areas, limited
numbers of special mission aircraft (AWACS and tankers), will remain
near-term obstacles to modernization/force protection.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I also wanted to go back and say,
Secretary James, you have particular background in Guard and
Reserve affairs. I really can't stress enough how important I
think that is as we look to the future and we look at what
these incredible Americans do all over the world and to look at
the pressure that is on us in terms of budget, and to really
think hard about how to better integrate those cost savings
units into our operations. They are not second class. And they
do a great job. And they save a lot of money. And I have never
seen, in my entire career, a real comprehensive look at how
those capabilities can help us do the job but also save money.
It is always sort of an add-on or an attachment or is cordoned
off here. But you really have particular insight there. I would
just ask you to apply it. And I know you will.
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
Finally, on the energy front, you have referenced that in
your remarks today, Madame Secretary. And I am very interested
in America's energy independence. Other members are interested
in her energy security. I am interested in that too. This past
year was the first year we produced more oil domestically than
we imported. Over the last decade, American has hemorrhaged
$2.3 trillion in what we have spent on importing fuels into
this country. So could you tell me, as the largest user of
energy in the Department of Defense, what your strategy is to
reduce your energy footprint. You have referenced that. What
can you provide for the record to show us the progress that you
are making in that regard?
Ms. James. And we will provide you a more fuller
explanation for the record. But I will tell you that in terms
of energy consumption, we spend billions of dollars on our
energy. And sometimes that is for operational reasons, for
example, the jet fuel that we consume. And sometimes it is for
our base operating support, the types of energy that drive our
military bases around the country and around the world. So we
have initiatives in both regards.
I will just throw one out for you, one that is providing
some hope for the future and that is the area of renewable
energy. So one of the problems on the battlefield is when we
are trying to transport petroleum or gasoline from Point A to
Point B, number one, that is a logistics challenge; and number
two, the people who are doing it can become a target because to
take out that logistics type of a transport is something that
enemies would wish to do. So to explore how we can do more
renewable types of approaches, even including on a battlefield,
is something that we are exploring more. Again, we will get you
a more fuller explanation for the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Can tell me what is the highest individual
tasked at the Air Force to think about the entire Department
and energy?
Ms. James. Ms. Miranda Ballentine. She is the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment, and
Energy.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Invite Ms. Kaptur out to Nellis too. I
think we are fully self-sufficient out there.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, Mr. Chairman, you know my interest in
this issue. So I also would ask for the record a listing of
those research projects done at our Air Force Research Labs--
obviously I am from Ohio, so we got Wright-Pat--how Air Force
perceives the research pathway forward and what your major
projects are in helping America restore her own independence on
the energy front.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. If you could get that for the record for
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Womack.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SPACE LAUNCH
Mr. Womack. I know we are in our second vote and time is
going to run out so I will be very brief. I have one other
question, I want to go back into space for just a minute. There
has been a lot of talk here this morning about the RD-180, so
the engine issue has been discussed at length here. But also, I
want to go back to the certification of another launch
provider. And you said in the Senate Appropriations Committee
earlier this week that you expected certification to come, I
guess, this year, even though that is moved to the right.
And I am a huge believer in competition. And I think that
will lower overall costs, no question about that. But I have
some concerns about national security payloads, as we introduce
them to this discussion and as the certification of a new
provider kind of inches to the right, what ramifications that
has for some of our payloads that we don't talk about too much
through open sources. Can you fill me in?
Ms. James. So let me begin by saying I absolutely agree
with what you said about competition and we are trying to get
down that path as quickly as possible. Because, as you said, we
need it for our national security, and we believe it will
deliver us additional cost savings. With that said, we want to
do it safely. We want to make sure that we continue what has
been a spectacular record, I think, of 79 or 80 successful
launches. And that is important because these are precious
payloads. They are expensive. They have major national security
implications. So we want both, we want competition, cost
savings, and we want mission assurance. So we are trying to
walk through this as quickly as possible. It shouldn't be too
much longer until we certify that new entrant that we have been
discussing. And you may have, you may know, sir, or you may
not, but I have actually also asked for an independent review
of our certification process to see, now that we have 18 months
of it under our belt, are there lessons learned, are there ways
that we can streamline, speed it up, because, of course, there
will be other new entrants coming down the pike as well.
Mr. Womack. Given the importance of the west coast launch
capability, is it feasible that there would be a new launch
provider certified that may not have the record, if you will,
of west coast capacity launch capability? Is that possible that
that certification could come without that?
Ms. James. Well, of course, the company that is closest to
certification is SpaceEx. And they certainly have done launches
from the west coast if I am not mistaken. So I am not sure if
that answers your question. But SpaceEx is the one that is
getting very, very close.
Mr. Womack. Okay. I am going to go vote. I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Madam Secretary, General Welsh, thank
you for being here with us. We have spent a lot of good time.
We have learned a lot. Good luck to you. Thank you for your
close work with us in the coming weeks and months to get us
across the finish line. We stand adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Cole and the
answers thereto follow:]
Launch Capabilities
Question. As you know, Congress authorized and appropriated $220
million dollars for the development by 2019 of a rocket propulsion
system to replace the Russian launch engine on Atlas V the money was
not provided for the development of a new launch vehicle--why does the
Air Force want to discard the Atlas V? It is clear we need a new
engine, but where is the requirement that the nation needs a new launch
vehicle?
Answer. The nation's requirement is for a launch capability to
place national security space (NSS) payloads into the required orbits.
While the Air Force is very satisfied with the Atlas V performance and
100 percent success rate, it is committed to moving away from the RD-
180 engine, which is at the heart of the Atlas V.
The Department's ultimate goal is two domestic, commercially viable
launch service providers able to support the entire NSS manifest.
However, simply replacing the RD-180 with a new engine is not the
answer, as we ultimately need a launch system and rocket engines are
not a drop-in type of solution. We essentially build the rocket around
the engine to address systemic technical challenges.
Question. I am told that there are companies capable of developing
a state of the art engine that could replace the Russian engine with
minimal changes to the Atlas vehicle. If these solutions are out there,
why is the Air Force still sitting on $220 million dollars now nearly
half-way through fiscal year 2015?
Answer. An engine development alone does not improve assured access
to space. Significant launch vehicle development is required to use it,
even if an engine is designed as a replacement. In anticipation of a
fiscal year 2015 congressional add to get an early start on the
solution, the appropriations and authorization bills were signed in
December 2014, the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center issued a
request for information (RFI) on August 20, 2014 addressed to launch
system and engine providers. A second RFI was released to selected
providers on February 18, 2015 and formal requests for proposal are
expected in the next few months. Please note that if the Air Force
establishes a requirement for an engine to minimize changes to the
existing Atlas V launch vehicle, this would provide United Launch
Alliance an advantage in competing for national security space
missions, and ignore potential innovative, less costly alternatives to
meet our launch requirements.
We are applying $60 million of the fiscal year 2015 funds to on-
going combustion stability projects and combustion tools development at
Stennis Space Center and the Air Force Research Laboratory. These tasks
all support hydrocarbon boost technical maturation, the key enabling
technologies for the development of an engine. We plan to release
requests for proposal in summer 2015 to execute the remaining $160
million. Those plans are being finalized now.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Cole.
Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the answers thereto
follow:]
RD-180 Use on Atlas V
Question. To follow up on the questions of some of my colleagues, I
want to ask several questions about the engines used for the EELV
program. I am strongly in support of developing a new engine, but I
also want to ask about the status of near-term competitions. In the
process of creating opportunities for competition, we must ensure that
we do not temporarily create an even less competitive situation, and
ensure that we do not endanger the ability to get our national security
payloads launched on schedule. It is unrealistic to expect a rocket the
size of the Delta IV to compete with the smaller Falcon 9. Is it the
understanding of you and the Air Force legal team that the language of
the FY2015 NDAA bill allows RD-180 engines to be the Atlas V engine as
part of the contract competition for Phase 1A? If the answer is no, is
the Air Force asking for a legal fix through bill language?
Answer. Yes. However, due to the way the language is written, ULA
does not have enough qualifying engines to cover requirements for Phase
1A and subsequent Phase 2 competitions. ULA may choose not to compete
for Phase 1A missions which would leave SpaceX as the only bidder. A
modification in the language would allow additional engines to be
utilized and promote competition for Phase 1A missions.
Question. Other than an extension of the date in the NDAA regarding
use of the RD-180, please provide the bill language you believe would
allow an RD-180 powered Atlas V to compete in Phase lA of the EELV
contract competition.
Answer. The department is submitting a legislative proposal for the
fiscal year 2016 President's Budget request that will in DoD's view,
expand the number of RD-180 rocket engines that the Department of
Defense could certify for ULA's use in future EELV competitions or sole
source awards when a new entrant into the EELV program is not capable
of performing that particular EELV mission. It should be noted that
even with this change in statute, the amount of RD-180 engines
available to ULA for use on the EELV program would remain limited, but
it would give ULA additional time to transition to a different rocket
engine.
Question. If the Delta IV is not used to compete against the Falcon
9, are there enough RD-180's in the country for the Atlas V to compete
in Phase 1A?
Answer. As the Section 1608 language currently stands, there are
not enough qualified RD-180 engines available to cover Phase 1A
requirements. Another significant concern is readiness for Phase 2.
Without the RD-180/Atlas V or the single core Delta IV (which ULA has
stated they plan to phase out), Phase 2 will need to address a
potential supplier shortfall, which poses significant risk to assured
access to space.
Dual Launch Payloads
Question. Given the need to explore all ideas which would perhaps
cut launch costs, please provide information on how many payloads might
be eligible in the next 6 to ten years as a dual-launch payload. I
understand there is potential savings in this idea when two satellites
are to be placed in the same orbit.
Answer. Up to 10 GPS III payloads could potentially be dual
launched in the next 6 to 10 years based on the fiscal year 2016
President's Budget request Buy Profile. However, while GPS III has been
considered for possible dual launch to save money when two launches are
required in the same year, the Air Force currently has no requirement
or funding for GPS III dual launch capability.
Launch Competition
Question. Why is the Air Force not moving to immediately create a
competition for designing an engine which meets these requirements?
Answer. The Air Force immediately moved out on technology
maturation and risk reduction activity with NASA's Advanced Booster
Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction and the Air Force Research
Lab's Hydrocarbon Boost existing programs. The Air Force released a
request for information last fall and released a follow up request for
information in February 2015 to engine and launch providers to assess
business case approaches and willingness to enter into public-private
partnerships. We plan to release a request for proposal this spring
based on feedback from the February request for information.
Competition is important in this endeavor and we intend to leverage the
marketplace to produce a new cost-effective engine.
Budget for New Launch Capability
Question. The President's budget request for the Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle RDTE, AF for FY16 requests $84 million in a budget sub-
line titled, ``Next Generation Liquid Rocket Engine''. After 2016, the
planned funding goes down to $60 million in FY17 and then $50 million
in 18, 19, and 20.
Funding profile FY15-20:
FY15--$220M (provided entirely by Congress)
FY16--$84.4M
FY17--$59.5M
FY18--$49.6M
FY19--$49.6M
FY20--$49.6M
The budget document notes a total of $512.7 million for development
of a new engine. 43 percent of that comes in FY15, as the result of
last year's Congressional action that added $220 million to begin a
rocket engine development program. Secretary James, I am concerned that
the proposed funding profile for Fiscal Years 2016 through 2020 is
insufficient to have a domestically-sourced engine by 2019. I look at
these numbers for out-year funding and by all accounts from industry it
is about half the expected cost. We could spend the correct amount,
create a strict set of milestones, and have an engine available to
multiple companies, or we can spend $500 million on a diluted, subsidy
type of plan and end up with a handful of partially completed
propulsion systems.
If the Air Force is serious about complying with the Congressional
mandate to have an engine certified flying by 2019, how does this
multi-year budget request get us there?
Answer. The figures you mention above were our best estimates
available at the time. We plan to release a request for proposal this
spring based on feedback from the February request for information. The
information obtained from these request will help determine the budget
needed to complete the effort and will inform the fiscal year 2017
President's Budget request.
Risk Reduction Contracts
Question. Do your plans for Fiscal Year 2014 and Fiscal Year 2015
spending utilize the two existing risk reduction engineering contracts
which have already been competed as assigned to reach the goal of a new
engine?
Answer. Yes. NASA's Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and
Risk Reduction and Air Force Research Lab's Hydrocarbon Boost contracts
are being utilized for risk reduction activities with fiscal year 2014
and 2015 funding. The data and analysis from these activities will be
available to all interested domestic engine providers.
Control of Intellectual Property
Question. Secretary James, I am concerned about the state of our
liquid rocket engine industrial base. It is safe to say that in the
past several decades, the Russians perfected the combustion cycle in
their liquid-fueled engines, and Americans perfected the less efficient
gas generator type of liquid fueled engines. Meanwhile, methane-based
rockets have been in the news, but they are not new. Propulsion
engineers have largely rejected them since the necessarily large size
of the rocket eventually cancels out any advantage in the lifting of
large payloads. Methane rockets would also require millions of dollars
in new launch infrastructure work. The Chinese are testing an engine
similar to the Russian one, and India is also starting development. I
think these are additional, important reasons for us to have a liquid-
fueled rocket engine which is domestically produced, with intellectual
property managed by the government and thus available always to
American launch vehicle companies.
Given the importance of space launch engines for national security,
shouldn't the government control the intellectual property surrounding
their development? Under the current acquisition model--I don't believe
that is the case.
Answer. In accordance with Department of Defense guidance, the
program manager is required to establish and maintain an intellectual
property strategy that identifies and manages the full spectrum of
intellectual property and related issues (e.g., technical data and
computer software deliverables, patented technologies, and appropriate
license rights) from the inception of a program and throughout the life
cycle.
The Commercial Space Launch Act requires that launch services be
procured as a commercial service. Therefore, the Government acquires
intellectual property rights at the appropriate level needed for low
risk mission assurance.
Space Acquisition
Question. In your view does the current Air Force model for space
acquisition stimulate or inhibit innovation and development of modern
advanced space launch engines?
Answer. Stimulates. Strategies are being developed for future
launch services in a partnership with government and industry, using
industry innovation to provide commercially viable launch systems that
can also meet National Security Space requirements.
Launch Capabilities
Question. I think I am correct when I say that when the Air Force
acquires a new aircraft, the Air Force procures that engine through a
competitive process and provides it to the interested aircraft
manufacturers. And that if we are developing a nuclear submarine, the
Navy buys the reactor through a competitive process separate from the
shipbuilder contracts. There is competition both in the design and
procuring of the engine, but also in the opportunity for companies to
submit vehicles to use those engines. And the engine itself is procured
in a way that protects the taxpayers investment.
Why are we not protecting our launch capabilities and the taxpayer
investment by using the same development and procurement process for
National Security Space launch?
Answer. The Commercial Space Act requires that space launches be
procured as a commercial service. As such, the Air Force does not own
or operate the launch vehicle hardware but instead, buys it like a
transportation service with appropriate technical oversight.
RD-180 Replacement
Question. How does the time frame and costs for multiple
certifications (multiple companies' engines and launch vehicles, i.e.,
the engine + the rocket) compare to the possible certification time and
cost of an engine which could be offered as government IP and designed
to work as a replacement for the RD-180?
Answer. Since certification is done with the launch service
provider, the most time efficient method would be to engage with the
service provider at the earliest opportunity in their design. A service
provider waiting for a government furnished engine is likely to be
faced with a longer schedule. The start of their design activities must
wait for government deliveries and approvals before they begin, since
they would not be able to engage directly in the design of the engine
and make launch system design trade-offs.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt.
Questions submitted by Mr. Israel and the answers thereto
follow:]
Operation Inherent Resolve
Question. What level of physical threat does ISIL currently pose to
your Airmen conducting operations in Iraq? What is your desired end-
state for Operation Inherent Resolve? Have you been given the resources
to achieve this end-state and to keep your Airmen safe?
Answer. Air Force aircrews operating against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
accept the same risk faced by all Servicemen and woman operating in
hostile environments. Those Airmen deployed in Iraq are largely
operating from established bases, relatively safe from direct fire.
Attacks have occurred, but are uncoordinated and sporadic. Air Force
and Joint Security Forces personnel have been successful in mitigating
and neutralizing these threats to our personnel through superior
training and equipment, supported by manned aircraft and remotely
piloted vehicles for base defense.
The Air Force is working diligently to train and equip Airmen
carrying out U.S. Air Forces Central Command (AFCENT) and U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM) missions in support of our Iraqi partners in
degrading and eventually destroying ISIL. Additionally, in coordination
with AFCENT and the Department of State, the Air Force enables both
Title 10 and Title 22 missions for building a strong, enduring
international air coalition and building partnership capacity in
support of CENTCOM's focus on multilateral solutions to regional
security concerns. The Air Force continues to resource and prioritize
AFCENT and CENTCOM requirements to degrade and destroy ISIL while
assuming additional risks in other regions and mission sets.
Question. The budget request includes significant increases for
certain munitions--split between the base and OCO accounts. What is
driving these increases for these munitions?
Answer. The increases in munitions for fiscal year 2016 support an
increase in demand for training, readiness, and combatant commander
requirements. The Hellfire missile and Joint Direct Attack Munition
quantities specifically, increased by $534.6 million and $330.7 million
(base and Overseas Contingency Operations funding). This is a direct
result of low inventory quantities compounded by increased usage in
support of OPERATION Freedom's Sentinel and OPERATION Inherent Resolve.
In addition, production quantities for other munitions such as
Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, Small Diameter Bomb, AIM-9
Sidewinder and AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile are
higher than previous budget submissions to recover inventories to
proper readiness levels.
Question. We've been told a significant number of U.S. munitions
have been transferred to allies or partners because the FMS process is
too slow for the increased demand, so some of this request is to
restore what we have given away. To what extent has this issue reduced
the Air Force's inventory?
Answer. Munitions sales to coalition partners have thus far been
moderate. Foreign military sales requests are expected to increase as
coalition partners come back for ``round two'' during OPERATION
Inherent Resolve, and new cases are developed in support of operations
in Yemen. While those sales by themselves are not a major impact to Air
Force munitions stockpile, combined with past, current, and projected
Air Force combat expenditures, the munitions stockpile has decreased.
Iran/Nuclear Deterrence
Question. Given the current threat environment, does the U.S. have
a credible nuclear deterrence strategy?
Answer. Yes. The President's National Security Strategy and Nuclear
Weapons Employment Strategy direct the Department of Defense to
maintain credible and effective nuclear forces capable of meeting the
full range of U.S. deterrence and assurance commitments. Both our
current force structure and the New START Treaty-compliant force
structure the U.S. is transitioning to are fully aligned with and
support this strategy.
Question. What message would reducing our nuclear arsenal send to
Iran and other bad actors throughout the globe?
Answer. Consistent with U.S. National Security Policy, the
Department of Defense (DOD) maintains nuclear forces capable of meeting
the full range of deterrence and assurance commitments that are vital
to our security and that of our allies and partners. Both the U.S.'s
current nuclear force structure and the New START Treaty-compliant
force structure DOD is transitioning to are fully aligned with and
support this strategy. This capable, survivable, and balanced force
preserves strategic stability and remains a highly credible and
effective deterrent to potential adversaries who seek to threaten the
U.S. or our allies and partners.
Question. I believe that we should have an ``all options on the
table'' approach when dealing with Iran. How confident are you that you
can gain and maintain air superiority against Iran, if required? How do
current BCA levels affect that capability?
Answer. In any contingency scenario involving aggressive air action
against the U.S. or our interests, we will likely be forced to
redistribute deployed Air Force forces due to the limited amount of
available force structure. In the process of addressing an emerging
threat, we would increase the risk to missions and forces in the areas
that would be vacated. BCA-level funding will exacerbate the readiness
challenges we already face.
Long Range Strike-Bomber
Question. What are the LRS-B program objectives compared to the
current bomber fleet?
Answer. The program's objectives are to provide operational
flexibility for Joint commanders through long range, significant
payload and survivability while allowing the option to hold any target
at risk at any point on the globe. With a broad geographic coverage,
LRS-B can operate deep and from long range, allowing it to penetrate
modern air defenses to accomplish objectives despite adversary anti-
denial/anti-access (A2/AD) measures. Even with updates, the current
bomber fleets are increasingly at risk to modern air defenses.
Additionally, LRS-B will have a wide mix of stand-off and direct attack
munitions and be built with the features and components necessary for
the nuclear mission to ensure nuclear certification 2 years after
conventional initial operating capability. The LRS-B will also enable
adaptability that allows the system to evolve as threats change and
mature. Finally, the LRS-B program is leveraging 30+ years of
developing, operating and sustaining highly advanced, stealthy
aircraft.
Question. Will the LRS-B give us the capability to destroy
adversary hard sites that include nuclear facilities? If you can't
answer this in writing, I would appreciate hearing about this in a
classified setting.
Answer. The LRS-B capability provides the President with the option
to hold any target at risk at any point on the globe. Additionally, the
aircraft's long range, significant payload and survivability provide
operational flexibility for Joint commanders. We can provide more
details in a classified setting, if you wish.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Israel.
Questions submitted by Mr. Ruppersberger and the answers
thereto follow:]
Long Range Strike-Bomber
Question. Can you discuss the complementary nature of these stealth
bombers and their roles in the evolving family of systems?
Specifically, can you address--though I acknowledge the topic is
somewhat sensitive--how a new long range strike bomber will add to the
Air Force's arsenal?
Answer. Our current bomber fleet is an aging but capable force.
However, our adversaries understand the advantage stealth gives us and
have been working on ways to diminish that advantage. Consequently the
fleet will become more susceptible as our adversaries improve their
anti-access capabilities. To enhance our global power projection
capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict, the Air Force
requires a new generation of stealthy, long-range strike aircraft that
can operate at great distances, carry substantial payloads, and operate
in and around contested airspace. The Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B)
is intended to provide this needed capability.
Until the aircraft becomes operational, we will continue working
diligently to maintain our technological and capability edge with the
current fleet. Since delivery of the last B-2 stealth aircraft in 1997,
we have made significant strides in all areas of combat aircraft
technologies and are leveraging those improvements in the development
of the LRS-B.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Ruppersberger. Questions submitted by Mr. Frelinghuysen and the
answers thereto follow:]
Nuclear Enterprise
Question. The Air Force's budget request includes new resources for
the nuclear mission, some of which is devoted to sustaining and
improving the existing force, and some of which is devoted to
modernization, such as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and the
Long Range Standoff programs. How would the Air Force prioritize
nuclear enterprise funding under the funding levels of the Budget
Control Act?
Answer. This is the U.S. Air Force's prioritized requirements for
the nuclear enterprise. The ``Increase'' column represents the most
critical and prioritized elements of the nuclear enterprise made in the
fiscal year 2016 President's Budget request.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program (# in millions) Increase FY16 PB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICBM Force Improvement Plan................... 65 2,600
Ground-based Strategic Deterrent (Incl Solid 58 75
Rocket Motor)................................
ICBM Fuze Modernization....................... 62 156
Air-Launched Cruise Missile Modernization..... 22 28
B-2 Common Low-Frequency Receiver Inc.\1\..... 16 61
ICBM Transport Security (UH-1, Payload 16 20
Transporter Replacement).....................
B-2 Defense Management System Modernization... 46 272
Nuclear Command, Control and Communications 13 13
Modernization \1\............................
ICBM Airborne Launch Control System........... 43 59
Military Construction (Weapons Storage 95 95
Facility, FE Warren, WY).....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$436 $3,379
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Inclds Strategic Air Command Automated C2 System, Low Frequency
Cable
A-10 and Close Air Support
Question. The Air Force has emphasized that close air support (CAS)
is a mission, not a platform. How will the Air Force ensure that CAS
remains a priority for training and investment as you shift more of the
CAS mission from the A-10 to multi-role fighters and bombers which need
to fulfill a broad spectrum of mission areas?
Answer. We have an unparalleled track record of supporting ground
forces through a variety of capabilities we bring to the joint fight.
The last U.S. soldiers killed by enemy air-to-surface fire were lost in
1953--safety from air attack is a direct result of our unrivaled
ability to establish and maintain air superiority. Similarly, CAS has
been a vital Air Force mission since before our inception in 1947. It's
ingrained in our doctrine and training, and is--just like air
superiority--part of who we are.
We've made solid investments in CAS capability with investments
such as Advanced Targeting Pods for B-1 bombers, Laser-guided JDAMs,
and low collateral damage bomb bodies such as the BLU-129, as well as
our advancements in CAS tactics, techniques and procedures, and
integration across Services and between our ground and air forces.
Another example is the recent Air Force Chief of Staff-sponsored Joint
Future CAS Focus Day on March 6, 2015. Three Joint working groups
comprised of CAS experts from the U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine
Corps, Joint Staff and other defense agencies spent over a week
researching and preparing to answer the questions, ``What is the
current CAS state of affairs?,'' ``Is there a gap?,'' and ``What do we
do next?'' Results and recommendations from these working groups were
very well received across our sister services, were out-briefed to the
four Service Chiefs, and approved by General Welsh for action. The
approved recommendations address key issues such as identifying
investment requirements, identifying CAS training priorities, changing
Department of Defense culture to address CAS as a mission vice
platform, and exploring methods to specifically maintain the CAS
culture.
We would be happy to brief you or your staff at any time as we
implement recommendations from our Joint Future CAS Focus Day and as we
continue protecting the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines engaged
in ground operations.
Question. Some have suggested that the Air Force should not retire
the A-10 until a dedicated CAS replacement aircraft is identified. Does
the Air Force have any plans to initiate an analysis of alternatives to
consider such an aircraft?
Answer. We do not have enough funding in our projected topline to
start a new program for a close-air support replacement aircraft, so we
have no plans to conduct an analysis of alternatives at this time. We
are examining potential options to mitigate any possible shortfalls in
the close air support mission until the F-35A becomes operational.
Until that time, the current combination of fighters and bombers will
continue to fulfill all combatant commander requirements in this area.
Global Hawk, U-2, and High Altitude ISR
Question. The Committee understands that the Air Force has
finalized an updated Capability Production Document for the Global Hawk
Block 30. What capabilities does the Air Force need for Block 30, and
how much money and time will it require to achieve those capabilities?
Answer. The capability production document for RQ-4 Block 30 was
signed on November 20, 2014 and documented the ``as built'' capability.
The fiscal year 2015 President's Budget request and 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act restored RQ-4 Block 30 aircraft and funded all the
modernization activities necessary to keep the entire RQ-4 fleet viable
throughout the envisioned life cycle. The fiscal year 2016 President's
Budget request maintains the modernization posture that includes
several key efforts: ground segment modernization, communications
system modernization, ASIP Increment 1, enhanced weather capability,
and sensor modularity. The current projected cost is approximately $1.2
billion over the next 8 years. Additional Block 30 modernization
efforts may be required before U-2 divestiture in fiscal year 2019 and
will be detailed to Congress in the High Altitude ISR Transition Plan.
Question. Even with the Air Force's extension of the U-2 fleet to
2019, a solution needs to be found with regard to the Optical Bar
Camera carried by the U-2 and the specific missions it is used for.
Does the Air Force still plan to integrate the OBC with the Block 30,
or has some other solution been identified?
Answer. The Air Force is currently exploring options to maintain a
broad area imagery capability as part of the High Altitude ISR
Transition Plan. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 funded a
study on the potential adaptation of U-2 sensors to the RQ-4 Block 30.
Phase 1 concluded that it is feasible to adapt the U-2's Optical Bar
Camera onto the RQ-4B. The Secretary of the Air Force will deliver
feasibility details to Congress this summer in fulfillment of fiscal
year 2015 congressional direction. The Air Force and Undersecretary of
Defense for Intelligence are reviewing all options to determine the
best system for integration.
Question. The Air Force's fiscal year 2015 budget request pulled
investment funding for the U-2 because of the plan to retire the fleet
in 2016. Now that the Air Force has extended the U-2 fleet to 2019,
some of that funding has been restored. How much funding has been
returned to the budget for U-2 operations and investments? What does
the investment funding provide?
Answer. The Air Force has restored a total of $143.7 million across
the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) in U-2 investment funding in the
Air Force fiscal year 2016 President's Budget request: $60.3 million in
Air Force Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding and $83.4
million in Air Force Procurement. Additionally, $1.2 billion in
Operation and Maintenance funding and $333 million in Military
Personnel funding was restored across the FYDP.
These funds support ongoing peacetime and combat operations with
the U-2 ISR system to sustain the current configuration and capability
as required by the National Defense Authorization Act and 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 2244a. Programs include the Pylon Equipment Group beyond line of
sight tech refresh, AN/ALQ-221 electronic warfare system low band
processor update, SENIOR YEAR electro-optical reconnaissance 2C
integration, multi-program Deep Look Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar
System development, and safety of flight systems.
F-35
Question. The Air Force plans to reach Initial Operating Capability
(IOC) for the F-35 as early as August 2016 and no later than December
2016. Do you have a more specific date for IOC at this point?
Answer. We do not yet have a specific date on which we expect the
Commander of Air Combat Command to declare initial operational
capability, but the program is tracking to the August through December
2016 timeframe. We will have more certainty as the program continues to
progress in development and flight test through 2015.
Question. The Air Force has defined IOC for the F-35A as 12 to 24
aircraft able to conduct limited air-to-air and air-to-ground missions
along with certain logistical and other support elements in place. Do
you believe that at IOC the Air Force will have a meaningful F-35A
combat capability that you would be willing to deploy?
Answer. The Air Force is confident that the F-35A will have
sufficient and meaningful combat capability at the time of initial
operational capability (IOC). As the Air Force's F-35A decision
authority, the Commander of Air Combat Command has established the set
of capability criteria he will use to determine whether to declare the
F-35A fleet ``IOC''. These criteria include weapons inventory and
mission system capability to conduct the specified mission sets of
close air support, interdiction, and limited suppression/destruction of
enemy air defenses. IOC-status for the F-35A fleet will not be
established until these criteria are satisfactorily completed.
Question. A media report in December 2014 (``Newest U.S. Stealth
Fighter `10 Years Behind' Older Jets'', Dailybeast.com) cited an
unnamed Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program declaring
that the F-35 will be 10 years behind legacy fighters largely due to
the aircraft's electro-optical targeting system, which was described by
yet another Air Force official as a big step backwards. The author of
this report apparently was able to find yet more anonymous Air Force
personnel who openly disparaged the F-35's gun, its flight performance,
and the prime contractor. It is disturbing to see this many Air Force
representatives lambasting one of the Air Force's top modernization
programs, even if they lack conviction to do so in their own names.
What is your response to this report?
Answer. Overall, the F-35 program is executing well across the
entire spectrum of acquisition, to include development and design,
flight test, production, fielding, and sustainment. While the Daily
Beast article does accurately highlight some of the ways electro-
optical targeting system (EOTS) baseline capabilities lag currently
fielded external targeting pods, maintaining the baseline F-35
development requirements as new targeting pod capability was evolved
was an informed decision by the Services and partners to minimize the
overall development risk of the broader F-35 program. The EOTS does
incorporate significant air-to-air infrared search and track
capabilities that do not exist in air-to-surface optimized targeting
pods. Upgrading and improving the second generation targeting pod
capabilities of the F-35 EOTS to leverage the significant investment in
targeting pod capabilities over the past decade is planned for the F-35
in Block 4 follow-on development. In Block 4, the EOTS will be upgraded
to current third generation capability based on Service and partner
warfighting priorities.
Long Range Strike-Bomber
Question. Many people find it hard to believe that the Air Force
can produce the new Long Range Strike-Bomber for $550 million or less
in per-unit production costs, and they can point to history to justify
their skepticism. The B-2 program originally envisioned 132 aircraft;
we ended up with 21, in large measure due to the fact that each B-2
cost about $1.5 billion in 2010 dollars (the same benchmark used by the
Air Force for the $550 million figure). The Air Force says that it has
learned lessons from past procurement programs that will help keep the
LRS-B cost under control. In your view, what went wrong with the B-2
program in terms of cost control?
Answer. The B-2 production costs were primarily driven by three
contributing factors. First, the quantity was decreased from 133
aircraft to 21. Based on the 1998 GAO report (GAO/NSIAD 98-152), the
program in 1986 expected to produce 133 aircraft at an average
procurement unit cost (APUC) of $329 million (in then-year dollars). By
1998 the planned buy was reduced to 21 aircraft at an APUC of $933
million (1996 SAR actuals were closer to an APUC of $1.1 billion for 15
aircraft). Second, state-of-the-art technology contributed to cost. The
B-2 pushed the state-of-the-art in mission systems, low observable
configuration, and manufacturing processes. Finally, there was
significant concurrency between development and production generating
additional costs in engineering change orders and aircraft
modifications.
With regard to the LRS-B, the Air Force has set affordable,
achievable, and realistic requirements balanced by cost considerations
that have been stable for years. The program has minimized new
development to allow for the integration of mature technologies and
existing systems to reduce risk. Informed design trades were made to
meet the unit cost target to ensure sufficient production and a
sustainable inventory over the long term. The APUC target is $550
million in base year 2010 dollars to provide a constant requirement and
is applicable to 100 aircraft procurement.
MQ-9 Reaper
Question. Former Secretary of Defense Gates established the 65
Combat Air Patrol (CAP) objective in 2010. The Committee understands
that this has driven the requirements of the MQ-9 procurement program.
Please explain what this CAP goal requires in terms of aircraft, and
how this in turn drives the size of the objective Reaper fleet.
Answer. The 2010 requirement of 65 MQ-9 CAPs required 401 aircraft.
This number equates to enough aircraft to meet combat, training, test,
back-up inventory and attrition reserve requirements.
The fiscal year 2014 Defense Appropriations Act MQ-9 program of
record was 65 combat air patrols. This was changed in the fiscal year
2015 Defense Appropriations Act to 55 combat air patrols requiring 346
aircraft. The fiscal year 2016 President's Budget request requests 60
combat air patrols requiring an increase to 364 aircraft.
Question. At one time the Air Force's MQ-9 fleet objective was over
400 aircraft. Last year, it was reduced to a little over 340. In this
year's budget the number is increased to 361. Do you consider your MQ-9
fleet objective to be settled?
Answer. No. The Air Force is unable to provide a final aircraft
procurement total without a validated requirement for a finite number
of combat air patrols (CAPs). Outside agencies have influenced the
final CAP count over the last three budget cycles. AII indications are
that this CAP volatility will continue for the foreseeable future.
Next Generation Air Dominance
Question. ``The Air Force's budget request for fiscal year 2016
includes $8.8 million to continue the Next Generation Air Dominance
(NGAD) program begun last year. The Department of Defense also has
announced an Aerospace Innovation Initiative (AII), described by the
Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as ``a new
DARPA led program in partnership with the Navy and Air Force, intended
to develop technologies and address the risks associated with the air
dominance platforms that will follow the F-35''. What is your
understanding of the AII and how will this initiative interact with
NGAD?
Answer. The Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics initiated the Aerospace Innovation Initiative (AII) to
ensure that the United States can maintain air dominance in future
contested environments. AII will develop and demonstrate technologies
enabling cost-effective air warfare capabilities necessary to defeat
future near-peer threats. AII builds on the earlier Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency-led/Air Force/Navy Air Dominance Initiative
(ADI) that determined that no single new technology or platform could
deter evolving adversary systems.
Next Generation Air Dominance will leverage the developed and
demonstrated AII capabilities that enhance persistence, survivability,
lethality and connectivity in 2030 and beyond. Primarily through the
Air Force Air Superiority 2030 Enterprise Capability Collaboration
Team, NGAD will interact directly with AII as an essential complement
to program efforts to pursue potential game-changing technologies and
capabilities needed to maintain U.S. strategic advantage in air
superiority.
Aggressor Training Requirements
Question. Budget constraints and recent Air Force actions such as
the deactivation of the 65th Aggressor Squadron raise concerns about
the Air Force's ability to provide adequate ``red air'' training for
pilots to achieve full-spectrum readiness. The Committee understands
that the Air Force has taken some steps to consider the use of
commercial air services to provide such training. Please provide a
status report on the consideration of such services and the Air Force's
intentions in this regard.
Answer. The Air Force is considering commercial air services as a
part of the solution to our current shortfall in aggressor capacity.
Meanwhile, the F-16 Aggressors from the 64th Aggressor Squadron will
continue to provide professional dedicated aggressor flying and
academic support from Nellis Air Force Base. Air Combat Command has
been leading a working group investigating solutions to the Nellis Air
Force Base Adversary Air (ADAIR) deficit in the absence of the 65th
Aggressor Squadron. The Air Combat Command Director of Operations is
considering a potential trial to better ascertain the costs and
benefits of a short-term ADAIR contract.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Frelinghuysen.]
Tuesday, March 3, 2015.
U.S. AFRICA COMMAND
WITNESS
GENERAL DAVID M. RODRIGUEZ, USA, COMMANDER, U.S. AFRICA COMMAND
Opening Statement of Chairman Frelinghuysen
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The committee will come to order.
From the onset, I would like to recognize the ranking
member, Mr. Visclosky, 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.
It could be a rather short hearing this morning.
And, General Rodriguez, thank you for being here. Members
will come in as they are available. I explained to you that
there are quite a lot of chairs and ranking members on this
committee. But you have an important command, and we look
forward to hearing from you.
This morning, the subcommittee conducts a closed hearing on
the posture of the United States Africa Command, a full-
spectrum combatant command responsible for all of the defense
operations, exercises, and security cooperation on the African
continent and surrounding waters.
The command is important, primarily due to the growing
presence of Al Qaeda, ISIL, and other terrorist organizations
among the command's area of responsibility of 53 nations. The
reality is that the African continent has become the new haven
for extremism, presenting significant opportunities and
challenges, including those associated with military-to-
military relationships.
Regional instability within AFRICOM, combined with the
expanded responsibilities for protecting U.S. personnel and
facilities, have increased operational requirements.
Today, we are pleased to welcome General David Rodriguez,
AFRICOM Commander, a military leader with a very impressive
understanding of his AOR.
General, thank you for testifying again before our
committee.
Of course, the committee is concerned that certain African
countries offer readymade havens for terrorist training and
recruitment activity during a time in which our way of life has
been threatened by those with radical beliefs. The area within
your command is a prime target for terrorist activity because
of its vastness and the large number of countries, many of
which are ungovernable, dysfunctional, or have all of the above
plus unmonitored borders.
General, as you know, we face a truly challenging fiscal
environment, but we must make sure that the budget we pass
provides you with the tools and trained personnel you rely on
to do your job. We look forward to getting your thoughts today
on how we might best do that.
We look forward to your testimony, but, first, I would like
to call on my ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for any comments
he may wish to make.
Mr. Visclosky. Chairman, I appreciate you bringing us
together today.
And, General, I appreciate your service and look forward to
your testimony. Thank you very much.
General Rodriguez. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General, welcome, on behalf of the
committee. And we have your summarized statement, and that will
be put--we have your entire statement. That will be put in the
record, and appreciate any comments you care to give to the
committee.
General Rodriguez. Okay, sir.
Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to update you on the efforts of United States
Africa Command.
First, let me express my gratitude to you for your
unfailing support to our servicemembers and their families.
Their service and sacrifice underwrite our Nation's security in
an increasingly complex world of accelerating change.
Today, our Nation faces heightened strategic uncertainty.
Strategic and military risks are significant and increasing.
Evolving threats include the expansion of the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant, a resilient Al
* * * * * * *
[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]
Wednesday, March 4, 2015.
FISCAL YEAR 2016 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET OVERVIEW
WITNESSES
HON. ASHTON B. CARTER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL MARTIN DEMPSEY, USA, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
HON. MIKE McCORD, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER
Chairman Frelinghuysen Opening Remarks
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good morning. The committee will come to
order. We are pleased to welcome the 25th Secretary of Defense,
Ashton Carter. This is Mr. Carter's first appearance before our
subcommittee as Secretary, although we know him well from his
many years of service to our Nation.
We also welcome back General Martin Dempsey. Thank you for
your service as 4 years as the head of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. You are over close to, what, 41 years in the U.S. Army,
your Jersey City roots and your--obviously your attendance at
our premiere--one of our premiere military academies, West
Point.
I also welcome Mr. Michael McCord, who is making his first
appearance before the subcommittee as the Comptroller of the
Department. Gentlemen, welcome.
As you know, our committee has, as always, two principal
responsibilities: First, to provide the Department of Defense
and the intelligence community with the resources they need to
carry out their missions to protect America and our allies.
The second responsibility is to ensure that our men and
women in uniform, every one of whom has volunteered to serve,
have the resources they need to defend our Nation and support
their families.
As we gather here this morning, both of those tasks are
becoming more difficult. The threat environment facing America
is complicated and more dangerous. The fiscal challenges are
worse than ever before. As the Budget Control Act of 2011
remains the law of the land, we find ourselves staring down the
barrel of renewed tight budget caps.
Mr. Secretary and General Dempsey, I completely agree that
the BCA needs to be modified to avoid dramatic consequences and
long-term negative impacts on our military capability. But
unless and until the law is changed, this committee has no
choice but to draft our bill to comply with the BCA caps, at
least $37 billion below the President's budget request. So we
will need to work very closely together to ensure the funding
you are appropriated is sufficient to take care of our
uniformed and civilian personnel, maintain your readiness at
the highest possible level, and sustain our technological
advantages. The decision this committee makes will help set the
foundation for America's defense capabilities, not just for
fiscal year 2016, but for many years to come.
While there is much public focus and concern on the BCA and
the sequester, choices are made or not made by our Commander in
Chief every day that have a direct bearing on our defense and
intelligence posture and this defense budget. After all,
sequester did not create ISIS, that depraved, barbaric force
that grew as a result of our premature withdrawal from Iraq.
Sequester is not responsible for over 200,000 deaths in Syria,
millions of refugees and displaced families throughout the
Middle East.
Sequester had nothing to do with the President's State of
the Union declaration that the United States is no longer on a
war footing. Sequester did not loosen sanctions on Iran and let
that nation advance to the brink of a game-changing nuclear
weapons capability. Sequester did not prompt Vladimir Putin to
annex Crimea and send his troops to fight alongside separatists
in eastern Ukraine. Sequester did not lead us to liberate Libya
and then turn our back while the country devolved into a
dangerous breeding ground for terrorists.
Mr. Secretary, General Dempsey, we look forward to your
comments and an informative question-and-answer period. In
addition to your assessments of the Middle East and Persian
Gulf, the subcommittee also wants to hear your views on the
conventional and unconventional threats posed by China, Russia,
Iran, North Korea, and nonstate actors, a/k/a terrorists
groups, such as ISIL, al Qaeda, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, and
others, and the costs of meeting those challenges.
In closing, Mr. Secretary, we must make certain that in
meeting the demands of the fiscal austerity, we do not leave
any question about our will and our ability to defend ourselves
and our interests around the world. Without objection, your
written statements will be introduced, entered into the record.
So feel free to summarize your statements this morning. And
with that, let me turn to my good friend, Pete Visclosky, the
ranking member, for any comments he may wish to make.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate you
holding the hearing. Defense Secretary Carter and Under
Secretary McCord, we do look forward to having your testimony
before the subcommittee today, the first time in your current
roles.
General Dempsey, I do understand, as the chairman alluded
to, today may be your last official appearance before the
Defense Subcommittee as chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I would
point out that your steady leadership has helped the services
navigate some very turbulent years, and I and all of us thank
you for your dedication and sacrifice both you and your family
have made over the last 40 years.
The crux of the challenge facing the subcommittee will
undoubtedly be reconciling the Department's fiscal year budget
request for 2016 with the significantly lower spending caps
established by the Budget Control Act. While I am sure we will
see attempts at finding relief from the constraints of BCA, I
do not anticipate a significant change between now and when
this bill is marked up, as there appears to be insurmountable
obstacles blocking every path forward.
Since it is our role to prepare legislation according to
the law as it is today, I believe this subcommittee will be
required to mark at a level that is $33.3 billion below the
President's request. In order to accomplish that feat, having
open lines of communication between the Department and Congress
will be imperative. We need to make difficult and deliberate
decisions to prioritize the limited resources available in
order to minimize the risk to our Nation and the men and women
in uniform.
One area where we may need to find a consensus is the
balance between readiness and modernization. It is my opinion,
and my opinion alone, that the Department's budget favors
modernization over readiness. This is best evidenced by the
proposed growth in procurement and research and development
versus more modest percentage increases in the accounts that
tie directly to the readiness of forces.
Last week we heard from the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air
Force leadership regarding their ongoing struggles to recover
readiness following the sequestration of 2013. For example, the
Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary James, stated more than
half of our combat Air Forces, half, are not sufficiently ready
for a high-end fight. Further, the service leaders warned that
returning to the BCA caps in fiscal year 2016 will only
exacerbate the readiness deficit.
Additionally, in the fiscal year 2016 budget request, the
Department of Defense again proposes some significant
initiatives to stem the growth in personnel-related expenses.
These include proposed changes to basic allowances for housing,
the commissary benefits, and TRICARE. In past years, with a few
exceptions, these proposals have gained very little traction
within the Congress. Again, my opinion only, I hope that as
more Members of Congress accept the actuality of limited
resources, that we will be able, Congress, to seriously
consider some of these proposals that you have brought forth,
as well as those brought forth by the Military Compensation
Retirement Modernization Commission. Congress has a
responsibility in this area as well.
Finally, I am pleased that the budget sustains funding for
financial audibility improvements. I wholeheartedly support the
Department's reaching the 2017 goal for auditable financial
statements, a tool that will help manage the finite resources
that we have. And, again, gentlemen, I look forward for your
testimony. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
Mrs. Lowey, the ranking member of the full committee.
Remarks of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for
this hearing. Also, I want to join my chairman in welcoming
incoming Secretary Carter, General Dempsey, Under Secretary
McCord, and the rest of our distinguished guests.
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget submission for the
Department of Defense is roughly $33 billion above the BCA
level. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have
stated their opposition to the funding levels and revenue
portions of the budget request. I would respond that after this
committee has cut $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending,
excluding sequestration, are we really unwilling to close tax
loopholes in order to invest more in transportation,
infrastructure, education, job training, biomedical research
and other R&D efforts, and the military?
The world is quickly changing, requiring our continued
commitment to the defense of this Nation, our allies around the
world. Currently, we are fully committed in multiple operations
on various continents. However, we struggle to provide funding
that reflects this commitment. We face a determined and
expanding presence with ISIS, decisions in Ukraine, policy
decisions combating cyber threats, and training and assistance
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many of the personnel issues we faced in the past are still
a concern to the military. Although sexual assault numbers seem
to be improving, the overall problem still exists. We have
several recommendations on force structure changes and military
compensation reforms to consider. We are still working to
prevent suicides, integrate women into combat positions, and
obtain a fully interoperable electronic healthcare record
system between DOD and the VA.
I must tell you, I know there are major challenges in the
world today. But I cannot understand how it has taken this long
for DOD and the VA to get together. And as I understand, sir,
you are still out. You still haven't selected a system, and why
you can't use the same system as the VA is beyond me. The
private sector, as I understand it in my conversations with
many people, you get a chip, you go onto your next job, your
whole record is there. We charge you with the responsibility of
fighting wars, yet you can't get together with our own VA
system and do it expeditiously.
And, yes, I understand, you are about to make a decision.
It has only been a year or more, but members of this committee
and this Congress are very frustrated with the fact that this
can't proceed more efficiently and expeditiously. The results
of these efforts will ensure quality of life for servicemembers
and their families, whether they stay in the military or
transition to civilian life.
So let me conclude by saying, fiscal uncertainty aside, we
owe it to our military, the Nation, and our allies to ensure we
prioritize and fund the most critical defense-related budget
items. So thank you very much for being here. We look forward
to hearing your testimony.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey. Before turning
the floor over to the Secretary, let me associate myself with
your comments on the medical records. Department of Defense is
about to embark on a multiyear $13 billion contract, and I
think all of the committee members feel that that contract
needs to be integrated with whatever the VA has and is looking
forward to investing in itself.
Mr. Secretary, good morning. Thank you for being with us.
Congratulations on your new assignment.
Summary Statement of Secretary Carter
Secretary Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
and thank Ranking Member Visclosky for having me here this
morning, and thank all the members of the committee for
inviting me to be here with you today. While I have had the
opportunity to speak with many of you before, this is my first
time testifying to this committee as the Secretary of Defense.
My care and respect for the men and women of the finest
fighting force the world has ever known is as boundless as
their skill and dedication. I know this committee shares the
same devotion to them and shares responsibility for them and
for the defense of our great country. And I hope that my tenure
as Secretary of Defense will be marked by partnership with you
on their behalf.
I am here to present the President's budget for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2016. And since I have
been in the job for exactly 2 weeks and a day, it is plain that
I did not have a role in shaping this budget. But I have
studied it carefully, and I am fully prepared to answer your
questions about it, and to work with you to find common ground
where you have concerns.
Most importantly, I strongly support the President in
requesting a defense budget above the artificial caps of the
Budget Control Act, that is, above so-called sequester levels.
Next year and in the years thereafter, I share the President's
desire to find a way forward that upholds the fundamental
principles behind the bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. And I
support the President's commitment to vetoing any bill that
locks in sequestration, because to do otherwise would be both
unsafe and wasteful.
Before I turn to the budget to explain what I mean by that,
allow me to share some observations from my short time on the
job, observations that help reinforce my testimony here.
Shortly after I was sworn in, I spoke to the people at the
Department of Defense, military, civilian, and contractor, and
I told them I had three commitments as Secretary of Defense.
The first is to them and their families, to their safety, their
welfare and their effectiveness, and equally to those who came
before them and will come after them.
The second commitment is to assist the President as he
makes difficult choices about how to defend the country in a
turbulent world, as the chairman has affirmed, and then to
carry out those decisions where they involve the use of
military force.
And the third commitment is to the future, to make sure our
military remains the very best in an ever changing world, amid
fast moving technological and commercial change and, as we seek
to attract new generations, to the wonderful mission of
national security in our Department.
Because of those commitments, I traveled at the end of my
first week on the job to Afghanistan to visit our troops and
commanders, and also the leaders of Afghanistan and some of
their military leaders. I wanted to assess the conditions on
the ground there as we enter a new phase of our long campaign
and as we carry out the transition to an enduring presence that
will ensure, as the President says, that our progress in
Afghanistan sticks.
Next, I traveled to Kuwait, where I met with the Emir
before convening with senior American diplomats and military
leaders from throughout the region, ambassadors from several
countries, our commanders from Central Command, European
Command, Africa Command, and Special Operations Command, and
the commanders of the campaign in Iraq and Syria against ISIL.
I wanted to hear directly from them about the complex political
and military situation in the entire region, and about the best
approaches to leveraging U.S. leadership of the broad coalition
combating this ugly scourge.
And this morning, I would be pleased to discuss these
challenges or any others in addition to the defense budget. But
the point is, that in these regions of the world, just as in
the Asia-Pacific, in Europe, and elsewhere, it is America's
leadership and America's men and women in uniform who stand
between disorder and order, who stand up to militias and
destabilizing actors while standing with those who believe with
us in a more secure, just, and prosperous future for all our
children.
But this Congress will determine whether our troops can
continue to do so. The administration is proposing to increase
the defense budget in line with the projections submitted to
Congress last year. By halting the decline in defense spending
imposed by the Budget Control Act, the President's budget would
give us the resources we need to execute our Nation's defense
strategy. But--and I want to be clear about this--under
sequestration, which is set to return in 211 days, our Nation
will be less secure.
Mr. Chairman, as you and your colleagues have said,
sequestration threatens our military readiness--and that was a
point that Ranking Member Visclosky made very accurately and
pointedly a few moments ago--threatens our military's
readiness, the size of our warfighting forces, the capabilities
of our air and Naval fleets, and ultimately, the lives of our
men and women in uniform. The Joint Chiefs have said the same
before the Congress, and they could not have been more clear in
their assessment of how sequestration would damage our national
security.
The great tragedy is that this corrosive damage to our
national security is not the result of objective factors or
logic or reason. It is not that we have some new breakthrough
in military technology or a novel strategic insight that
somehow provides the same security for a smaller budget. It is
not that sequester is forced upon us by an economic emergency
or a dire recession that makes taking grave security risks
absolutely necessary. It is surely not the case that the world
has suddenly become more stable or that America has less to do
to keep it safe, allowing us to take a peace dividend of some
kind. It is not even that these cuts solve the Nation's overall
fiscal challenges, because the sad math is that they are large
and sudden enough to damage defense, but fail to resolve our
long-term fiscal issues and the real drivers of the deficit and
debt.
So sequester was not the result of objective factors.
Sequester is purely the fallout of political gridlock. Its
purpose was to compel prudent compromise on our long-term
fiscal challenges, a compromise that never came. This has been
compounded in recent years because the Defense Department has
suffered a double whammy, the worst of both worlds, that has
coupled mindless sequestration with constraints on our ability
to reform. We need your help with both.
I know that Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member
Visclosky, and others on this committee are as dedicated to
reform as I am. We at the Pentagon can and must do better with
getting value for the defense dollar. Taxpayers have trouble
comprehending, let alone supporting the defense budget when
they hear about cost overruns, insufficient accounting and
accountability, needless overhead, excess infrastructure and
the like. There are significant savings to be found across DOD,
and we are committed to pursuing them.
But at the same time, I must note that in the past several
years, painful but necessary reforms proposed by DoD, reforms
involving elimination of overhead and unneeded infrastructure,
retirement of older force structure, and reasonable adjustments
in compensation have been denied by Congress at the same time
that sequestration looms. I will work with Congress to resolve
concerns and find common ground in these matters, but we must
have your support.
Sequester cuts don't help us achieve meaningful reform. In
fact, the nature of sequester frequently leads to waste as, for
example, when it forces a reduction in contract production
rates, driving up unit costs. If confronted with sequestration
level budgets and continued obstacles to reform, I do not
believe that we can simply keep making incremental cuts while
maintaining the same general set of objectives that have
anchored our defense strategy. We would have to change the
shape and not just the size of our military, significantly
affecting parts of our defense strategy. We cannot meet
sequester with further half measures.
As Secretary of Defense, I will not send our troops into a
fight with outdated equipment, inadequate readiness or
ineffective doctrine. But everything else is on the table,
including parts of our budget that have long been considered
inviolate. This may lead to decisions that no Americans,
including Members of Congress, want us to make. Now, I am not
afraid to ask the difficult questions, but if we are stuck with
sequestration budget cuts over the long-term, our entire Nation
will have to live with the answers.
So instead of sequestration, I urge you to embrace the
alternative, building the force of the future powerful enough
to underwrite our strategy, equipped with boldly new
technology, leading in domains like cyber and space, attracting
and retaining the best Americans to our mission, being lean and
efficient throughout this enterprise, and showing resolve to
friends and potential foes alike. I think we can all agree that
the world in 2014 was more complicated than anyone could have
predicted. Given today's security environment, the President's
proposed increase in defense spending over last year's budget
is responsible and it is prudent.
I hope we can come together behind a long-term budget
approach that dispels sequester and provides stability rather
than doing this 1 year at a time. I hope we can again unite
behind what our great Nation should and must do to protect our
people and make a better world. And I hope we can provide our
magnificent men and women of the Department of Defense, who
make up the greatest fighting force the world has ever known,
what they need and what they fully deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The written statement of Secretary Carter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Dempsey.
Statement of General Martin Dempsey
General Dempsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Visclosky, other distinguished members of this panel and
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you an
update on the Armed Forces and to discuss our defense budget
for 2016. Let me--I wasn't prepared, or I haven't even
confronted the fact that this might be my last appearance
before this committee, so let me thank you for the very kind
words. And it has been a tumultuous 4 years with many
challenges, but I have been surrounded by a great team made of
service chiefs, service secretaries, Secretaries of Defense,
and the great civilians that support us in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense. And I can't think of another time in our
history when I would rather have served, because I think
service is a blessing and, in particular, when you feel like
you can actually make a difference for our country and for the
men and women who volunteer to serve. So thank you very much
for the kind words.
Our military remains strong today, but we can't and must
not take that for granted. I will actually abbreviate my
statement--I was doing that while you were speaking, Mr.
Secretary--by deferring the many security challenges we face to
the Q&A, to the question and answer. And I will just jump
straight to a brief comment on the budget itself.
The global security environment is as uncertain as I have
seen in my 40 years of service. And we are at a point where our
national aspirations are at genuine risk of exceeding our
available resources.
We have heard the Congress of the United States loud and
clear as it has challenged us to become more efficient and to
determine the minimum essential requirements that we need as an
Armed Force to do what the Nation asks us to do. PB-16 is that
answer. In my judgment, this budget represents a responsible
combination of capability, capacity, and readiness. It is what
we need to remain at the bottom edge of manageable risk to our
national defense. There is no slack left. We have been working
on the slack for the last 3 years. There is no margin of error
nor any buffer built in to strategic surprise.
Funding lower than PB-16 and a lack of flexibility--and
what I mean by that is the reform measures that we have--
internal reform measures that we have proposed. By the way,
this group of chiefs has made more proposals on changing pay
compensation, healthcare, infrastructure, and weapon systems
than any in history. It has been a difficult journey and a
difficult debate on doing that. It has been difficult to
communicate to our men and women serving why we have to do it.
But we have taken that responsibility on and have made several
recommendations to you on internal reforms, and we certainly
need both the top-line increase that the President has
provided, but just as importantly, the reforms that we have
requested.
If we get anything lower than PB-16 or if we don't get some
of the flexibility that we have baked into the budget, then we
will have to change our strategy. Now, that may not--that may
be a bit abstract to you. I would be unhappy to unpack that a
bit today. We think our strategy is what the Nation needs. And
if we can't execute it, what I will be saying to you is that we
are not doing what the Nation needs us to do.
For the past 25 years, the U.S. Military has secured the
global commons. We have been very effective at deterring
adversaries. We have reassured our allies. And we have
responded to conflict and crises by maintaining our presence
abroad. It has been our strategy to shape the international
security environment by our forward presence and by building
relationships with regional partners. In general terms, one-
third of our force is generally deployed, one-third is just
back, and one-third is getting ready to go. Of necessity,
certain of our capabilities have actually deployed with half of
the available capability forward and the other half back,
recovering. This, as you know, puts a significant strain on
those who serve in those particular specialties and their
families.
Sequestration will fundamentally and significantly change
the way we deploy the force and shape the environment. We will
be almost 20 percent smaller when all is said and done from
where we started, and our forward presence will be reduced by
about a third. We will have less influence and we will be less
responsive. Conflict will take longer to resolve, and it will
be more costly in both dollars and in casualties. In an age
when we are less certain about what will happen next but we are
very certain that it will happen more quickly, we will be
further away and less ready than we need to be. Simply stated,
sequestration will result in a dramatic change in how we
protect our Nation and how we promote our national security
interests.
Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, our men and
women in uniform are performing around the globe, as the
Secretary said, with extraordinary courage, character, and
professionalism. We owe them and their families clarity and,
importantly, predictability on everything from policy to
compensation, healthcare, equipment, training, and readiness.
Settling down uncertainty--and, by the way, the reason I am
so passionate about asking you to settle down our budget and to
do as the Secretary said, get us out of this cycle of one year
at a time is that I would like to have at least one variable in
my life fixed. And I think the one that is most likely to have
an opportunity to be fixed is, in fact, our resources. But in
any case, if we do that, if we successfully settle down our
budget uncertainty, get some flexibility and some time to
absorb the reductions we have already been given, then, I
think, we will keep the right people who are really our
decisive edge in the all-volunteer force and maintain the
military that the American people deserve and, frankly, expect.
I am very grateful for the continued support of our men--
that our men and women in uniform receive from you and the
Congress of the United States, and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[The written statement of General Dempsey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RELATIONSHIP WITH IRAN REGARDING IRAQ
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Respectfully, it may be implied in my
opening statement, is clarity of foreign and military policy. I
think members who looked at their Wall Street Journal headline
yesterday, ``Iran Backs Iraqi Offensive As Pentagon Steers
Clear.'' I know you were before the Senate yesterday. And I
have to say, well, the untold story is that not only did we
leave a vacuum for ISIS, but we have Iran in Iraq in a way that
most Americans are totally unaware of.
We have a public commitment to train and equip a complex
group of Sunnis and Shiites. And what are the Iranians doing
with the Quds force. They have trained and equipped and
motivated thousands of people. And there is a strong
likelihood, as they move on Tikrit and perhaps on Mosul, that
you could have a total disintegration of the entire country. So
there is a mixture of policy and resources. And so I do have a
few questions.
Are we neutral with Iran these days, considering the crimes
that have been committed against humanity, not only our own? Is
anybody ever going to hold Iran accountable? I know we are
keeping our distance physically from them in Baghdad. Have we
ceded most of the governance of Iraq to Iranian choices? It is
a good question. And will the military operations that are
undergoing, which we are watching, divide the country and
require us in some ways to spend more of our resources?
So I would like to talk about just a case in point. We can
point to what is happening in Ukraine, our evacuation from
Yemen, the terrible mess in Libya. But a lot of it is
associated with a lack of clarity as to where we are, what our
leadership position is. Could we focus on Iran?
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Carter. Surely. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let
me say that I absolutely share your concern about the role of
Iran in Iraq and the wider region.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah.
Secretary Carter. But just to focus on Iraq for a moment,
the--what created the vacuum and the opportunity for ISIL in
Iraq was the re-emergence of sectarianism. And I think that,
going forward, what we are trying to support, including in our
train and equip, is a strong multisectarian Government of Iraq.
That is our objective.
Now, if you ask me, is that a sure thing, I would say no,
and I would say that that is our objective; that is our hope;
that is the only thing that can bring stability to Iraq, and I
think it is the fastest route to the defeat of ISIL.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Some would suggest--I say this
respectfully again--that the Shiites and the Sunnis, that there
was--you didn't have to go too far below the skin to find the
resurgence. I mean, the killings that were perpetrated in the
period of time after we left Iraq would never be forgotten by
those who--those in the country who were killed or maimed or
kidnapped or slaughtered.
Secretary Carter. No. I completely agree with you. And
sectarianism is one of the things that concerns me very much.
And, of course, it is the root of the Iranian presence in Iraq.
And to get to around and around the region, you mentioned
several other places where Iranian influence is concerning to
us and we need to watch very closely. So I just share your
concern about----
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And about the only area that we have to
look for funds is the Overseas Contingency Operations, OCO. It
used to be called the war on terrorism. Now it is the OCO fund.
That is the only area where we have the flexibility to meet all
these various challenges and enemies.
Secretary Carter. Yes. Thanks in part to this committee,
OCO has been a major source now for many years of the budgetary
flexibility that we need to respond to new contingencies. So
this year we are asking for OCO funding for the campaign
against ISIL. We are asking OCO funding to continue the
campaign in Afghanistan and make sure the success there
sticks--again, not a sure thing, but something that we need to
make sure sticks. And you mentioned Ukraine as well, the
European reassurance initiative, all those----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, the issue here--my point is, and I
will turn to Mr. Visclosky. What are our plans? I mean, hope is
not a plan. We hope things go well in Iraq. In other parts of
the world, things have not gone so well and people are sort of
looking to us to see whether we are going to step in and
provide some degree of leadership.
Mr. Visclosky.
AUDITABLE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first comment I
would make, and both Secretary and General Dempsey also alluded
to it in referring back to my opening statement, Secretary, in
your prepared statement you say, at the same time, Congress--
talking about the need to make decisions, particularly in the
arena of personnel issues, has sometimes fought to protect
programs that DOD has argued are no longer needed or required
significant reform. Again, I agree with your assertion. I
wouldn't suggest that the Department is always right in every
characteristic. On the other hand, we simply cannot continue
down this road as far as the allocation of your resources,
whether at BCA level or we are $33 billion above. So certainly
agree with that.
Mr. McCord, I think my first question would be directed to
you. I was very pleased to see that the statement of budgetary
resources for the Marine Corps received an unqualified opinion.
And, as I do every year when the Comptroller appears, I ask
about the goal of achieving auditable results for the
Department by 2017 and wonder where we are in that regard?
Mr. McCord. Thank you, Congressman. We have taken a big
step in December. We put--we went on contract, the Army, the
Navy, and the Air Force had to follow in the steps of the
Marines to do the statement of budgetary resources stage 1,
which is called a schedule of budgetary activities. So we have
gone from years of thinking about it, planning for it, to
actually being in the game, having auditors on the ground who
are now working with our military departments to tell them
where we are up to par and where we are not up to par. And I am
not sure we are going to like all the answers that we hear from
that. But it is a big change to actually be doing it as opposed
to planning for it. So that is really the big thing that we are
working with our military departments on this year, is actually
being under audit for not just the Marines, as important as it
is, but the much bigger other three departments, other three
services.
HEALTH OF THE NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE
Mr. Visclosky. Appreciate it very much.
Just one other question, Mr. Chairman, and that is on the
nuclear component of the Department of Defense. The focus of
much of the work that we do in relationship to the Department
of Defense are from threats from powers we would not consider
major powers, as lethal and as destructive as they are. And as
we proceed, if you would, with the issue of modernization, you
look at some of the issues that the Air Force has confronted as
far as their bomber fleet, as far as the control of the silos.
Are some of the triads, are we in danger of some hollowing out
of them? And is there a reconsideration, given limited
resources, as to whether or not a triad is what is still called
for in the future?
General Dempsey. Thank you, Congressman. The Joint Chiefs
and I remain committed of the belief, and it is our advice that
the triad remains an essential factor in our nuclear
deterrence. And as you are well aware, I think the former
Secretary of Defense conducted or directed a review of the
nuclear enterprise. Because over the course of time when we
were focused on, as you said yourself, on nonstate actors, that
enterprise had--we failed to take appropriate attention to it
in terms of its leader development, of its infrastructure, and
its modernization.
You will see in this budget, of course, that at the end of
that review, the Secretary went forward to the President and
requested additional top line for that very reason, and the
President agreed to provide it. So if you are asking me about
nuclear strategy--by the way, the man sitting to my left
probably knows more about nuclear issues than anyone in the
government. But from the military perspective, we remain
convinced that the triad is the appropriate formulary for the
nuclear enterprise.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Chairman Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, welcome to the hearing. Mr. Secretary,
congratulations----
Secretary Carter. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. On your elevation. We wish you all
the best in the world.
Secretary Carter. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Let me briefly ask you--and I think it has been
touched on already. I am sorry I am late to the hearing. We
have had two others----
About the electronic record system, medical records. People
have heard me tell this before, and I apologize for that. But a
young veteran came to me a few years ago from my district. He
was severely injured in Iraq, lost one eye. The other eye was
severely disabled, but he could still see. So he is discharged.
His good eye begins to act up as well, so he goes to the VA
Hospital in Lexington, and they do nothing because they
couldn't get his records from the military, from DOD, from the
operations that took place in Germany after he was injured. So
they were afraid to operate because of what they didn't know
was in there. So he lost his eye simply because the VA could
not get the medical records of his service in the military.
That is completely unacceptable to cause a young man to lose
the sight in his eyes because of bureaucratic ineptitude.
We have been on a tear on this committee now for a few
years to straighten that out. DOD says, oh, yes, we are going
to fix it. VA says, oh, yes, we are going to fix it. But they
still keep to their own systems. And for the life of me, I
can't understand why you can't interoperate between VA and DOD
on medical records, of all things, because people's lives are
depending on it. Could you help me out with that, Mr.
Secretary?
Secretary Carter. Well, I can help you out to the following
extent. I completely share your frustration with this. I don't
know this particular case, but the way I think about it is a
Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine, there is only one soldier,
but there are two cabinet departments. They shouldn't have to
worry about that.
Mr. Rogers. Exactly.
Secretary Carter. They shouldn't have to worry what we are
doing here in Washington and so forth.
Mr. Rogers. Yeah.
Secretary Carter. And I am familiar with this situation
from previous service, but I really want to work with Bob
McDonald, our Chairman of Veterans Affairs. I think it is very
important that they not see two different cabinet departments.
And with respect to the electronic health records, we can
make them interoperable. This is not something that is not done
every day out in our society. There are lots of medical systems
that merge, one bought by the other. It happens every day all
over the country. It is a very dynamic part of our economy. It
is a large piece of our economy. And there are many, many
medical record systems that need to be merged. So, this is
something that can be done and needs to be done so that there
aren't cases like the one you cite. There is no technological
barrier to making the two electronic health records
interoperable.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you know, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for
that sentiment, but I have heard that for 8 years now from
different Secretaries, VA Secretaries as well as DOD
Secretaries. And nothing happens. And we have poured money into
this. How much money have we put into it?
Secretary Carter. There has been money.
Mr. Rogers. Since June of 2008.
How many billions?
Mr. Visclosky. Several billions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. At least $2 billion.
Mr. Rogers. So we are pouring money at the problem and why
can't we get it fixed?
Secretary Carter. I think we can get it fixed. I think we
have to get it fixed, and I share your frustration about all
those years and all of those dollars. And the work that has
been done needs to be leveraged into a final solution here. It
doesn't have to be the case that VA and DOD have the same
system. They have to have interoperable systems. And again,
this is something that the private sector wrestles with all the
time, and there is no reason why we can't do it. And I just
come back to the fundamental starting point, which is it is
unfair to the servicemember to make them have to worry about
how our government is organized.
Mr. Rogers. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. And we will stay in
touch with you on this, if you wouldn't mind.
Secretary Carter. Absolutely. And I invite you to. And,
believe me, I will pay attention to it.
Mr. Rogers. Less than a year ago, the chairman and I called
a meeting between the DOD Secretary at the time and the VA
Secretary at the time, both of whom have since left, and they
promised this immediate, speedy action. And I have yet to see
one marble roll down the hill. So I know how tough this issue
apparently is to the bureaucracies to give up a little bit of
their turf to get a common system. But I have confidence that
you will do this, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Carter. It shouldn't be tough, Chairman. And it
is a fair question, and I will make sure I work it readily.
AUTHORIZED USE OF MILITARY FORCE
Mr. Rogers. Let me switch gears completely and talk about
AUMF. Two weeks ago, the President called on Congress to issue
a formal authorization for the use of military force against
the Islamic State, including authorizing the use of Armed
Forces in the fight against ISIL, but with certain limitations,
reporting requirements, and for only 3 years. Specifically, the
draft would ``not authorize the use of United States Armed
Forces during offensive ground combat operations.'' What is
enduring?
Secretary Carter. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First let me just say, as I understand that there is going
to be a debate over the terms of the AUMF, and I just want to
say about something where I come from on that as Secretary of
Defense. There are two things that are important to me in the
AUMF, and the first one is that it give us the flexibility we
need to defeat this opponent. That is the most important thing.
And the second important thing to me is that the AUMF that
emerges from this discussion be something that is widely
supported so that our people who are conducting that fight see
a country united behind them. That is terribly important. And
so those are the two things that most important to me. You
mentioned the 3-year item. That is not something that I would
have deduced from the Department of Defense's necessities, the
campaign's necessities, or our obligation to the troops. I
think it has to do with the political calendar in our country.
I understand that. That is a constitutional issue wherein the
executive branch and the legislative branch share
responsibility for the conduct of military operations.
I wouldn't assure anyone that this will be over in 3 years
or that the campaign will be completed in 3 years. The 3 years
comes from the fact that there will be a presidential election
in 2 years and so forth, and I respect that. That is not a
military or defense consideration, but I respect it as a
constitutional consideration.
Mr. Rogers. Yeah. Do you anticipate putting additional U.S.
troops on the ground in Iraq or introducing troops to Syria?
Secretary Carter. I think that with respect to American
ground troops, that is a question that will hinge upon what is
required for success there. I think the Chairman has said--and
I will let him speak for himself--but I would say the same
thing, that we will make recommendations for the character of
American assistance to this campaign that guarantee its
success, and we will do that as the need arises. And that is
certainly my view. And let me just ask the Chairman to----
General Dempsey. What you can be assured of, Chairman, is
that if the commander on the ground approaches either me or the
Secretary of Defense and believes that the introduction of
Special Operations Forces to accompany Iraqis or the new Syrian
forces or JTACs, these skilled folks who can call in close air
support, if we believe that is necessary to achieve our
objectives, we will make that recommendation.
Back to the AUMF, we believe we have that authority to make
that request within the AUMF as it is currently crafted. And I
get the question about enduring as well. The word ``enduring''
is not a doctrinal term in military lexicon. But I also have a
master's degree in English literature from Duke University.
``Enduring'' is clearly an expression of the Commander in
Chief's intent within the document.
COUNTER TERRORISM STRATEGY
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, at your conference last week at
Camp Arifjan, reports were that you were seeking a deeper
understanding of the strategy. You have previously said that
you believe the U.S. must rethink its approach to countering
terrorism in general, partly in light of the emergence of the
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Given your concept of the U.S. strategy with regard to
countering terrorism, would you please walk the committee
through our current strategy and explain whether you have
determined that alternatives are necessary?
Secretary Carter. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I will. Let me
do it in three pieces: the Iraq piece, the Syria piece, and the
regional or wider. All three of those were part of our
discussions last week. That is the reason to have our
diplomatic folks and our military folks from the entire region
who worked this problem get together. And let me just say right
at the beginning, I was so impressed with the wisdom at that
table. I mean, you would be very proud, I certainly was, of
team America in that region.
And ISIL is obviously a difficult challenge. But our
approach to it is in Iraq to work with the Iraqi security
forces and the Iraqi Government to support a multisectarian
government in Iraq that can, over time, reclaim the territory
lost to these extremists and drive them out of the country.
We were discussing earlier the issue of sectarianism and
the problem of sectarianism in Iraq, and I am not sanguine or
casual about that, but that is what we are trying to get the
government of Abadi to pursue, and that is the spirit in which
we are working with the Iraqi security forces.
On the Syrian side of the border, we are also trying to
train and equip moderate Syrian opposition. That is not as
large an established institution as the Iraqi security forces
is, nor is it--is there a sovereign government there that we
are willing to support. On the contrary, the sovereign
Government of Syria is the government of Bashar al-Assad, whom
we think needs to go. That creates a much more difficult
situation wherein we are trying to create a third force that
can both combat ISIL and set the conditions for the eventual
removal of Bashar Assad. So that is the effort on the Syrian
side.
In the region as a whole--and this gets to your larger
question about the nature of counterterrorism--ISIL is now, we
see, we observe popping up in other places. In fact, I was in
Afghanistan and talking to President Ghani there, who is quite
concerned about ISIL in Afghanistan. Why? What is going on
there?
Well, in his telling--and I think this is our understanding
as well--there are a lot of extremists who--and terrorists who
are rebranding themselves as ISIL who previously belonged to
other groups, and they find that those groups don't offer them
the same inspiration and ardor and radicalism that they crave.
Some of these are younger people. And so they are turning to
ISIL precisely because of its ugly nature. And so we are seeing
that around, and that represents a social media-fueled
phenomenon. And I think that that is a new dimension to it that
we need to take into account. So I am sorry to go on so long,
but it is obviously a complicated situation and evolving
strategy.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Lowey and
then Ms. Granger.
CYBERSECURITY
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much. Before I go on to my
question, I just hope we have an opportunity to explore another
time--and I know Ms. Granger and I are very focused on it in
our committee--the social media fueling the terrorists. It
seems to me that we should be able to combat that. And I know a
new department was created at State, and we have BBG, but
somehow we are failing at the task. But on to this committee,
and one of the issues that has concerned me is the budget
having to do with cybersecurity, $5.5 billion to increase both
the defensive and offensive cyberspace operation capabilities
and fund the development of the cyber mission force initiated
in fiscal year 2013. This is a much-debated concern for DOD and
our national security. However, I would like more clarity on
the most critical areas of concern, and I would just like to
list them quickly. And please comment if you will.
If you could describe the primary risk faced by the
Department of Defense in the cybersecurity realm? How will DOD
work with other organizations, both government and
nongovernment, to share cyber-related information? The budget
indicates that measures are taken to increase the capabilities
of the cyber mission force initiated in fiscal year 2013. If
you can comment on that, the primary elements of the fiscal
year 2016 budget in that regard. And is DOD able to recruit and
train personnel with the requested skills to develop an
effective cybersecurity force or do you find yourself in a
position where you are subcontracting to the Apples and the
Yahoos and the Googles, et cetera? If you could just explain
the strength and weaknesses of our current force.
Secretary Carter. I think----
Mrs. Lowey. And I know we don't have an hour to respond, so
please pick each question as you will.
Secretary Carter. I will be brief as I possibly can. And at
the risk of extending it even further, perhaps ask General
Dempsey, who has also been working on this problem for a long
time, to comment. I would say the primary risk is a cyber
penetration or attack of our defenses, our defense systems. We
depend abjectly upon our networks working for the effectiveness
of our force. We use it all the time. It is what makes our
planes, ships, and tanks, and all the other tangible equipment
work together on today's battlefield. So we have to have
protected networks because that makes all the rest of our
military work. And by extension, we have to help protect the
country, its critical infrastructure and its critical safety
from cyber attack from outside. So defense is job one, defense
within our own Department and playing our role in defense of
the country, which gets to your second point.
This is a whole-of-government thing. That is always
awkward. It gets back to the health records, you know. You have
several different departments involved in this. I believe
strongly that--that we need to work in the Defense Department
with law enforcement, the FBI, which has great capability in
this area, with the intelligence community, with Department of
Homeland Security, and--this gets to your last point and on
this point I will close--with the private sector.
Secretary Carter. Because the private sector owns and
operates a lot of the networks that we work on. It is the
source of a lot of the technology that we use and will use in
the future. And we need to be open to the information
technology industry so that we are using the best of what is
there in the Department of Defense.
And that gets to your last point, which is people. We are
going to have to reach out. This is a domain or a field where,
yes, we can train people for the cyber mission force, and we
have been training them, but I think we will also continue to
draw upon and rely upon the Silicon Valley, so to speak,
community to support us in defense, as American high-tech
industry has done for decades and decades and decades,
supported the Department of Defense and been one of the reasons
why we have had the technological lead as a military around the
world.
General Dempsey. And I will be brief, but this may be one
that you would be interested in having us come visit you or
send a piece of paper over to.
We have--in fact, when Secretary Carter was DepSecDef, he
and I collaborated 2 years ago on several initiatives that are
coming to fruition.
We are building a force within the Department of 6,800 to
man our cybersecurity force. And that is in the CYBERCOM; it is
also out in our combatant commands. You can think of it this
way: We have a national mission force, if you will, or an
organization into which private sector and military can plug,
if you will, when cyber events occur.
Of course, on the civilian side, they do so voluntarily,
because we have not achieved legislation on information-sharing
that incentivizes them to do so. I will come back to that in a
second.
And then we have response forces. Think of that as CSI,
after-the-fact groups that go out and do the forensics of a
cyber attack. You have had some examples of that recently.
And then, finally, we have at the regional level in
combatant commands, we have forces that conduct what is
essentially cyber reconnaissance, if you will.
So we have layered defense, and we do a pretty good job of
protecting our own network. The challenge, of course, for us is
that our network, especially in the unclassified domain, is
largely dependent upon the welfare of commercial cyber
architecture, which is very vulnerable.
And that brings me to the issue of legislation, where, 2
years ago, we made some recommendations on standards in
information-sharing, unsuccessfully. I think that has been
resubmitted recently.
In the interim, the President issued an Executive order,
which was very helpful and which we have implemented entirely.
In fact, in some cases, the Secretary has raised the standard.
So, for example, we had a problem with, quote/unquote,
``cleared'' defense contractors who were working for us but who
had no incentive to have certain standards of hygiene. And we
have closed that gap within the Department. The Secretary and
our director of acquisition, Mr. Kendall, have actually baked
into every contract in which we engage now requirements for
cyber standards and information-sharing.
So we can do that internal to the Department. But, as I sit
here today, my concern is that we are dependent upon commercial
infrastructure, and it is not bulletproof, I promise you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. All right. We are going to try to
tighten it up.
Ms. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Let me just say thank you very much, and I look
forward to getting a more in-depth briefing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you, Ms. Lowey.
Ms. Granger.
SEQUESTRATION
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, you and General Dempsey both have talked
about sequestration. And I am going to tell you, I hate the
thought of it. I think we are in the process of devastating our
military. But the reason we are there is because of enormous
frustration. And I thought as we started talking about the VA
and DOD and what we have asked to happen--and it hasn't
happened. And that frustration of not being able to move ahead,
instead continuing spending, spending, and spending, is what
got us to this, to the process of sequestration.
I talked to Secretary Panetta personally several times and
said, you must speak out and explain to people what this is
going to do to our defense. And he said, it will never happen,
and so I am not going to do that. It will never happen. And I
think most of us thought it will never happen, and here it is.
I listened so carefully, Mr. Secretary, to your opening
remarks. And what you said, and given specifically, is: We can
find the reforms. We shouldn't just cut and leave us without
the money for cybersecurity, for instance, without the money
for research and development. And that is what will happen. I
mean, we will save personnel, we will save what we can. You
say: Instead, do it the right way.
Sometimes there is a person for the time. And your history
and what you have done, your career, you can do that, because
you have seen how it is put together. You are in a unique
position to say, here is what we need to do. And it will take
over several years; it is not going to be done in the first
year.
I would beg you to be the person that says, tear up that
President's budget because it assumes that there is no
sequestration. And, to us, stop what you are doing as you are--
we are designing a budget that follows the law, and
sequestration is enacted.
And, instead, you work--and we are doing it right now. The
two men to my right, the chair of Appropriations, the chair of
Appropriations Defense, the chair of the Budget Committee, and
the leadership in the House--I plead with you to say, we can do
this a different way, and we can do the savings, and we can
look ahead.
I can't believe that we are going to do this when the world
is so dangerous. And you certainly know that, General. I mean,
we have listened to everyone who has appeared before this
committee, and all you have to do--you can't turn on the
television any night that it is not just really a horror story,
and I am not exaggerating.
So, with your background, please do that. Give us another
way forward. We really can prepare for the future, meet our
risks, but take those things that don't work, like the medical
records, which is so simple if you are committed to do it, but
look at all the rest of it. You have been in acquisition for
years, and you know what we spend. You know, if it took for the
V-22, if it took over 20 years, well, you know that is the
wrong way to do it.
But what we are doing is we are cutting budgets, and then
we are saying to the military, we are not going to leave you
any flexibility just to do what is right and what we need to
have done.
So it is not so much a question as--I beg you, please, to
do that. We have to be saved from ourselves.
And if you would like to respond, you can. If not, you can
say, we will move on.
Secretary Carter. I very much appreciate the spirit of the
question. I promise you that, when it comes to reform and waste
in the defense budget, there is no one more committed to
eliminating that than I.
And with respect to flexibility, there I would simply say:
I need your help. We all need your help. Because we have asked
for flexibility now in past years in certain areas that I know
were painful and have had that denied. And we need the support
of Congress. At the end of the day, the power of the purse
resides here. I know that we only propose a budget and that you
will make the final decisions.
And the last thing I would hope is that we can discuss our
strategy, as well. We tried to put this budget together
beginning with what the country needed, rather than with the
history of recent years or budget discussions and so forth, but
instead be strategy-driven.
And I think that is an important principle, that we put
what the country needs first, the many problems that the
chairman has noted, the complicated world that we live in, and
what our people actually need to succeed. Start there, and
deduce the budget that we need from that.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are going to go right to Ms.
McCollum.
Thank you, Ms. Granger.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THREATS TO NATIONAL SECURITY
I think we are going to get a chance to hear some more
about this. I support the President's budget. It ends
sequestration, and it is paid for. And if Congress really
chooses to end sequestration, we can do that. We made it the
law of the land; we can unmake it the law of the land.
We have heard from some Members here quoting a statement
from Admiral Mullen, who said in 2011 that ``I believe the
single biggest threat to our national security is our debt. I
also believe we have the responsibility to eliminate that
threat.''
So I have a question for each one of you gentlemen.
General Dempsey, when you wake up in the morning, do you
consider our Nation's debt our single biggest threat to our
national security today? Does that trump ISIL, Iran, North
Korea, or Russia in threats in your mind currently?
General Dempsey. No, it does not.
EXCESS INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Ms. McCollum. And before we were having a conversation on
what we need to do with our defense budget, I want to be clear
that, even though I believe in miracles, it is becoming very
clear to me that the chairman has stated that the Budget
Control Act funding levels will be the law of the land.
Now, as I said earlier, I support the President's framework
of his budget, and it is paid for. But what I don't support is
lifting sequestration for defense and not doing it for the
other parts of our national security--a quality education, good
health care, and that--that our military men and women and all
of us depend upon.
So, I am kind of paraphrasing what you said, Mr. Secretary,
and I agree with you, that every time Congress rejects an
opportunity for the Department to save money by closing excess
facilities--and I have a recent article that says you have 25
percent bigger, you know--you have a huge footprint that you
need to get rid of with excess facilities.
When we fail to terminate outdated weapons that you have
put forward to Congress or to make compensation reforms, we
force you, then, we force you to go back and cut modernization,
readiness, or personnel.
So could you please maybe point out to us why it is
important, especially with BRAC, that we are not having you
carry excess facilities that no private-sector business would
carry on their books, for example, and what this glut really
means to you, with the weapons systems and that, about moving
forward? Because we have to make some hard choices, not just
you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you.
Secretary Carter. Thank you.
You have stated it very, very clearly, Congresswoman. We do
have excess capacity. And it is true that, in the private
sector, a continuing effort to cut costs and lean out an
operation is just part of life and is part of competitive
success. And here, of course, there is only one Defense
Department in the country, so we are competing with ourselves
to be more excellent and be more economical.
And we do believe that we have excess capacity. That is one
of the reasons why we have asked for help with BRAC and other
things from the Congress. And we understand why those things
are tough, but we have to move down this road to leaning
ourselves out. It is important in order to get the most
military capability for the dollar. I think it is also
important to show our citizens that we don't ask for funds that
are not directly related to the implementation of our strategy.
READINESS
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, if I could ask General Dempsey,
with some of the weapons systems that we keep renewing and
reauthorizing, how is that affecting your ability to really do
readiness?
General Dempsey. When the service chiefs approach me and
say that, based on their restructuring initiatives, that they
believe a certain weapons system has exceeded its useful life
and the capability is being provided in some other way, I
support them.
And so when the Chief of Staff of the Air Force comes and
says, we can provide close air support--I am a ground guy, I
love close air support--when he can provide close air support
and not have any gap in capability by retiring the A-10, I
support him. Because we hold him accountable for building the
force we need, and then he turns it over to the combatant
commanders, with my help, to meet our war plans.
So if we are keeping force structure that the service
chiefs say is unnecessary to execute our strategy, it just
consumes more of the Defense Department's budget, which could
and probably should go someplace else.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
Mr. Crenshaw.
STRATEGIC DISPERSAL OF AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Secretary, since you have been on the job 2 weeks now,
I think it would be appropriate that I initiate you into the
group of new Secretaries of Defense about a lingering concern
that other members of this subcommittee have heard me express
from time to time. That is about the dispersal of our nuclear
carrier fleet on the East Coast.
Because in 2005, when our carrier fleet went all nuclear,
we went from having two carrier homeports on the East Coast to
only one. And the Navy decided they would do a study, which
they did, because this consolidation--what impact it would have
on our national security. And after a 2.5-year study, they
decided that they should disperse these nuclear carriers on the
East Coast because, as Secretary Gates had said, it has never
been acceptable to have only one homeport on the West Coast and
it should never be acceptable to do that on the East Coast.
And so the Navy set out to create another nuclear homeport,
called Naval Station Mayport. And after 3 years of doing
construction projects--they had two more to do--the
administration halted that program based on all these tight
budget constraints.
Now, the Navy hasn't changed their mind. They still stand
by the goal of strategic dispersal.
And so I just wanted you to be aware of that, go through
the rite of initiation and hear that early in the job. And I
hope you will take a look at that as we--I don't have any
questions about aircraft carriers.
BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES
I do have questions about submarines. And so, very quickly,
I wanted to ask you about the Ohio-class submarine replacement
program. This year, I think, in the budget there is almost $1.4
billion for some research and development in that program.
And I think that is going to be a program that is going to
have implications not only for our strategic deterrence
capability, but it could have implications for our entire
shipbuilding program. Because we heard Admiral Greenert last
week before this subcommittee talk about the fact that this was
a huge priority for him and he would like to see it carried
out, maybe even at the expense of some of the other
shipbuilding programs. It would kind of suck all the air--all
the money out of that program. And that is concerning, I think,
to all of us in terms of the long term, that 30-year
shipbuilding program.
But I read, maybe before you got here, before you went on
the job, the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund was set up. And
I guess that is a fund that recognizes that this submarine
replacement program is not just a Navy problem, it is kind of a
national defense program. I think they have done that before.
And I guess that is good news, because that will help--if the
DOD is partnered with the Navy in that, then they can continue
their shipbuilding program.
So the question is, that deterrence fund was set up but
hasn't been funded yet. And so I wondered if you could tell the
subcommittee what went into the creation of that fund and when/
if you plan on funding that. Because, you know, if you do, I
think that would help us. I think some of the responsibilities
the Navy has would be shared with DOD.
So could you talk about that, how that is all going to work
out? Because I think this whole Ohio-class replacement program
is going to be really, really important.
Secretary Carter. Thank you, Congressman. And I may not
know all of the history, so I won't try to recount that,
because I wasn't there, but I can learn more about that if you
would like to talk about that further.
But the fundamental thing you are raising, I completely
share your and the Navy's and I think all of my predecessors'
in this job and this department--we need a safe, secure, and
reliable nuclear deterrent. The submarine force is a key leg of
the triad.
The Ohio-class ages out in the decade of the 2020s to
2030s. There is nothing we can do about that. It has to do with
hull life and the number of times it has contracted and
expanded as it submerged and surfaced. So it has to be
replaced. These things are expensive. We are trying to get the
cost of them down so that it is not as big a bill, but it is
still going to be a substantial bill.
And you are right. It is so big during the period 2020 to
2030 that it threatens other aspects of the shipbuilding
program that the Navy has. That is a big problem for all of us
going forward, because this is a critical need.
The only thing I would say is how we label the money, it is
still the money. It is still part of our defense budget. So if
we need to do this, as I believe we do, we need to have the
money for it.
And that is something, like everything else in the defense
budget, that--it shouldn't be in the defense budget in the
first place if it is not a national priority, anything,
including this. But it is. And this is a national priority, and
it ought to be funded out of the defense budget.
And, as I said, it doesn't matter so much how the money is
labeled so much as that the money is there in that decade
between 2020 and 2030 so that we can replace this leg of the
triad that we really have to replace.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Israel.
IRAN'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITY
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I want to shift the focus to an issue that has
been in the news recently, and that is Iran.
There has been a lot of talk about Iran's desire to acquire
a nuclear capability. As Prime Minister Netanyahu stated last
night, it is not just the weapon, it is the deliverables. You
can have the best pilot in the world, but if a pilot doesn't
have a plane, it is just a pilot.
And I believe that both in the negotiations and in the
public discourse there hasn't been sufficient attention given
to Iran's missile program. And they have a very advanced and
developing program.
And so I would like to ask the Secretary, in particular,
what is your assessment--and the General--what is your
assessment of Iran's long-range and intermediate missile
program? And what initiatives is the Missile Defense Agency
taking to improve the overall performance of ballistic missile
defense systems?
And then I have another question about the funding in the
President's budget for Arrow 2, Arrow 3, Iron Dome, and other
programs with respect to Israel.
Secretary Carter. I will start, and then, Chairman, if you
would.
This is a longstanding concern, the ever-growing,
expanding-in-numbers-and-range Iranian ballistic missile
program. It is the reason for our very close cooperation with
Israel in missile defense, as we cooperate with Israel in
everything in defense.
This is a very important ally to us, our most important
ally in the region. I have been doing this a long time, and we
have a relationship that close with the Israeli Defense Forces.
And that needs to continue. And missile defense has to--and
will continue.
And missile defense, an important part of it--you mentioned
Iron Dome, you mentioned Arrow. I could mention Patriot, lots
of other things that we do together, and we share capability
there. It is a longstanding joint effort, and it will continue.
Let me ask the Chairman if he wants to add anything.
General Dempsey. Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
So, on our side, Congressman, first of all, the ballistic
missile capability of Iran is one of about five things that
cause me great concern from a national security perspective--
you know, weapons, trafficking, surrogates and proxies,
activity in cyber, ballistic missiles, and their nuclear
aspirations.
On our side, of course, the European Phased Adaptive
Approach was an effort to anticipate that at some point they
would achieve the ability to, you know, strike either our
European allies or the homeland. And so we have shore-based
ballistic missile defenses. We have ballistic missile defenses
afloat with our Aegis cruisers and capable vessels, with the
SM-3 missile, that are essentially geared to intercept these
things at different phases of their flight. We have enormous
ballistic missile defense capabilities in the Gulf, in Kuwait,
in Bahrain, in Qatar, and in the United Arab Emirates. And so
we are very much alert to that.
I believe there are specific sanctions in place against
their ballistic missile program that wouldn't be affected by a
nuclear deal. But, yeah, we take it really seriously.
Mr. Israel. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I understand, Mr. Secretary, your staff
advises me you might have to take a short break, which might
put General Dempsey in the hot seat, relative to your recovery
path for your----
General Dempsey. I am going with him, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. There is no way in hell we are going to
let you out of here.
Secretary Carter. I don't want to leave my----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah. We don't want it to be said that
you turned tail and left, but if you need to take a break----
Secretary Carter. I appreciate your consideration. I had
surgery on the back. There is nothing I can do about it now.
What is done is done. And there is a cut that big down the back
of my back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes.
Secretary Carter. So I think that is why we asked to be
able to take a few minutes----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. If you care to take a few minutes, that
is fine. I am sure that Mr. Calvert can handle--or, hopefully,
General Dempsey can handle Mr. Calvert.
Secretary Carter. No, let me just--let's just go ahead.
That is fine. I will be fine.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
CIVILIAN WORKFORCE
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Secretary and General Dempsey. First, I want
to thank you for being here and thank you for your service. I
have known you both for a long time, and I know you are up to
the challenges, and we look forward to your continued support
of the men and women in the military.
And, as has been discussed thoroughly here, unless there is
some kind of miracle that happens between the White House and
those of us in the House and the Senate, we are going to be
operating under the budget caps. And I hope the miracle occurs,
but, as my dad used to say, hope is not a planning option. So I
think everybody knows what I am going to talk about today.
During your testimony this morning and the testimony we
heard last week, the same message was delivered from each of
the service chiefs and the Secretary: The President fiscal year
2016 budget is the minimum amount of funding required to
execute the Defense Strategic Guidance. Anything below that
will imperil the military's ability to properly execute the
President's strategy.
At the same time, the BCA is the law of the land. Until
that is changed, we must abide by it. So we have a serious
funding gap between the strategy and the law.
I do believe there are savings that exist inside the
Department and should be part of the solution to alleviate the
funding pressures on DoD. This is why I want to give you, Mr.
Secretary, the mandate that will provide the savings and the
authority to properly manage the civilian workforce, focus on
attrition, targeted reductions in places, emphasis on
performance.
Now, there are other reforms, acquisition reform, which I
know you have been working on for some time. I think you have a
compensation board that has some ideas that I think would help,
I think, in retention down the road and help in many ways and
also save money and other ideas.
But since 2001 we have cut the Active Force by 4 percent
and we have grown the civilian workforce by 15 percent.
Currently, the ratio of civilian employees to Active Duty
personnel is at an all-time high--the highest since World War
II. Bringing that ratio down to the historic norm, just the
historic norm, would save the Department $82.5 billion over 5
years. All these savings could be reinvested right back into
the Department to help alleviate the impact of the BCA.
We have not hesitated to cut our Active Duty force, and cut
it too far in my opinion, but I cannot get a public concession
out of anyone at DoD that we should have a proportional right-
sizing of the civilian workforce. As the new Secretary of
Defense, I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You may want to take your break now.
Secretary Carter. No, no, no. I appreciate your
consideration, Mr. Chairman. I will be fine. Thank you.
Well, I, actually--I am with you. I think we should go
after excess wherever we find it in the Department. And the
civilian workforce, like the military personnel end strength,
has to be something that we scrutinize and reduce. And I think
we can reduce the civilian workforce, and I will give you a few
reasons why I say that.
The civilian workforce grew from about 700,000 to up
towards 800,000 in the decade since 9/11, so about 100,000
people. That wasn't just a random increase. These were
specifically targeted things, which made a lot of sense, like
cyber, like our acquisition workforce, like in-sourcing, if you
remember in-sourcing, which was to bring jobs into the
government specifically so that they weren't conducted by
contractors, and so forth. So, for all these perfectly good
reasons, 100,000 people were added.
My problem with that is that 100,000 people weren't--nobody
reached in to the existing force and said, well, let's add
these people, but let's meanwhile see whether there aren't some
jobs that can be eliminated and reduced. That didn't happen,
because there was lots of money throughout that decade. Now we
need to change that dynamic.
And I think that it particularly affects--and this, I
think, is where you were on--the headquarters, I will call them
some staff functions. Because remember, most of our civilians--
we tend in Washington to think of a civilian DoD employee as
someone who sits at a desk in the Pentagon. Eighty-five percent
of our civilians don't live in the Washington metropolitan
area. They fix airplanes. They are not sitting at desks. They
are repairing ships and so forth. And so they perform essential
functions.
But where the headquarters staffs are concerned, both
military and civilian, I think we can make cuts there, and we
have to make cuts there. So I am with you in that regard.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Would you yield to Mr. Visclosky?
Mr. Calvert. Sure. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No, I thought we might be doing----
Mr. Calvert. I just wanted to make a point, that most of
the 100,000 additional employees have been brought up since
2008, over 100,000 personnel, civilian workforce. And I am not
talking about depots and wrench-turners and folks working in
shipyards. And I don't know if, General--I would just like to
give you the flexibility.
I am not talking about across-the-board cuts. I am not
talking about that type of activity. But, as a private-sector
guy, you are managing a pretty good size enterprise, that you
ought to be able to have the flexibility to look at
performance--that is a part of it--but also be able to buy out
contracts and have reductions in force if it is necessary and
give people the opportunity to retire if they choose to.
That is what we are talking about. Because we need to keep
the money in the Pentagon to give it to General Dempsey and to
the other service chiefs to keep the end strength up and to
procure.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. If we could get an answer for Mr.
Calvert, a more specific answer.
And thank you, Mr. Calvert.
We are going to Ms. Kaptur via the ranking member for----
Mr. Visclosky. Just to follow up, because the gentleman's
point of anyone who is working for the Department or any other
Federal agency, including Congress, ought to have a
justification for their existence is part of the tension as far
as whether it is a Federal employee or a contractor, the issue
of the inherent nature of the governmental work, as well?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. A short response if----
Secretary Carter. That is relevant. That is one of the
reasons why in-sourcing was initiated. And that did contribute
to the increase in the civilian workforce, and that is a
perfectly legitimate reason. But I also believe what was just
said, which is we need to be disciplined about this.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur and then Mr. Womack.
UKRAINE
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Dempsey, thank you for your service to our country.
And, Secretary Carter, thank you so very much for your
service, as well.
I will just ask my questions, and then I would appreciate
your response.
First, General Dempsey, you refer in your statement to
heavy-weights, middle-weights, and other weights. And in terms
of the heavy-weights, Russia being at the top of the list, in
the event of movement by Russia deeper into Eastern and Central
Europe, who is responsible for the command of joint forces in
that instance?
Last year, Congress directed $75 million to the European
Reassurance Initiative for programs, activities, and assistance
to support the Government of Ukraine. It is my understanding
none of those funds have been obligated thus far. Could you
please explain the status of that funding, the reason for the
delay, and how this assistance will be provided moving forward?
And is the European Reassurance Initiative the primary
mechanism, or is there other funding, as well?
Then my second arena of questioning deals with ISIS. As I
observe the ongoing battle in Tikrit, how do we beat ISIS
without defaulting into an alignment with the Shia and Iran? It
seems to be a most combustible situation, not just militarily
but politically.
General Dempsey. Thank you, Congresswoman.
The C2, command and control, of NATO forces resides with
General Phil Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe,
who is dual-hatted as the European Command Commander. And in
the event of an Article 5 issue with regard to whatever it
happens to be, he would have control of U.S. forces, and he
would also have responsibility for coordinating our activities
with NATO.
Ms. Kaptur. What has happened to the $75 million to this--
--
General Dempsey. First of all, we appreciate that. And what
we have been doing is working with our European partners on the
menu of reassurance activities, the growth of a very high
readiness task force, additional equipment, prepositioning, all
of which takes collaboration and coordination with our European
allies.
I want to make sure you know that we haven't been idle in
the interim. What the services----
Ms. Kaptur. You mentioned NATO very prominently in your
testimony.
General Dempsey. Absolutely, because I think anything we do
in European should be by, with, and through NATO, because that
is the foundation of NATO's purpose.
But, anyway, the services have been cash-flowing from their
account activities that they are doing. We have soldiers in
Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia right now, and Poland. Services are
cash-flowing it. We are catching up with it, using the European
Reassurance Initiative.
So I assure you we have--although you may not see on the
books that this money is being committed, but it will be
committed.
Ms. Kaptur. I will tell you, I am befuddled by the fact
that, for example, in the area of telecommunications, the
Ukrainians are completely underserved. I, frankly, don't
understand it. And you would think that, you know, at least you
ought to give them a fighting chance.
So I just see that that particular--and the advance of
Russia, in many ways setting up within some of our NATO-allies
countries new Internet and radio sites in the native language,
Russia, and an obvious aggressive move in that part of the
world in telecommunications and other ways.
I see us as very--and I understand the danger of this, but
it just seems to me we could be a little more directed.
And I know General Breedlove is coming up here, I think,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. He is, yep. And I share your sentiments.
We should be giving non-NATO allies support to Ukraine. I have
written the President three times; we don't get any answers
back. But we need some activity in that regard.
ISIS/ISIL
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On the Shia and Iran, could someone address that? How do we
beat ISIS without aligning with the Shia and Iran, which
appears to be happening, certainly in the Tikrit operation?
General Dempsey. Well, if I could, Congresswoman, let me--
by the way, I think we spoke past each other in the last
question. I was talking about NATO and Article 5. You were
actually focused on Ukraine.
We have given $100 million in nonlethal assistance. We are
in active discussion right now about training nonlethal and the
possibility of lethal aid. And that is an active conversation
ongoing right now inside of the interagency.
Shia. The real key to defeat ISIL is actually convincing
the Sunni that they should not embrace this group because they
have a future in Iraq. And we are actively working, our
diplomats over there--General Allen, Ambassador McGurk--are
working to ensure that the governance piece of this in Iraq is
progressing as rapidly as the military piece of it, because----
Ms. Kaptur. Well, General, if I could just insert----
General Dempsey. You can.
Ms. Kaptur. Going to Tikrit, which is a Sunni tribal
homeland, right----
General Dempsey. Right.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. With Iranian forces and Iranian
generals----
General Dempsey. Right.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. Is going to send a message that is
going to create deep political problems, don't you think?
General Dempsey. It could. Right now, the Sunni members of
parliament and the local tribal leaders, the mayor of Tikrit,
are all supportive of this because they want to rid the terrain
of ISIL.
You are exactly right, though. We are watching carefully.
And if this becomes an excuse to ethnic-cleanse, then our
campaign has a problem and we are going to have to make a
campaign adjustment.
Ms. Kaptur. I wanted to just finally say, Mr. Chairman, as
I view that part of the world, people on the ground are afraid
to commit.
I heard what you said, Mr. Secretary, about Afghanistan and
changing, the people going to ISIL as opposed to Taliban and so
forth. They go to the strongest force. And so, if X force is
the strongest, those young men will go there. At least, that is
my experience.
So I just wanted to put that on the record. I am very
concerned about what is happening.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
Mr. Womack.
STRATEGY IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Mr. Womack. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the gentlemen.
Congratulations, Secretary, for your appointment and your
new duty.
I have a couple of things.
One, you said in your opening remarks, Mr. Secretary, that
when you took the helm, that you said to the people of the
Defense Department that you were going to take care of them,
that you were going to keep them safe. That was--I am
paraphrasing--that was your first priority.
Help me understand how telegraphing what we will do or what
we won't do in a potential conflict contributes to the safety
of the men and women that are going to go downrange for this
country.
Secretary Carter. Well, I mean, as a general proposition, I
am not in favor of telling people what we won't do. Let them
guess.
And on top of which, when you are carrying out a campaign
like this, you are constantly deciding what you are going to do
and what you are not going to----
Mr. Womack. The AUMF has kind of a 3-year timeline. We have
talked about the political calendar. I am not real sure that
that is appropriate, given the conditions that we are dealing
with over there.
But, General Dempsey, you yourself, I kind of captured,
were a little measured in your remarks about what we would be
willing to commit to doing with regard to boots on the ground.
Because you specifically limited it or didn't say anything
beyond special operators or JTACs. Those were the two things
that you mentioned that we would consider that would
effectively be literally boots on the ground.
Are we saying that we are not willing to put a brigade
combat team on the ground? Are we willing not to put other
types of unit force structure on the ground?
General Dempsey. I don't consider that the AUMF limits the
size of the force that we would put on the ground.
Frankly, if we have to put a brigade combat team on the
ground, then the campaign as currently designed has failed.
Because the campaign as currently designed relies on them to do
the work that they need to do--that is, the Iraqis and the
Peshmerga and the Sunni tribal leaders. And I think that the
more we can reinforce with our messaging that this is their
fight, we will enable it and support it, the better off we are.
Mr. Womack. It has been my opinion that we have telegraphed
some of our military moves down through the years, and I don't
know that that has worked to our advantage.
You also said, Mr. Secretary, that you believe that a lot
of the conditions with which ISIS or ISIL, whatever we--IS--
whatever we refer to the organization--was enabled by a
proliferation of sectarianism, in so many words.
Did we not contribute to that? I mean, we did pull out. We
didn't have a security agreement. We didn't have a status-of-
forces agreement. We just basically left--a very popular move
that was based on a lot of political promises that were made,
but we left.
Now, as we start this process--in the middle of the process
of drawing down in Afghanistan, we have apparently changed
course just a little bit. Maybe we have had some lessons
learned. Is that true?
Secretary Carter. Well, sectarianism is the reason why ISIL
was able to overrun western Iraq. And the fact of the matter is
that the Government of Iraq, in the way it governed and the way
it managed the military over the last few years, has fueled
sectarianism by driving out competent leaders, by certainly
appearing to the Sunni tribes to be biased against them. That
is the legacy of the last few years.
Now, you asked--I mean, if I contrast it with the situation
in Afghanistan today, where I just saw President Ghani, they
are asking us to stay. They have signed a bilateral security
agreement. We did not have a bilateral security agreement. But
the critical factor was sectarianism under the previous
Government of Iraq.
And this is why in response to an earlier question I said
we really have to watch this very closely, because this is--and
I think General Dempsey said we would have to rethink the
campaign under some of these circumstances. This is why we need
to watch very careful what is going on in Tikrit.
It is true that Sunni leaders have expressed support for
what is going on in Tikrit. That gives me some visibility into
the multisectarian nature of this particular offensive. But
this is something we really have to watch, because it is the
key to getting control over territory of Iraq again and getting
these guys, this ISIL thing defeated.
Mr. Womack. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Better be watching Iran and the Quds
Force, too.
Mr. Ryan.
DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Bad backs are awful things to
have to deal with, so thank you for sucking it up for us here.
And I know Ms. Granger mentioned that this is a moment for
you and you are uniquely prepared. So I looked at your history,
and I was reading through, and I am not sure if she was
referring to the fact that you have a bachelor's degree in
medieval history and that makes you uniquely prepared to deal
with the United States Congress.
With the Presidential request, the budgetary request, I am
just looking through the procurement and modernization
programs: 57 Joint Strike Fighters, $10 billion; 16 P-8
Poseidon naval surveillance/antisubmarine warfare aircraft,
$3.4 billion; Hawkeye aircraft, 5, $1.3 billion; 9 ships for
$11 billion; a bunch of retrofitting, overhaul refueling of USS
George Washington; R&D for Ohio-class replacement, $1.4
billion; KC-46 tanker, continuing to develop that for $3
billion; long-range strike aircraft development, $1.2 billion;
Ground-Based Interceptor reliability improvement, $1.6 billion.
These all, to me, seem like essential needs, given the fact
that I have been on this committee for a few years and was on
the Armed Services Committee and have seen the deterioration of
our capabilities in so many different ways. The issue: We don't
have the money.
And so part of it is to try to get the message out of
exactly what is happening. And I don't think any of us have
done a very good job communicating to the American people that
these needs are essential for us. You know, all these questions
that go up and down the line--Iran, ISIL, Ukraine, Syria, on
and on and on and on--are all urgent needs. And we are in the
middle of all of this, and we don't have the dough.
So part of this has got to be for us, at a moment where we
have a huge concentration of wealth in our country--and you
can't have this discussion without having the broader
discussion of, where are we going to get it? But I think if the
American people knew exactly where we were and the road we are
going down, I think it may be easier for us to make an argument
for how we maybe generate the revenue and make the cuts
primarily to help make this happen.
One area that we are working on in my district in
Youngstown, Ohio, is the President's first additive
manufacturing institute. Seeing that we have made some
investments with the Air Force program, Youngstown State
University, University of Dayton, with AmericaMakes, I am
seeing huge possibilities for cost savings with the military
making the kind of investments needed to drive down cost for
procurement and replacement parts and all the rest through
these investments in additive manufacturing.
If you would talk to that briefly.
And then another question--I will just throw them out at
you now so you can kind of hit them both--the defense
industrial base. And I know that does hit your background, the
S2T2 study, sector by sector, tier by tier. Is this something
that is going to continue?
To me, we are spending a lot of money. How do we keep it in
communities that we represent to make sure we have the supply
chain available and qualified to delivered the kind of
equipment at the quality that you need it?
So additive manufacturing, AmericaMakes, and the supply
chain.
Secretary Carter. Very briefly, the defense industrial base
is a critical--it is, next to the excellence of our people in
uniform, what makes our military the best in the world. And
that is something that you could take for granted. The way we
do things in this country is we count upon the private sector
to provide us with technology and with systems, and we need to
make sure that we continue to be supported by a robust
industrial base. That is a concern and a preoccupation of mine,
and I share that, absolutely, with you.
Manufacturing institutes are an example of a step we are
taking to make sure that excellence in production remains part
of our defense industrial base. Additive manufacturing is one
new type of manufacturing. And, of course, it is related to the
bigger question of making sure that America's role in the world
economy remains a leading one, a strong one, and one that all
of our people manage to share in.
So it has a bigger national purpose, but for us in defense,
it is in order to make sure that we continue the excellence in
production.
Mr. Ryan. The S2T2 study is--do we have status and outcomes
that have come from that, their weaknesses within the context
of how we evaluated what is happening and, you know, what can
we do better?
Secretary Carter. There are. And so, just to define that
study, that was a study that tried to look at the tier-by-tier
part, which is the prime contractors and the subcontractors,
parts suppliers and so forth, as well as different sectors--
aerospace, shipbuilding, and so forth.
The tiers are relevant because you can have a situation
where the prime contractors are very healthy--which, in
general, ours are today--but down at the lower tiers there is a
diminution in number of suppliers, technology competence or
sophistication of the supplier base, and so forth. And that is
something that was uncovered by this study and, therefore,
something also of importance to us.
Mr. Ryan. And I am running out of time, but I would love to
talk----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You actually have run out of time.
Mr. Ryan. I see that red light on there, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Ryan.
Judge Carter.
SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome.
Secretary Carter, I like your name and hope you are very
successful, so if you are, I will go back to Texas and claim
you as a cousin.
General Dempsey, good to see you again. Thank you for your
service.
I am all about the soldier, the ground forces. I have Fort
Hood in my district. We talked about it; I think it has been
made clear. We know your position on the President's budget and
the numbers, but BCA is the law of the land. And, therefore, if
we exceed the caps, we are going to be talking about sequester,
which I hate, everybody at Fort Hood hates, and everybody in my
district hates.
But I need to know--I am curious. Our current national
security strategy, it is flexible, but is it flexible enough,
in light of what we may be facing with BCA, that we will have--
what is the strategy that you envision--and either one of you
can answer this--if we have to cut the Army and the Marine
Corps to an unacceptable ground force? And I think we are
verging on the edge of that, in my opinion, right now.
And then I want to point out, and I think you all know
this, you don't just go out and hire sergeant majors and you
just don't go out and hire lieutenant colonels. We are
hollowing out the force. And the concern is, what is the
strategy about that real problem?
And I learned about something from folks at Fort Hood
called Task Force Smith, and we don't want any Task Force
Smiths.
So I want to know the plan if we are in that situation.
Not, "We need more money." We know you need more money. But
what is the plan if we have to be there? Because I am worried
about the individual soldier.
Secretary Carter. Well, you should be, because that is one
of the consequences of a budget reduction as rapid and as
sudden as called for by sequester.
Task Force Smith was an example, a historical example of
troops being sent into battle who were not ready and were not
adequately trained.
Mr. Carter. Right.
Secretary Carter. But we never should do that. That is an
unconscionable thing to do.
You mentioned attrition among some of our very best people
because of the forces having to downsize--another casualty that
cannot be quickly reversed of the suddenness and severity of
the cuts of sequester.
The connection to strategy is this: We are going to have to
go back to our strategy, and if the time for squeezing,
squeezing, squeezing is over, we are going to need to look at
our fundamental defense strategy and our national security
strategy and ask ourselves difficult questions about what we
can't do, or can't do to the extent this country has become
accustomed, if we have sequester.
That is the warning that I am trying to sound and I hope is
understood and heeded not just here by people like yourself who
are expert but by the country as a whole.
Let me ask General Dempsey to join in.
General Dempsey. Yeah. Real briefly, sir. Because we have
worked this for 4 years, the chiefs and I. And it has been our
current strategy--we have built in a degree of simultaneity. We
can do more than one thing at a time. So the first thing that
begins to erode and disappear is simultaneity. We are going to
be less likely to be able to do more than one major thing at a
time.
Secondly, I mentioned in my opening remarks that right now
our paradigm, if you will, for the deployment of the force is
that we try to have about a third of the force forward deployed
to shape events so that we are not reacting but rather shaping.
And that is going to be reduced by, we think, about 40 percent.
The last thing--and if you want to plant something in your
head on this, I am going to guess that you are probably a
Longhorn football fan. I am just guessing.
Mr. Carter. That is a questionable, but go ahead.
General Dempsey. Are you an Aggie fan?
Mr. Carter. Texas Tech, but that is all right.
General Dempsey. Okay. So----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You didn't do your intel before you
came.
General Dempsey. Yeah, I know, I know.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Judge Carter is a very tricky man.
General Dempsey. A Red Raider fan. But I will tell you, the
analogy works nevertheless. Unlike football, where teams love
to play a home game, our job is to make sure that everything we
do is an away game.
Mr. Carter. Right.
General Dempsey. And I am telling you, Congressman, we are
at risk of starting to play a bit more of a home game than we
should be comfortable with.
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS
Mr. Carter. And that was the reason I was asking. And I
knew that the Pentagon does scenarios, worst-case-scenario
situations, and I have talked to General Odierno about that.
But I want to make sure you are planning for it, because until
we fix the Budget Control Act, we are not going to be able to
do much with what we have.
I want to make one more suggestion to you on the medical
issue that--I have been up here for all this, too. I come from
a high-tech area of Texas, where we have a lot of techies. And
I have talked to some folks, and they say that one of the big
stumbling blocks between DOD and the VA is nobody wants to go
to a modern platform, IT platform. They are playing with Model
A's and Model T's and trying to put new engines in them, when
reality is they need to have a Cadillac and a Lexus. And they
are available.
If you could break that culture that says we want to fix
what we have, not replace it, you might find it will be cheaper
and it will work better.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. First, General Dempsey and Secretary
Carter--Secretary Carter, I think you are the right person in
the right place. You are experienced. You seem to know what you
are doing. You are focused, and you are a good leader. And we
hope we can work with you.
Secretary Carter. Thank you, sir.
CYBERSECURITY AND SPACE OPERATIONS
Mr. Ruppersberger. I am going to be redundant here, but I
think it is important to say because I think the American
people need to know how serious we are in providing national
security to our country.
We have had in the last couple hearings the Secretaries and
head of the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force all talking
about what this sequestration is doing to us, making us weaker.
We know it is the law, and I am calling out to leadership on
both the Republican and Democratic side to focus on this issue,
to try to find a way to repeal this law.
If the American public knew what the testimony was in the
last week about how we are weaker in the area of dealing with
terrorism, dealing with cyber threats, dealing with Russia/
China threats, dealing with space threats, I think the American
people would be very upset at all of us for not doing something
to protect us.
You know, we had a good, bipartisan, yesterday, vote on
Homeland Security, and that is just the beginning. This is a
bigger issue than that, as far as what we are doing to protect
our country.
Now, I just have--I got something from staff here,
Associated Press article today saying, "China to boost military
budget by 10 percent." You have India increasing 11 percent.
And when we have so many threats in this country, probably as
dangerous as this world has been in a long time, probably since
World War II, we are going the wrong way, and we need to turn
that around. So I would hope that we could deal with that.
Now, I want to get in real quick--and then the chairman is
going to knock me out as soon as my time is up--the issue of
cyber. You talked about a cyber bill. We have legislation that
passed this house on two occasions, and it stalled in the
Senate. And we have to move to forward on information-sharing.
General Dempsey, you talked about cyber and the issue, the
private sector. What people don't realize, 80 percent of the
private sector in this country is controlled by--I mean, 80
percent of the network is controlled by the private sector. So
we have to work in partnership between our military, between
our intelligence community, and the private sector.
Hopefully we can move these bills now, because the threat
is there. The American public were not aware of the threat of
the attacks until Sony and Target, and it goes on and on. So we
have to move forward.
The other thing I want to get into, though, real quick, is
space. We haven't talked about it a lot, but space is one of
the most important things we deal with. We are the most
powerful country in the world probably because we committed to
space years ago. But now Russia and China are really gaining.
They are putting in money, and it is a very serious issue.
Could you discuss the threats of space and what we need to
do?
Secretary Carter. Yes. I will be very quick, and then,
Chairman, if you want to join in.
China, Russia--you talked about budget increases. There is
a technological and qualitative dimension to their march ahead
also. And that is concerning to us. Actually, we have some
pieces I don't have time to go into here, and maybe we can't--
--
Mr. Ruppersberger. Also, in your answer, can you say why
space is so important? Because most people don't realize how
important it is.
Secretary Carter. Because it is the only way, in many
cases, to be able to carry out a mission, like surveillance
over denied territory, like GPS satellites, like over-the-
horizon communications that don't depend upon cables. There are
just things that can't be done in another way than by using
space.
General Dempsey. I would just add, precision, navigation,
and time. Everything we do in the military, as you know--you
have seen us become very precise. We are exquisitely good at
navigation. And the fact that we all operate on the same clock
allows us to coordinate activities. And all of that is done
from space. Precision, navigation, and time are all space----
Mr. Ruppersberger. All coming back to the ground.
General Dempsey. Absolutely.
And I will just leave this thought with you. Space is
congested, it is incredibly congested. When you see images that
our Space Command provides, it is incredible how much stuff is
in space. It is contested, in particular, by Russia and China.
And it is competitive. And we had better keep up with the
competition.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Graves.
MILITARY FORCE AGAINST ISIL/ISIS
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, General, thanks for being here. And I
appreciate this very important discussion we are having today.
And if I could just follow up on Chairman Rogers' comments
about the request for use of military force. And I think this
is a very important topic that we all need to be discussing,
and it is of vested interest for each of us. And I appreciate
the two points, Mr. Secretary, that you mentioned were
important to you.
In the request, there is a line that says to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as the President determines to be
necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or
forces.
A question from me would be: Do you interpret this as
providing any geographical limits whatsoever, or is it
boundless?
Secretary Carter. No. No geographic limitations.
Mr. Graves. Okay. Thank you.
Secretary Carter. Which is important.
Mr. Graves. Good. Thank you. That is. And then, maybe
another question about limits, when it comes to going after
supporters of ISIL or state supporters and section 5--and
again, I don't know the answers to these. I am just trying to
understand maybe your interpretation--Section 5 says the joint
resolution, the term ``associated persons or forces means
individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or
alongside ISIL or closely related or any closely related
successor entity in hostilities against the United States or
its coalition partners.''
Do you interpret that section as allowing use for military
force against those who fund or support that might be a state
supporter of ISIL?
Secretary Carter. I can't unpack the legal side of it, so
let me kind of give a commonsense answer to the question. It is
important, the way these organizations morph over time and the
way that they associate with others and the way that we see
ISIL, for example, popping up in Afghanistan, really as an
offshoot or, I guess, more accurately, recruiting members of
other groups, it is important that we have the flexibility and
the language there that when we are designing a campaign to
combat ISIL, people can't relabel themselves and escape from
it. So I think that is the critical point, commonsense point.
And it is important that the AUMF that ultimately emerges
from the Congress take that into account because that is the
nature of terrorist groups in today's world.
Mr. Graves. Would it be important to you--and, again,
helping us as we craft this, as you described it--to include or
make sure that any organization or group or foreign entity,
government, or state that supported ISIL or ISIS in any way was
drawn into this request for military force? Be declarative, so
to speak.
Secretary Carter. Again, I don't want to get into the
business of crafting the language here, but I will try once
again to give a commonsense answer. We need this thing to be
elastic enough that we can do our job. That is the most
important thing to me. Does it allow us to do our job? And as I
said before, the second thing that is very important to me is
that we speak clearly to our troops. They need to hear us all
saying, hey, this is really serious and we are behind this. And
that is much more important to me as a nonlawyer than the
language itself, as I am sure you appreciate.
Mr. Graves. And I agree with you. We want to make sure you
have as much latitude as possible. That is very important.
And then that leads to my last question to General Dempsey.
It seems I recall one point last year you made a statement that
struck me--and I don't know where it was publicly, in the press
or where I might have seen it--but you made the statement that
arming the rebels or training the rebels was necessary but
potentially insufficient. And that was a powerful statement, a
very powerful statement.
Do you sense that this resolution or request for use of
military force completes that sufficient criteria that you
might be looking for in your experience?
General Dempsey. I don't think that what I am looking for
will be provided by the AUMF. The AUMF really relates to the--
literally the use of the military instrument of power.
And what I was referring to was as we--in fact, this is one
of the things that I have provided my advice about, which is,
as we build this new Syrian force, for example, or as we
rebuild the Iraqi security forces, there has to be a companion
effort to link it into some responsible political structure or
else you have just got--you have just managed to build a bunch
of folks who are going to change their loyalties as the
situation, you know, evolves.
So the piece I am looking for is what is this military
capability we are developing? What does it plug into that makes
it responsible over time to inclusivity and representative
government?
Mr. Graves. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Graves. Batting cleanup, Mr. Diaz-
Balart.
AUTHORIZED USE OF MILITARY FORCE
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize
for being late. I was in a meeting with some other budgeteers,
trying to make sure that what they do doesn't----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Diaz-Balart serves on the Budget
Committee. It is not a committee you want to serve on, but it
does--
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I will----
Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. I like to put our oar in
the water. The time is yours.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was very
grateful when I got put on the Budget Committee. You know that
is true. Gentlemen, great to have you here. A couple of the
points also on the authorization of force. Obviously,
flexibility is something that you want and you need. And I
think--at least, I can speak for myself--that is something that
I want to give you. My understanding, and there is a 3-year
limit, in essence. And so we have had a lot of conversations
about sequester. We were never supposed to get there, but we
got there. So here is my concern: I guess, I mean, do you think
3 years is going to be--we are going to be able to defeat our
enemy in 3 years? I think I know the answer to that. And if
not, does that 3-year limitation not send, frankly, a confusing
message to our troops, Mr. Secretary, which I agree with you,
we have to be--to the American people, to our enemies and to
our foes and also to our allies?
So, in other words, does it not limit us? Now, all right,
maybe we will never get there, but we have seen this movie play
out before.
Secretary Carter. It is an excellent point. And I think
that I cannot and would not assure you that the war against--
the campaign against ISIL will be over in 3 years. I don't
think that is the origin of the 3-year limit. The origin of the
3-year limit, as I understand it, doesn't have to do with
whether we have the latitude to conduct the campaign. It has to
do with the constitutional nature of the responsibility for
using military force in our country and the recognition that it
is a joint responsibility of the executive branch and the
legislative branch, and the recognition that in 3 years there
will be another President of the United States. Not that the
campaign is going to be over then, but that in view of the way
our country works--and again, this isn't my responsibility. It
is certainly not the Chairman's responsibility--but I respect
the timetable built in as one that has to do with the nature of
this body and its relations with the executive branch.
So as long as nobody thinks it is all going to be over in 3
years--I would dearly love that if we could do that in 3
years--but I cannot predict that we can. The 3 years has
something to do with something else entirely, which is the
Constitution, the legal system.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I get that. And I don't want to put
you in a highly uncomfortable position. But it could be a
limiting--in other words, if we got there in 3 years from now
and if your job was not done, ISIL was still there, it could
be, then, a pretty serious limitation?
Secretary Carter. Well, I----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Your ability to do what it takes.
Secretary Carter. The only thing I can say to that is I
hope now that 3 years from now people have their eyes open as
wide as they seem to have them open now, which is that ISIL has
to be defeated. So I would hope that doesn't--doesn't occur.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Right. Again, I don't want to put you in
an uncomfortable position. I believe this is--I understand this
is not your decision, but I just want to make sure that--I
think I got the point, which is--so you would not complain if
that 3-year limitation was not there?
Secretary Carter. No. I have no reason to complain on the
campaign right now.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. A couple more issues.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for a
question?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes.
Ms. McCollum. Do you think we are incapable of doing a
reauthorization if ISIL was a threat 3 years from now?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Reclaiming my time. None of us thought
that we were going to be at the sequester. Remember, we were
never supposed to get there and, all of a sudden, we are. And I
just think that we have to be very careful to not limit our
armed services to the job that they are being asked to do.
Air strikes on ISIL. And I have read that somewhere about
15 to 20 air strikes a day. And to put that in contrast, I
learned during Desert Storm I guess it was over a thousand.
Is it 15 or 20 a day, whatever the number is, because we
just can't--since it is not a sitting army necessarily that we
can't find the targets, or why is--why are those numbers, why
limit it to 15 or 20? Is it military? Why?
General Dempsey. We are not constrained. If I had 300
targets, we would deal with 300 targets. It is a matter of
developing targets in an enemy that is a learning enemy. They
don't sit around waiting to be struck any longer. And both our
coalition support--you know, our aircraft and the coalition and
I are flying close-air--or combat air patrols. When we find a
target, we attack it.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great. Thank you.
And lastly--and, Mr. Secretary, I would just like to join
the words of Mrs. Granger.
You know, we--sequester is the law of the land. I don't
like it, but it is the law of the land. And if we were to mark
up, as I heard today in Budget, if we were to mark up at a
different number, at a higher number, it is fake, because then
the sequester would kick in and it would just automatically
take it right out. So I just--you can't control what Congress
does. Many of us sometimes are wondering if we can control what
Congress does.
But I would just urge you to--it is going to require
congressional action. It is going to require Presidential
leadership as well, and you can't do anything about us here.
But I would just urge you to, please, we have to get those
conversations going. We have to get, frankly, those
negotiations going. I don't think that is going to happen
before the budget is marked up, or potentially even before the
appropriations bills are marked up, but we have to have that
conversation. It is going to require House leadership, Senate
leadership, and it is going to require Presidential leadership.
So I would just, also, urge you to make sure that you
spread the word here, which you are doing, but also that you--
that we do everything we can to make sure that the President
also engages.
Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Just one personal comment on the authorization issue. We
used to focus now on al Qaeda, but tomorrow we may be focused
on the Quds force. So I know this is ISIL-centric, but in
reality, we need to be prepared for every eventuality.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you gentlemen
for your time, and thank you for representing the best fighting
force in the world.
We stand adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the
answers thereto follow:]
Cyber Security
Question. The fiscal year 2016 Department of Defense budget request
contains $5.5 billion for cyber activities, a growth of $500 million
from the 2015 enacted level. Fiscal year 2016 will be the fourth year
of the U.S. Cyber Command Cyber Mission Team (CMT) development. The
CMTs are comprised of military, civilian, and contractors that will
pursue defending the Department's networks from cyber-events and
initiate offensive cyber activities against adversaries. The CMTs will
reach full capability in fiscal year 2017 and it is estimated that
6,000 people will be required to fully staff the various teams.
Secretary Carter, does the Department of Defense currently have the
organic capability to ensure the security of our supply chain from a
cyber perspective, meaning, does the Department of Defense have the
internal ability to dismantle motherboards, computer chips, and other
hardware that exist within our supply chain to ensure no backdoors
exist? If not, how are you partnering with industry to build such a
capacity?
Answer. Yes, the Department of Defense (DoD) has organic facilities
and technical expertise to perform analysis and reverse engineering of
computing hardware and integrated circuits.Recently, in response to
section 937 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014, DoD established the Joint Federated Assurance Center (JFAC) and
initiated an effort to federate its capabilities to facilitate support
to acquisition program offices with software assurance (SwA) and
hardware assurance (HwA) expertise, tools, policies, guidance, and best
practices. The JFAC mission is to coordinate HwA and SwA capabilities
across DoD that develop, maintain, and provide vulnerability detection,
analysis, and remediation support. The report required by Section 937
contains a further explanation of the organization and operation of the
JFAC. The DoD also leverages related Department of Energy (DOE)
capability. The JFAC recently completed an assessment of DoD and DOE
microelectronics analysis capabilities. The results are classified and
can be made available in an appropriate forum. The JFAC is working with
other federal agencies, private industry, and academia to improve tools
and techniques for assessing the security and reliability of hardware
and software.
Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS)
Question. The goal of the CPGS Program is to give the President the
ability to strike a powerful, non-nuclear blow precisely on any target
anywhere in the world within 30 minutes. I think that goal has been
`softened' to within 60 minutes. The warhead in the Army concept
(Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, AHW) is carried on a glide body that
skates along the atmosphere at many times the speed of sound. The Army
concept is the only one that has had a successful test flight. However,
the CPGS office insists on changing the glide body and scaling the Army
concept down to an untested and unproven design--necessarily prolonging
the testing timeframe and pushing to the right, by many years,
deployment of a limited operational capability. Last year, Congress
added $25 million to the DoD budget for the specific purpose of
supporting the progress of the AHW (Army) concept.
Secretary Carter, as you are aware, our potential adversaries are
moving full steam ahead with operational testing of hypersonic weapons
while we dither with changing and altering the design of a successfully
tested prototype. I think I am correct in saying that we could have one
more demonstration test, and then operational tests and limited
deployment of the Army SMDC's AHW concept in five years or less. A Navy
deployment would be 15 years--or more. In response to suggestions to
move ahead with such a path, the CPGS office suggestion seems to be to
deploy a land-based version of the untested Navy path version of this
weapon which is smaller, less powerful, and with a much smaller range.
It seems unusual to me for a program office to be so determined not to
follow up on its one successfully flown prototype. Whereas an
eventualNavy-deployed weapon might offer some value because of the
maneuverability of submarines, this suggestion to deploy a land-based
version of something which has never flown, and which has a limited
range, seems to me to be counter-productive. I am not supportive of the
media-reported 900 million dollar-plus five-year path to develop this
smaller version of a hypersonic weapon, which even at that point would
not be ready for deployment for years. Do you believe that it is in the
Nation's national security interest to deploy, as soon as possible, an
operational hypersonic system in order to deter our enemies?
Answer. DoD carefully monitors and assesses the hypersonic
technology developments of other nations, and we balance these
developments against the prioritized operational requirements of our
Combatant Commanders, treaty commitments, and national policies in a
resource-constrained environment. In the case of hypersonic boost-glide
technology development, as exemplified by Conventional Prompt Global
Strike (CPGS) efforts, there are tradeoffs between explosive power,
glider/booster size, weight, range, operational flexibility,
survivability, and affordability.
The CPGS Defense Wide Account uses a national team, to include
experts from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and DARPA, to mature critical
technology elements and reduce technical risks ahead of a potential
Materiel Development Decision, selection of a basing mode, or possible
investment in an acquisition program. Recent classified and
unclassified reports to Congress, reports in progress, and engagements
with authorization and appropriation committee staff have reiterated
the technical approach and flight test objectives of the CPGS effort.
The CPGS flight test in November 2011 was an important step for the
Nation to address some of the technical challenges related to
hypersonic boost-glide flight, but the test was not representative of
an operational system. The successful 2011 test yielded valuable
flight, ground, modeling, and simulation data in the areas of
aerodynamics, thermal protection systems, and navigation, guidance, and
control, and this data is being fully leveraged as the CPGS program
moves forward. Through the preparations leading up to the CPGS launch
attempt in August 2014 (FT-2), and ongoing preparations for the next
CPGS flight test (FE-1), the national team is making tremendous
progress in the areas of first-ever live warhead integration with a
hypersonic glider, flight control software improvements, higher G-loads
for flight maneuverability, increased reliability and
manufacturability, and greater prime contractor involvement to
recommend improvements to the government's design.
Additional information will be provided in the FY 2015 CPGS report
to Congress, which will be submitted in late Spring 2015.
Question. Secretary Carter, I would appreciate a detailed review of
several aspects of the proposed FE-1 test. A) Although it has recently
been suggested that this is not necessarily a Navy-path test and that
the test is beneficial to an Army or Navy path in the future, in fact I
think this test was planned and named five years ago or more, has
always been a Navy-path test, and creates a lot of operational and
flight risk as compared to the glide body flown in 2011. Please confirm
whether this is essentially the third test in the Navy-path, which goes
back to the CTM concept. B) What is the total cost of this test? I
believe the amount of $170 million may not cover all of the
development, acquisition, range, and other costs. C) How much of this
test duplicates what was already learned from the FT-1 test of the 2011
version of the glide body? D) How many of the same objectives (of FE-1)
could be achieved by using the 2011 glide body and designing a near-
term FT-3 flight test? E) What would be the cost of doing that FT-3
test and following operational tests if the most economical booster
were used, as suggested by the studies written by SMDC? I ask that your
office obtain those studies in their entirety.
Answer.
A. The Conventional Trident Modification (CTM) concept was
not a boost-glide concept. The CPGS FE-1 glide body has a
different geometry, flight trajectory, and warhead design than
CTM. Recent classified and unclassified reports to Congress,
reports in progress, and engagements with authorization and
appropriation committee staff have reiterated the technical
approach and flight test objectives of the CPGS effort, to
include the differences from the abandoned CTM concept.
B. The cost for the FE-1 flight test is estimated to be
approximately $160 million. This includes support from the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and national laboratories for test
planning, design, glider and booster development, component
testing, fabrication, test range assets, and test execution.
C. The FE-1 test is focused on new objectives, such as
warhead integration. With the exception of the range (distance)
of the test flight, there is no duplication of FT-IA in FE-1.
FE-1 is leveraging knowledge gained from FT-1A and dramatically
advances Critical Technology Efforts that will benefit future
flight tests.
D. Additional information, to include the number objectives
of FE-1 that could be achieved on a FT-3 flight test, will be
provided in a report to Congress the Department plans to
deliver in late May 2015 after review and approval from
USD(AT&L). The CPGS common technology development approach may
give DoD options for land, sea, or air basing. Under
consideration are tradeoffs between explosive power, glider/
booster size, weight, range, operational flexibility,
survivability, and affordability.
E. The Department is currently preparing a separate report to
Congress that will address potential costs for various CPGS
concepts. We plan to deliver that report before the end of the
fiscal year.
Question. Secretary Carter, in the opinion of some people, since no
service has taken budgetary ownership of the hypersonic mission, the
program is stuck in a technology demonstration cycle rather than being
on a path to producing, as soon as possible, an operationally
deployable system. What language would help your Department clarify
Congressional support for the CPGS program to produce an operational
hypersonic weapon of the full-range possible with the 2011 glide body
within five years?
Answer. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff conveyed last
year, the U.S. hypersonic boost-glide strike capability was recently
addressed by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) in
November 2012. It was determined that the existing portfolio of fielded
strike systems or modifications to current systems can meet the interim
long-range-strike requirements identified in the prompt strike Initial
Capabilities Document with acceptable risk.
The JROC did recognize that potential future circumstances may
require a capability to address high value, time sensitive, and
defended targets from ranges outside the current conventional
technology. However, the Department is not confident that a realistic,
affordable hypersonic strike concept capability can be fielded in the
near future. As a result, congressional language to produce an
operational hypersonic weapon of the full range possible with the 2011
glide body within five years is not warranted. Continued congressional
support for funding CPGS efforts as requested in the President's Budget
is needed, however. The CPGS effort continues to address critical
technology elements to reduce risk ahead of a potential material
development decision.
Question. Secretary Carter, perhaps it is time to re-examine the
best way to achieve the original goals of PGS. Would the Department of
Defense be able to better utilize taxpayer dollars through the
dissolution of the CPGS office and establishment of an Army-led joint
program office to rapidly advance hypersonic weapon technology with an
explicit goal of a near-term operational deployment of a ground-based
system and follow-on technological demonstrations of alternate
deployment options? Please notify the Committee of the closeout costs
of terminating the CPGS office.
Answer. The Department provided a report to Congress in October,
2014 entitled, ``Conventional Prompt Global Strike: Assessment of
Reassigning Management Responsibility.'' In the report, we concluded
maintaining the Defense-Wide organizational architecture was important
for program momentum and continuity. The Defense-Wide effort has worked
to eliminate redundancies among Service efforts, illuminate
opportunities for collaboration between them, and make efficient use of
limited DoD resources.
Question. My understanding is that a JROC classified document may
include a requirement for PACOM for a weapon of the capacity of the
original PGS plan--a capability which could be achieved with further
testing of the 2011 glide body. Can you clarify whether this
requirement does exist?
Answer. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff conveyed last
year, the U.S. hypersonic boost-glide strike capability was recently
addressed by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) in
November 2012. It was determined that the existing portfolio of fielded
strike systems or modifications to current systems can meet the interim
long-range-strike requirements identified in the prompt strike Initial
Capabilities Document (ICD) with acceptable risk. The JROC did
recognize that potential future circumstances may require a capability
to address high value, time sensitive, and defended targets from ranges
outside the current conventional technology; however, there is no
requirement in the JROC for a weapon of the capacity of the original
CPGS plan.
A hypersonic strike capability, not necessarily limited to or
explicitly defined by the 2011 glide body, is supported by U.S.
European Command, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S.
Strategic Command; however, the Department is not confident that a
realistic, affordable hypersonic strike concept capability can be
fielded in the near future. Technology risk must be reduced, projected
costs driven down, and operational considerations addressed before the
Department commits to funding and fielding this kind of capability.
EELV Engine Program
Question. Last year Congress authorized and appropriated $220
million for the development of an advanced American-made liquid rocket
engine, to replace the imported Russian-made RD 09180 rocket booster
engine. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Fiscal Year
2015 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 113-291) states: We note
that this provision is not an authorization of funds for the
development of a new launch vehicle. This provision is for the
development of a rocket propulsion system to replace non-allied space
launch engines by 2019. In the President's fiscal year 2016 budget
request, the Air Force included $84.5M for research and development
(RDT&E) for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (EELV) in a
sub-line entitled ``Next Generation Liquid Rocket Engine''. However,
the justification documents submitted with the budget reference the
planned expenditure of funds for development and upgrades to ``domestic
launch systems'', not to a launch engine. Specific examples from the
budget documentation include: In FY2016, the Department of Defense will
build off FY15 efforts and fund a program to invest in the development
of new or upgraded domestic launch systems via a shared investment
approach with domestic launch providers. This program funds research
and development activities and related studies support to reduce risk
and mature domestic rocket propulsion technologies to enable our long-
term rocket propulsion/launch system national security space
requirements and shared investments in the development of new or
upgraded launch systems. Invest in two or more launch service
providers' new launch system development and/or upgrades to existing
launch systems to provide two or more domestic, commercially viable
launch providers that also meet NSS requirements available by the end
of FY2022. The Air Force appears to be heading towards the development
of a new launch vehicle instead of a new engine. Further, the Air Force
does not appear to be heading towards establishment of a competitive
rocket engine development program as directed by Congress in P.L. 113-
291, Section 1604.
Secretary Carter, why is the Air Force not moving to immediately
create a competition for designing an engine (not a launch vehicle)
that meets the requirements as laid out by Congress, specifically
compatibility with Atlas V and availability for other companies to use?
Answer. We fully support the transition off the RD-180 rocket
engine as quickly as possible for launch of National Security Space
(NSS) missions. The Department's ultimate goal is two domestic,
commercially competitive launch service providers able to support the
entire NSS manifest However, simply replacing the RD-180 with a new
engine is not the answer, as we ultimately need a launch system and
rocket engines are not a drop-in type of solution. We essentially build
the rocket around the engine to address systemic technical challenges,
such as: engine vibrations, launch vehicle structures, fuel storage and
flow, and combustion stability. We know from our prior experience in
developing rockets throughout the past several decades that a rocket
engine and its associated launch vehicle must be designed concurrently.
Furthermore, since the beginning of the EELV program, and consistent
with both the commercial space act and national policy, the government
has procured launch services, and has not taken ownership or liability
for individual components or hardware.
National Security Council (NSC)
Question. Secretary Carter, according to a recent article, the
White House's National Security Council (NSC) has grown significantly
under this administration and now totals more than 300 staff How many
Department of Defense employees--broken down by military and civilian--
currently serve and have previously been detailed or otherwise assigned
to work for the NSC?
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015
(Current):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =................................................. 19
Civilian =................................................. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =................................................ 41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2005 to present, approximately 395 DoD personnel have been
detailed to the staff of the National Security Council.
On average, there are approximately 40 DoD personnel detailed per
year. The actual number fluctuates based on new requirements identified
by the NSC and/or due to attrition.
Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown, by year, since 2005
of the number of military and civilian DOD personnel assigned to work
for the NSC in any capacity.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 19
Civilian =...................................................... 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 18
Civilian =...................................................... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 17
Civilian =...................................................... 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 21
Civilian =...................................................... 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 21
Civilian =...................................................... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 25
Civilian =...................................................... 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 24
Civilian =...................................................... 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 25
Civilian =...................................................... 07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 26
Civilian =...................................................... 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 18
Civilian =...................................................... 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military =...................................................... 14
Civilian =...................................................... 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total =..................................................... 29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Secretary Carter, when a DOD employee is assigned to NSC,
does the Department continue to pay for their salary or is it covered
by the Executive Office of the President or other government agency?
Answer. Yes. For DoD personnel detailed to the staff of the
National Security Council, the respective component within the
Department continues to compensate their employees for pay and benefits
while they are detailed.
Question. How much money is spent by DOD to cover the salaries of
military and civilian personnel assigned to NSC? Please provide a
detailed breakdown of those costs, and summary, by year since 2005.
Answer. The ``Annual Department of Defense (DoD) composite Rate''
is used when determining the military personnel appropriations cost for
budget/management studies, but should not be considered as the fully-
burdened cost of military personnel for workforce-mix decisions.
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST BASED ON DOD COMPOSITE RATE & LEVEL 5 PAY SCALE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual DoD Composite Rate *Cost Based on Annual Pay Scale
Year (Military) Level 5 (Civilian) Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015........................................ $1,889,725 $2,989,411 $4,879,136
2014........................................ 3,719,172 2720,650 6,439,822
2013........................................ 3,725,219 2,071,211 5,796,430
2012........................................ 4,332,030 2,541,415 6,873,445
2011........................................ 4,334,091 2,479,866 6,813,957
2010........................................ 4,979,995 1,468,133 6,448,128
2009........................................ 4,658,099 1,545,770 6,203,869
2008........................................ 4,674,526 772,752 5,447,278
2007........................................ 4,059,593 1,480,404 5,539,997
2006........................................ 2,649,720 1,981,242 4,630,962
2005........................................ 2,228,813 1,457,506 3,686,319
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Civilian amounts referenced are calculated based on the individual detailee's military rank or civilian pay grade (level 5) for the purpose of
providing an 'estimated' cost as salary information is not available to this office.
Question. Secretary Carter, the so-called Islamic State (IS or
ISIS), poses a significant threat to regional security as well as the
U.S. Homeland. Since 2013, their expansion has surprised the West and
their power was and continues to be underestimated by President Obama.
We know that the seizure of weapons and ammunition during their early
expansion contributed to the rapidity with which they have been able to
secure territory. What is not clear, is how IS continues to expand. (A)
How is ISIS getting weapon and ammunition resupply? (B) What is your
department doing to identify and stop IS' weapon/ammunition suppliers?
(C) What can Congress do to assist you in this important matter?
Answer. ISIL obtained significant weapons, materiel, and funding
following seizure of territory in Syria and Iraq. ISIL further expanded
its resource base through robbery, extortion of local populations, oil
revenues, and ransom from kidnapping. A prime example of this is the
approximately $400 million dollars stolen from banks in Mosul. ISIL
uses this revenue and its continued extortion and economic activities
to fund operations and weapons procurement. ISIL also relies on foreign
contributions for both fighters and monetary support.
Coalition military forces have attacked ISIL's command and control
structure, leaders, field forces, supply lines, and military and
economic infrastructure and resources in Iraq and Syria. These attacks
have destroyed a significant portion of its capability, including
tanks, vehicles, and weapon systems. We have struck more than 150 oil
infrastructure targets that ISIL uses to generate revenue and continue
to pressure its control over key lines of supply throughout Iraq and
Syria. DoD is also providing support to other departments and agencies
to disrupt ISIL financing which can be used to purchase weapons and
materiel.
Question. In light of the previous question, what is the status of
the arming of Syrian moderate rebel groups? Please submit a full update
to the Committee on the status and backgrounds of these moderate
groups. Additionally, describe to the Committee the process the
Department of Defense is using to vet these groups.
Answer. We plan to begin training and arming appropriately vetted
Syrian opposition forces this spring. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and
Qatar will host the training of these forces and we are finalizing site
improvements. More than 350 U.S. and coalition partner personnel have
arrived in the region to finish preparations and commence training.
Through our collaboration with the other U.S. departments and agencies
and foreign partners, we have identified 2,800 Syrians who may be
eligible to receive the training.
The pre-screening process, which is already underway, begins with
the compilation of biographical data on the potential recruits that is
then run through a series of interagency and coalition databases. When
the pre-screening process is complete, the recruits undergo a full
biometric screening process, and physical and psychological
evaluations. Although we have identified recruits, we cannot publically
disclose the names of specific groups we are recruiting due to host
nation sensitivities and operational security considerations. Screening
of opposition fighters is a continuous process.
Question. ISIS has committed horrific acts of violence and
oppression against many groups in Iraq and Syria, but Christians and
Kurds have borne a significant amount of that barbarism. To what extent
has the Department of Defense provided support to Kurds, and to Syrian
Christians?
Answer. The horrific acts of violence committed by ISIL against
ethnic and religious minorities in both Syria and Iraq, including
against Kurds and Christians, is at the heart of why we are working to
degrade and defeat ISIL. U.S. and coalition partners have conducted air
strikes and humanitarian airdrops to protect and support innocent
civilians. In Syria and Iraq, our air strikes have complemented the
efforts of Kurdish ground forces to blunt ISIL advances and retake
terrain in northern Iraq and in the Kurdish enclave of Kobane. We have
also conducted air strikes in Hasakah Province, where ISIL has
threatened Syrian Christians.
Last summer the Department of Defense established the Iraq Resupply
Task Force to expedite the delivery of critical equipment and munitions
to Kurdish forces. The Task Force has facilitated the delivery of
almost 2,400 tons of equipment, including more than 64 million rounds
of ammunition and 21,000 weapons, into Erbil for the Peshmerga. We also
provided 25 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles to Kurdish forces
earlier this year. Kurdish forces are also participating in coalition
training in Erbil. Several other Peshmerga units benefit from coalition
advise and assist efforts in northern Iraq, and Peshmerga units will
begin to receive equipment from DoD and coalition donations this
spring.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt.
Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and the answers thereto
follow:]
January 2015 Report by the Defense Business Board
Question. In January 2015, the Defense Business Board released a
report entitled, ``Transforming DoD's Core Business--Process for
Revolutionary Change.'' The report states that ``We can see a clear
path to saving over $125 billion in the next five years'' and
immediately follows that statement with ``The greatest contributors to
the savings are early retirements and reducing services from
contractors.''
Secretary Carter, I realize that the report was only released
recently, but has the Department considered implementing any of the
proposed cuts in service contract spending recommended by the Defense
Business Board? Do you anticipate these proposals being applied in
future DoD Budget Requests?
Answer. As in past efficiency initiatives in the Department,
contract optimization will be part of my management reform approach.
Additionally, the USD (AT&L) continues to implement better buying power
initiatives that include contract reviews and optimization. Any
reduction to these costs will allow the Department to continue to
sustain investments in readiness and modernization activities.
Inventory of Contracts for Services
Question. Mr. McCord, this question is to follow-up on the letters
we exchanged earlier this year regarding the Inventory of Contracts for
Services (ICS). As I think we both agree, given the extent to which the
Department relies on service contracts, it is imperative that it have a
reliable and comprehensive inventory of those service contracts. This
would help identify and control those costs as we do already with the
costs of civilian employees.
In your February letter, you indicated that the Department remains
committed to the continuous improvement of the ICS. As the inventory
improves, how will your office ensure that components and defense
agencies will actually use that inventory in order to reduce spending
on service contracts, both generally and specifically?
Answer. The Inventory of Contract Services (ICS) is a key tool in
determining the right mix of military, civilians, and contracted
services needed to reflect new strategic priorities and evolving
operational challenges. The Department's internal ICS guidance directs
all Components to use the inventory reviews and subsequent workforce
shaping decisions to inform programming and budget matters, including
requests to realign work, as appropriate, to military or civilian
performance. During the upcoming fiscal year 2017 program and budget
review, my office will continue to scrutinize contract services
spending in order to remain in compliance with section 808 of the FY
2012 National Defense Authorization Act, as amended, and section 955 of
the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.
The Department's sourcing of functions and work among military,
civilian, and contracted services must be consistent with workload
requirements, funding availability, readiness and management needs, as
well as applicable laws and guidance. Going forward, the Department
continues to be committed to defining the right workforce mix and
properly insourcing functions previously performed by contractors that
are either inherently governmental functions or are more efficiently
performed by civilians.
Insourcing
Question. Mr. McCord, in prior year NDAAs there have been
requirements for the Department to issue regulations that would make it
easier for managers to take funding for contractors and instead use it
to pay for civilian employees. Has the Department complied with the
FY14 requirement?
Answer. The Department has not yet finalized the regulations
referenced under section 1108, ``Compliance with Law Regarding
Availability of Funding for Civilian Personnel,'' of the FY 2014
National Defense Authorization Act, but is working to do so. In the
interim, the Department is continuously working to determine the right
mix of military, civilians, and contracted services needed to reflect
new strategic priorities and evolving operational challenges. The
Department's sourcing of functions and work among military, civilian,
and contracted services must be consistent with workload requirements,
funding availability, readiness and management needs, as well as
applicable laws and guidance. In-sourcing has been a very effective
tool to rebalance the workforce, realign inherently governmental and
other critical work to government performance, and in many instances,
to generate resource efficiencies for higher priority goals.
In-sourcing contracted services must meet the necessary criteria
(consistent with governing statutes, policies, and regulations) by:
absorbing work into existing government positions by
refining duties or requirements, or
establishing new positions to perform contracted
services by eliminating or shifting
equivalent existing manpower resources (personnel)
from lower priority activities.
Question. Your predecessor Bob Hale told our counterparts on the
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in 2013 that service
contractors generally cost two to three times what in-house performance
costs, particularly for long-term functions. Given the need to reduce
costs, what efforts has the Department undertaken to save costs from
insourcing long-term functions performed by contractors?
Answer. The Department continues to improve its accounting of and
visibility into contracted services utilization as part of its annual,
statutorily required Inventory of Contracted Services. As part of that
process, DoD component heads are directed to conduct reviews of their
use of contracted services to determine if more appropriate, or cost
effective, performance of that function can be achieved by in-sourcing
that work to an organic government workforce. Accordingly, the
President's Budget FY 2016 reflects a total force and manpower mix
strategy that aligns functions and work among military, civilian, and
contracted services in a cost-effective and balanced manner consistent
with workload requirements, funding availability, laws, and
regulations.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Visclosky.]
Tuesday, March 17, 2015.
FY 2016 NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES
WITNESSES
GENERAL FRANK J. GRASS, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
LIEUTENANT GENERAL STANLEY E. ``SID'' CLARKE, III, DIRECTOR, AIR
NATIONAL GUARD
MAJOR GENERAL JUDD H. LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JEFFREY W. TALLEY, CHIEF, UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE
Opening Statement of Chairman Frelinghuysen
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good morning. The committee will come to
order.
Happy St. Patrick's Day, everybody.
And a number of our members have other committee hearings,
but I know they want to participate and they will be here in
due course.
This morning the committee will hold a hearing on the
posture of the National Guard and U.S. Army Reserves. We will
focus primarily on readiness issues related to personnel,
training, equipment, modernization, reset, and the effects of
fiscal constraints on the force.
Ladies and gentlemen, we owe a debt of gratitude to the men
and women of the Reserve component. The soldiers and the airmen
of the Guard and Reserve performed magnificently in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and some, of course, still do in Afghanistan and
throughout the world. They have worked seamlessly with their
Active-Duty colleagues in ways that allows mission after
mission to be accomplished. And may I add they have paid a
price.
Of the 6,800 military personnel who died in the war zones
of Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 700 were Guard, Army Reserve,
or Marine Reserve members. We also never forget that the
military is an inherently dangerous job, even far away from
combat. So this morning we note the loss of four members of the
Louisiana Guard who, along with seven Special Forces marines,
died in service of the country last week in a training accident
off the coast of Florida. We mourn with their families and
thank them for their services. And, gentlemen, please, extend
our greatest sympathy to those families for their sacrifices.
We would also like to thank your troops for their
dedication to their communities, to their States, and to their
country during a time in which our way of life continues to be
threatened.
We are pleased this morning 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,
representing more than 460,000 citizen solders and airmen in
the Army and Air National Guard.
I would also like to extend the committee's appreciation
for General Grass's better half, Pat, for being here this
morning. And she sits behind him, but she does much more than
sit behind him. She stands alongside him, working on behalf of
all of those in the Guard and Reserve.
I would also like to welcome Lieutenant General Stanley
``Sid'' Clarke, III. He is a Director of Air National Guard.
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 Lyon's second year to testify
before the committee. We welcome you.
And, finally, we are pleased to welcome back the Chief of
the U.S. Army Reserves, Lieutenant General Jeffrey W. Talley.
Thanks, also, General, for your contributions.
Welcome. We are eager to hear your testimony, which will
assist the committee to better determine the needs of guardsmen
and reservists, whether in their home State or deployed around
the world.
Of course, this committee is worried about the funds that
will be made available for the Guard and Reserve under the
Budget Control Act. Even 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.
We remain, as a committee, very concerned about the
readiness of the National Guard and U.S. Army Reserves
following over a dozen years of war and the likelihood of
further conflict across the globe.
End strength. How do we right size your forces to maximize
your military effectiveness while making our national security
dollars go as far as possible? The Army Aviation Restructure is
the big Army's top priority. We look forward to your
perspectives on the future of Apaches, Black Hawks, Lakotas and
Kiowa Warriors.
The committee also understands the NGREA has been a
critically important tool in the modernization of the Guard and
Reserve. We want to hear from you on how this fund is working,
since we were very much involved in funding it.
The committee is also eager to discuss your increasingly
important role in the cyber world. It seems to many of us that
guardsmen and -women bring critical skill sets from the private
sector into their military job, and we must find a way to take
advantage of those special skill sets.
Generals, we look forward to your testimony. But, first, I
would like to call on my ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for any
comments he may care to make.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sorry for holding everybody up. I apologize.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing and,
gentlemen, for your service. I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Grass, we welcome your
testimony. Your entire statement will be put in the record.
Summary Statement of General Grass
General Grass. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And, Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Visclosky, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
be here today with my wife, Pat, and my fellow National Guard
and Reserve leaders.
I am honored to represent 460,000 citizen soldiers and
airmen and their families, communities, and employers that
support them. I would also like to echo chairman's condolences
to the families of the Louisiana National Guard and the Marine
Special Operations warriors who lost their life in the accident
in Florida last week. This tragedy is a reminder of the
sacrifices our members and families make on a daily basis.
Over the past 13 years of sustained conflict, with the help
of the Congress, the Guard has transformed into a premiere
operational force, serving with distinction as the primary
combat reserve of the Army and Air Force. The Nation's
investment in the Guard has resulted in the best trained, led,
and equipped Guard in history. It is the finest I have seen
throughout my career.
The Guard is tremendously appreciative of this committee's
support. I want to thank you for funding programs, such as the
National Guard and Reserve equipment account, improving Army
Guard readiness, HMMWV modernization, new radars for our F-15
fighters, Black Hawk helicopter procurement, and other critical
dual-use priorities.
As we look to the future, we face three realities shaping
the security environment: the global realities, the fiscal
reality, and the reality of change.
A global reality that includes asymmetric adversaries and
regional instability is intertwined with a fiscal reality that
requires us to balance the need to provide security to the
Nation with other domestic spending requirements.
These realities exist aside the reality of change, change
that has resulted in a borderless world and a more informed
U.S. population that expects the government to respond to
natural and manmade disasters at greater speeds.
In view of these realities in the security environment, I
am concerned that, with sequestration, the Nation will have its
smallest National Guard since the end of the Korean war,
despite the U.S. population approximately doubling since 1954.
This will create challenges in responding to the needs of
the Governors at a time the Army and the Air Force will rely
more heavily on the operational Reserve to accomplish combatant
command missions. If funding levels are below the President's
budget request, we risk not being able to execute the defense
strategy.
The solders and airmen who serve and their families,
communities, and employers who support them are our most
treasured resource. The Nation's investment in developing
combat and mission-ready guardsmen through a wide array of
resourced, accessible, and effective programs is greatly
appreciated, but must not be left to degrade or return to a
strategic reserve. Moving forward, finding the right balance in
our military, active Guard and Reserve will be more critical
than it has been in history.
Your National Guard is a proven option for rapid, cost-
effective and seamless expansion of our Armed Forces. Modest,
but necessary, investments in training, manning, and equipment
will maintain the readiness of the National Guard as an
operational force.
Thank you for allowing me, sir, to be here today. And I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, General.
[The written statement of General Grass follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Summary Statement of General Clarke
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Clarke, good morning again.
General Clarke. Good morning, sir.
Good morning Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member
Visclosky. Thanks for the opportunity.
This is my third time to appear before this committee, and
I remember how cozy it is here in here.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Very cozy in here.
General Clarke. The broad shoulders of my Army colleagues
makes it interesting here.
We have over 105,500 members of the Air National Guard and
just one member here, but I am very proud to be at the helm of
leading the Air National Guard, part of the National Guard
Bureau, but also working with the Air Force.
And I want to tell you that the relationship between the
Air National Guard and the United States Air Force is
excellent. We get along very, very well. And we do things
collaboratively, transparent, and we work with the States
Adjutants General in almost everything we do in an open,
transparent way.
So we have--of the 105,500 consistently deployed members of
the Air National Guard, in fact, over 2,000 are deploy-delayed
today across the globe, doing a variety of operations. I see no
slowdown whatsoever for the Air National Guard in the next
year.
Indeed, with 12304b mobilizations, volunteerism, and 12302
authority, we see one heck of a lot of support of the Air
National Guard supporting combatant commanders around the globe
continuing to be a proven choice for the warfighting operations
that we support.
With regard to the homeland, the Air National Guard
provides multiple capabilities that are used on a daily basis.
Our firefighting capability, the explosive ordnance disposal
capability, along with a variety of other things that we also
dual-use for the overseas fight that we use at home, are
consistently put to work on a daily basis, including the rescue
operations and other capabilities.
With regard to security cooperation, we continue to be
supportive of the State Partnership Program around the globe.
We also have bilateral relationships that don't even exist
inside the State Partnership Program that we support. An
example of that would be what we do for the air forces of Iraq.
We are doing the training for the C-130Js that they have at one
of our units. Additionally, the F-16 foreign training is all
done at Tucson by the Air National Guard.
And, finally, I would like to say that we are doing a
variety of theater security cooperation package--cooperation of
elements that are overseas supporting combatant commanders on a
daily basis. What I just said is we are heavily invested in the
operational Reserve concept in multiple ways.
And let me tell you, our airmen love it. They love being
operationally engaged. More than half of our people who have
joined since 9/11, they know the future holds that they will be
engaged. Their employers know that. Their families know that.
There is a balance that has to be struck between all of it,
but they like being a part of the operational Reserve and
supporting the United States Air Force and the Nation when we
do things overseas, and they love doing things at home
supporting our citizens in need.
Our priorities: First, taking care of our airmen. That
always stays at the top of my list. I look at that from a
variety of lenses, whether it is preventing sexual assault,
diversity. Those kinds of programs are important.
I do want to tell you that I am a bit concerned about the
future with regard to MILPERS. That is an important funding
stream, one element of our funding that we need to sustain in
order to be able to get to the schools that they have to have
and the follow-on courses for future education and training
that make sure that they are good partners with the Air Force
and the joint community.
Another priority: We need to maintain a strong operational
Reserve from perspective--not just the deployments I was
talking about, but a concern of mine is being able to
participate in the big exercises that we do as a part of our
Air Force. These exercises are what makes our Air Force
different from any other Air Force in the world, and I have to
have funding in order to support those exercises in the future.
Third priority: Modernization and recap of our legacy
force. We operate a lot of old airplanes. I will give you one
short vignette, sir, if you will bear with me.
In January, the Secretary of the Air Force and I were
invited down to Antarctica by the National Science Foundation
to see what happens with our operations there. The New York
Guard flies LC-130s. These are the Ski Birds, the only ones in
the Nation that we have. We fly the Ski Birds down to McMurdo
Station in Antarctica and further, all the way to the South
Pole.
The airplane that we flew the Secretary of the Air Force on
from McMurdo Station to the South Pole was a 1972 model LC-130,
originally purchased by the U.S. Navy, flown by the Navy, put
into the boneyard into retirement, pulled back out into our
inventory to fly, and, yet, we have enough confidence in the
airmen and the weapons system sustainment the Air Force
provides in order to fly that airplane in a most--fairly
austere environment. I would invite you to come down and see
that operation sometime.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I have been on it.
General Clarke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We provided the--you know, the skis for
the planes through our committee and, also, the crevasse
finder.
General Clarke. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is that mountain division out of Fort
Drum or something.
General Clarke. And the crevasse is just one part of that
austere environment I am talking about. So, since you have been
there, you have seen it. But we have enough--the point being,
with a 43-year-old airplane, at some point, that airplane is
going to need to be recapitalized. We can continue to
modernize. At some point, it has got to be recapitalized.
And the last thing is I would say, beyond the NGREA part
that you just talked about, we support and really appreciate
your support on the NGREA funding that we received. A unit last
year, for the last half of 2014, did 6 months of combat duty
over Afghanistan modified with two important programs by NGREA
funding.
It changed the airplane from being a fair precision
munition delivery capability to an outstanding delivery
capability. It provided the center display units inside the
cockpit so you could see the enhanced images, and it provided
the helmet targeting capabilities that we did not have
previously.
So this NGREA money is very well spent. It makes a big
difference for combatant commanders. It makes our airplanes
safe, reliable, and compatible with combatant commander
requirements and possibly with air space management and other
concerns we have in the future. Again, we appreciate your
support on that.
Thank 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
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Lyons.
General Lyons. Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member
Visclosky, distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is an
honor to appear before you today.
I would like to begin by echoing the condolences, Chairman,
that you expressed and General Grass expressed for the families
of the four National Guardsman and the seven marines who were
taken from our ranks this last week. They will never be
forgotten.
I am here representing nearly 350,000 soldiers in the Army
National Guard. Our force is manned, trained, and equipped to
serve wherever and whenever the Nation calls. The Army Guard
maintains facilities in nearly 2600 communities where we built
relationships with local leaders and first responders. And it
is this community presence that enables the Guard to react so
quickly when civil authorities request our assistance.
The Army Guard responded to 45 major disaster declarations
in 32 States and territories in 2014. Our missions never cease,
and they don't end at the water's edge. Through years of war,
the Army Guard has trained and deployed with the Army as a part
of the joint team. Since 2001, we have mobilized soldiers more
than 536,000 times. Our units have performed every assigned
mission, from counterinsurgency operations to peacekeeping.
This experience has transformed the Army Guard from a Cold War-
era strategic reserve to a combat-seasoned operational force.
I would like to thank Congress for providing the vital
resources and specifically the committee for their continuing
support of NGREA that has been needed to transform the National
Guard. Through your efforts, our Total Army remains the most
formidable, capable land force in the world.
In an unpredictable and dangerous world, the Army Guard
serves as a powerful hedge against uncertainty. The need for a
ready, scaleable, and experienced force at home and abroad
remains constant. Funding below the President's budget will
further exacerbate readiness challenges in personnel, training,
equipment, and facilities. If permitted to atrophy, the wide-
ranging capabilities of the Army Guard will be difficult to
restore.
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget increases funding
for our operations and maintenance and personnel accounts, and
this begins to restore vital programs and sustains readiness.
While the President's budget presents less risk than we faced
in fiscal year 2015, some readiness concerns remain, and I
would just like to highlight a couple.
The budget provides for Army Guard end strength at 342,000.
That is 8,200 less from our current authorized strength. This
could lengthen response times for domestic emergencies, and it
leaves fewer forces available for overseas missions. The Army
Guard achieved the highest level of medical readiness in our
history in 2014. This readiness is beginning to trend down,
though, due to the risk we have already accepted in these
accounts in 2015.
The budget calls for increased training funds which are
essential for leader development and maintaining the Army Guard
as an operational force. This funding provides for two combat
training center rotations, but limits the majority of the force
to individual crew and squad-level proficiency.
Our soldiers' readiness and the well-being remains a top
priority. I thank Congress for supporting our behavioral
health, suicide prevention, sexual assault prevention, and
other critical programs. The dedicated men and women of our
Army Guard formations present tremendous value to our Nation
and to the communities where we live, work, and serve. The Army
Guard has proven our strength as a combat-ready operational
force, a role that, with your support, we will probably
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. Thank you, General Lyons.
[The written statement of General Lyons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Talley, good morning again.
General Talley. Good morning.
Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Visclosky,
distinguished members of the committee, this is my third time
before the committee, and I want to start by thanking you.
Last year I testified that we needed help on getting our
HMMWV ambulances, and you guys came through. I recently got
$48.4 million of a $60-million Congressional markup, which will
bring us up to 100 percent equipment on hand for ambulances.
That is this subcommittee's work. I want to thank you up front
for that.
It is certainly an honor for me to represent soldiers,
civilians, and family members of the Army Reserve. And on their
behalf, I want to thank the committee for everything that you
are doing today and you will do in the future to continue to
support us.
Also, with my background, I want to wish everyone a happy
St. Patrick's Day, and may the luck of the Irish be with me
today.
Mr. Chairman, the decision to place the majority of the
Army's combat support and combat service support capabilities
in the Army's Reserve committed the Nation years ago to
maintaining the Army Reserve as an operational force. It did
not, however, anticipate the increased requirements that that
structural shift would generate for the Army Reserve in terms
of resourcing.
The Army, as a service, integrates and synchronizes all
services when sustained unified land operations are required,
but they can only do so with the support of the Army Reserve.
The Army Reserve has most of the Army's critical, technical
enablers, such as logisticians, transporters, medical, full-
spectrum engineering, civil affairs, legal, and chemical
capabilities.
As a Federal force under Federal control and the only
component of our Army that is a single global command, we are
already embedded in every Army service component command and
combatant command worldwide. This allows us to respond to any
mission at home or abroad and, in many cases, with little
notice.
Currently, the annual demand signal from the Army in order
for us to meet combat or contingent missions is 27,000 soldiers
each year. In many cases, these troops and their units may be
required to immediately deploy overseas. So they must be
maintained at a higher level of readiness. Although we have
historically received additional resourcing, the standard model
of 39 base-funded training days per year produces only a
strategic force. This is insufficient to train, equip, and
maintain the Army Reserve as an operational force.
In the past, readiness beyond the strategic level was
purchased with overseas contingency dollars. That flexibility,
as you know, no longer exists. And base budgets must reflect
funding consistent with mission requirements. Readiness must be
balanced with modernization and strength, which, again, require
resourcing. If we lose that balance, our ability to support the
Army and fulfill the Nation's global security requirements are
at risk. We face that dilemma today.
Sequestration and budget uncertainties have created a
requirements resource mismatch and they threaten our ability to
support our great Army and the Nation. Readiness is bought by
robbing one unit, Peter, to fix or pay for another unit, Paul.
This can't be a sustainable business model.
While my posture statement discusses all of these concerns
in greater detail, I want to highlight quickly three areas that
are essential to generate readiness. The first is annual
training and operational tempo accounts. Cuts to these accounts
limit our ability to conduct individual, leader, and unit
training. For example, reductions in school funding leave the
Army Reserve unable this year to pay for 8,000 training and
15,000 educational seats, negatively impacting our morale,
endangering promotions and pressure and retention and
increasing attrition.
The second area of concern is equipping and modernization.
Today, the Army Reserve comprises 20 percent of our Total Army.
Yet, our share of the Army's equipping budget is less than 3
percent. To illustrate this point, the Army Reserve provides 92
percent of the Total Army bulk petroleum assets. Unfortunately,
much of this capacity has not been modernized, reducing our
interoperability within the force. Unchecked, the Total Army
and the joint force literally could run out of gas.
The third and final area of concern are the reductions in
full-time manning. These great AGRs, MILTECHs, and Department
of Army civilians execute the foundational requirements that
range from paying our soldiers to facilitating training.
Currently, the Army Reserve is filled only to 76 percent of our
authorized requirements. That jeopardizes our ability to
execute missions.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, the Army Reserve is uniquely
postured to support the Nation, but we can only maintain that
capability when properly resourced. In order to sustain our
current readiness levels, we need the committee's continued
support with funding for full-time manning, individual
collective and unit training, and equipment, including NGREA.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the
committee today and for the outstanding support that Congress
has always provided the soldiers, civilians, and families of
the Army Reserve. With your help, we can stay twice a citizen
and Army strong. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, General.
[The written statement of General Talley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And I thank all of the Generals for
their testimony this morning.
And thank you, General Talley, for raising the Irish
profile a little higher today. May I say we probably wouldn't
be an independent Nation unless George Washington were able to
count on the Irish brigades.
A very high percentage of those who fought with Washington
were of Irish heritage. A lot of people don't know that. But we
never would be the Nation we are today without that incredible
contribution. So let me thank you for mentioning that.
I yield to Mr. Crenshaw.
Remarks of Mr. Crenshaw
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today. Welcome back. We
are going to discuss some of the challenges that you all face
every day.
And, first, let me pass along a message to you. I served in
State government before I came to Washington. And a lot of my
colleagues also served in State government. In fact, 5 days
after I became president of the Florida Senate we had something
called Hurricane Andrew, which, at the time, was the largest
natural disaster in our Nation's history.
And so I can tell you that me, along with a lot of the
colleagues that served in State government, all sleep a little
better at night knowing that the Guard and Reserve are ready at
a moment's notice to deal with not only natural disasters, but
just about any kind of problem that occurs around the world. So
I wanted to pass that along to you.
And now, as a Member of Congress that represents just about
every area of the Guard and Reserve in my district in north
Florida, I clearly see firsthand what you bring to our national
security. And I think everybody in this room appreciates the
work you do.
F-35 PROGRAM
Let me ask General Clarke a question that deals with the F-
35 program.
As you all know, there are plans to have F-35s at four
units around the country with the Air National Guard, and it
concerns me a little bit when you see the delays that have
taken place in the F-35 program. Now we see the problems with
the sequester that maybe is going to drastically cut what the
Air Force has.
And I guess I am concerned that the Air Force might
sacrifice the Air National Guard F-35s before they reduce any
of their active squadrons, and I think that would be a move
that wouldn't be in the best interest of our national security.
I don't think it would be smart strategically. I don't think it
would be smart fiscally.
But, General Clarke, I want you to talk about that, why you
think that basing F-35s with National Guard units around in
those four areas--why is that smart, both tactically and
fiscally? And then tell us what you think the right number of
F-35s that are needed with the National Guard so they can
remain proficient.
And then, finally, maybe this subcommittee will want to
know any tripwires that you might see that--any signals that we
might be seeing from the Air Force that maybe they are moving
in a direction that would be against the plan to actually house
them with you.
So can you touch on those three aspects of that F-35
program.
General Clarke. Yes, sir. I would be happy to.
Of course, the F-35 is an important airplane for the future
of the Air Force and for the Nation. It is truly a fifth-
generation fighter. So it goes beyond what fourth-generation
capabilities can provide today for the Nation.
With regard to your first part about why it is important
for Air National Guard units to have them, we are a warfighting
component of the United States Air Force. That unit I was
talking about in Afghanistan previously was an Air National
Guard unit that did this deployment on their own with no
support from anyone with regard to other units coming in and
backfilling them, rounding them out. They mobilized from their
home station, didn't go somewhere else to get spun up for this.
They went direct to the combat fight, a proven choice for
warfighting operations.
Every single one of our units reflects that same
capability. Why? Because previous senior leadership of the Air
Force made sure that we could do that. So when we talk about
the bed-down of new platforms, recapitalizing the old ones,
replacing fighters that are approaching 30 years of age on into
40 years by the time we get into the F-35 program where we
start delivering the numbers, I think we are going to see the
appropriate recapitalization of the Guard in parallel with the
United States Air Force. That is a full part of the plan.
In fact, the first unit has already been announced up at
Vermont, where we are going to put in Air National Guard
fighters there. What we are doing is we are wedding a lot of
expertise that the Guard brings and experience with newer
people that come into the regular Air Force at these units.
So we will have active associations, Active-Duty members
flying with the Air National Guard at every single location we
bed these down, Air National Guard-assigned aircraft, largely
Air National Guard doing it, particularly maintenance, which is
important, and our pilots. But we will see regular Air Force
bedded down with this, also, wherever those units are
identified. So I think it is important that we do that for the
future.
And, by the way, we operate 15 of 16 air defense sites over
the Nation, also. We nearly have 100 percent of all of the air
defense capability over the Nation on a daily basis in the Air
National Guard, another reason why it is good for the bed-down.
With regard to the number of airplanes, the program of
record is 17,063 for the Air Force at large. I think that we
will see the Air Force recapitalize us on par. So we will have
the appropriate percentage of airplanes given to the Air
National Guard for all the great reasons I just talked about.
And the Air Force counts on us for future operational reserve
to support all the things we do at home and overseas.
And with regard to the plan, I see nothing that breaks that
plan apart for the future. The Air Force is fully invested in
making sure that we do get the appropriate number of squadrons
of F-35s as they deliver off the factory.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Remarks of Mr. Ruppersberger
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Chairman Frelinghuysen. I am
glad to see your green tie today, acknowledging our Irish.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I actually wear green on other
occasions, too.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Oh, well, that is good.
So I assume that you are very preppy, then, if you wear
green a lot. Okay. Let me go into my question.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is from your time.
Mr. Ruppersberger. First thing. As Congressmen Crenshaw
said, a lot of us served in either local government or State
government. I was in local government for 17 years as county
executive where we had to deal with the front lines, severe
snowstorm, national disaster. And it was great to have the
National Guard behind us at all times and your expertise and
readiness. And, also, I acknowledge your readiness in Iraq and
Afghanistan, too.
I want to point out, in the severe snowstorm where this
government was closed, all of my meetings were canceled except
for one, and that was General Grass. So the National Guard
comes out in really bad weather, too. And we discussed a lot of
issues.
C-130 AND A-10 TRANSFER
I am going to get into one of the issues that we did
discuss, and that is the C-130 airframe. It is very important,
I think, to the future. The C-130 airframe is very important--
and this is to you, General Grass--to the future of the
National Guard.
For my district, the Second Congressional District of
Maryland, this airframe is especially important. If the A-10
airframe is eventually divested by the Air Force, which I
understand is what is happening, and the C-130s are not
procured by the National Guard, the Air National Guard unit
stationed, again, in my area, Warfield International Guard
Base, will be without a flight mission.
So my question to you: Please provide details on what
efforts are underway to ensure that the National Guard can
effectively compete with big Army for the updated C-130J model
for this airframe?
And, additionally, please explain to the committee the
detrimental effects on airlift capability for the national
capital region, this whole region, if the C-130J airframe is
not procured by the National Guard.
I am going to ask you a question, if I have time
afterwards, about sequestration--I do it at every hearing--the
negative effects it will have on the National Guard and your
ability to do your job for the citizens of our country.
General Grass. Congressman, I will ask General Clarke in a
minute to talk more details on the C-130.
But I will tell you that our relationship, as General
Clarke mentioned, with the Air Force after the publication of
the National Commission on the Future of the Air Force has been
phenomenal. And I credit General Welsh and Secretary Deborah
Lee James every step of the way.
When we talk about modernization, recapitalization, it is
not like the Air Force considers the Air Guard or the Air Force
Reserve an afterthought. We are right up front. Not only are we
right up front, we have a three-member panel that advises
General Welsh, one active Air Force General officer, one
Reserve Air Force General officer, and one Air National Guard
General officer.
They have been on duty now for almost 2 years. We rotate
them. And they look across the board both for the overseas
requirements for tactical airlift and combat airlift, as well
as they look at the homeland for us. We have got a study
underway right now taking a deep dive into what you mentioned,
sir, and really taking a serious look at what timeframes do we
have to respond in on some of the major disasters that we might
get called into.
And the C-130 is a workhorse. You know, originally, we were
going to have the C-27J aircraft that's smaller than the C-130,
but it was going to be a premiere for the homeland. The
decision was made not to field that to the Guard. So the C-130
now even becomes more important because we had a different
aircraft in the Army Guard before called the Sherpa C-23, very
small, but very capable for responding, moving people, moving
equipment, moving supplies, emergency responders in a disaster.
So we are heavily invested for the future in the C-130.
I will ask General Clarke to talk more.
General Clarke. Congressman, with specifically Warfield,
the plan is, under the Total Force Proposal in 2015, if the Air
Force is successful in divesting the A-10 fleet, they do plan
to backfill capability at all of them, including your location
that you are talking about, and the current plan is to put C-
130s, J models, into Warfield if they divest the A-10s.
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mr. Ruppersberger. Now, how about the question I asked
about the detrimental effect to the national capital region.
Explain what the national capital region is and, if we don't
move forward with the C-130J, how that can have a negative
impact on this region.
General Clarke. Yes, sir. In our discussions with FEMA and
others, this is a complex problem here. Ground movement in the
national capital region is----
Mr. Ruppersberger. What is the national capital region, for
the Members?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Could you move your mike a little closer
so we could----
Mr. Ruppersberger. What is the national capital region? If
you could, define that and then the impacts.
General Clarke. Pretty much, I think, where WTOP covers
with their radio.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
General Clarke. You can almost be----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No advertisements here, please.
General Clarke. So I think it is the broader area. It is
the people who also support the national capital region. They
may live immediately outside the national capital region.
But in our discussion with FEMA and others, it is the speed
of response that is important. It is not just in total number
of airplanes out there across the Nation that can respond. It
is the speed of response that we can get those airplanes to the
location where either we are going to have to do the search and
recovery efforts, immediate medical evacuation, other things
that will have to be done.
That is a fairly large footprint for us in the Air Force to
do that. Having airplanes close by, it is actually quite
helpful because they are already there. But it could be a
staging location for other operations as well if it is not part
of the collateral damage or the damage of the event that might
happen in the national capital region.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much.
Let me introduce one of your own, Congressman Womack from
Arkansas.
Remarks of Mr. Womack
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, what a great honor it is to have these four
gentlemen and the folks behind them, including the Chief's
beautiful wife.
It is great to have Pat here today.
And, Mr. Chairman, you and I and Mr. Calvert just recently
returned from a trip overseas where we had an opportunity to
spend some time with members of our National Guard, the first
of the 112th Cav squadron down in Sinai, Egypt, my old stomping
grounds.
And I am happy to report that they are doing a great
mission and the one that the National Guard has been blessed
with now for a number of years and, I think, rotating back and
forth with the Army. I think the Army has it again after the
Cav squadron leaves. But they are doing remarkable work, and I
think it is illustrative of the capability of this
organization.
I would like to call attention to--noteworthy is the fact,
as we just talked about--the relationship between the Reserve
components and our Active-Duty counterparts is a pretty
remarkable relationship. I don't think anybody would disagree
with that.
There is, however, an ongoing discussion and a bit of a
conflict brewing that I want to drill down on just a little
bit. And I am going to throw this question to General Lyons.
And, General Grass, if you want to weigh in, I certainly
would like to hear your thoughts on it.
AVIATION RESTRUCTURING INITIATIVE
But it is about ARI. It is about the Aviation Restructuring
Initiative. And the Army is claiming in all of their reports of
these several billion dollars that they are going to save. And
so, on the surface, to me, this restructuring initiative looks
like that it is kind of a bill-payer for the potential effects
of sequestration and cuts in our defense structure.
However, in kind of drilling down on this subject, it looks
like--and, General Lyons, maybe you can help enlighten us a
little bit--it looks like that a lot of savings, the vast
majority of the savings, they are claiming aren't even going to
be realized until out in the--beyond the 2019 and 2020
timeframe. It is my strong opinion that there will be many
changes to what we are doing in defense between now and then
based on threats and budgets and what have you.
So help me understand, General Lyons. If Apaches were to
remain in the Army National Guard, would the Army truly be
lacking in the capability entirely or are your Apache pilots
able to perform the mission that involves the Army's manned-
unmanned teaming concept?
It is a concern of mine that we have got a major change
that is brewing. We have patched it a little bit in the 2015
process. But in fiscal year 2016 and beyond, this is going to
be a major issue. So help me understand.
General Lyons. Congressman, thank you.
The Aviation Restructure Initiative, as you have outlined,
does have cost avoidances with it that are--that are scheduled
as a part of that program. I will tell you, in answer to your
question about the complex operations, our National Guard
aviators have always conducted complex operations. They have
spent the last 13--almost 14 years of doing that, and they are
fully capable of doing that in the future.
Mr. Womack. Very good at it.
General Lyons. Yes, sir. They are extremely good at it.
So as we speak to the Adjutants General, in particular, on
this, one of the concerns is--that they have voiced is one that
you have hit on, and that is the ability to have capability and
provide strategic depth when that capability is needed. So as
we are currently postured with the airframe in both components,
we allot--that facilitates that strategic depth. That is what
the Adjutants General have mentioned on numerous occasions.
So we are fully capable of conducting those operations. We
have over the course of the war here. And given the quality and
experience of our aviators, we would continue to do so.
General Grass. Congressman, if I could add that, you know,
the bulk of the savings are already moving forward, the
changeout of the trainer at Fort Rucker, which we all agreed
to, the changeout of the Scout aircraft. We have 30 of them in
the National--or we had 30 of them.
Our last unit just got back. Tennessee Army National Guard
unit came back. I saw them in November doing great work, but
they knew that it was a platform that we would go along with
the Army and divest them.
The Adjutants General and the brigade and division
commanders have expressed to me a concern that, when we bring
our Apache fleet completely down to a level that is proposed in
ARI, that they will not be able to train with them anymore in
the future, which further pushes them to a strategic reserve.
But the bulk of the savings will be realized in, really, two-
thirds of that program.
Mr. Womack. Well, the math that they are using leads me to
believe that it is not necessarily being done for fiscal
reasons, but more for operational ones, and that deeply
concerns me, as a Member. I will come back to this subject and
others. I know I am out of time. But thanks for your response
and for hearing me on the subject.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Committee shares your concern.
Ms. McCollum.
C-130S MODERNIZATION
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am going to go back to the airframe and a little bit on
the C-130s. And I am very concerned----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Ms. McCollum, if you could just move
your microphone a little closer, please. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum. I am concerned about the older H models of
the C-130s. They deliver the troops. They deliver the supplies.
I mean, it might be the Air Force flying them, but the Army is
dependent upon them getting there.
And I am concerned because, for the past 13 years, the
Avionics Modernization Program has been designated to upgrade
the C-130H fleet to ensure that there is compliance with the
national, national, and international regulations before 2020.
Now, our Air Guard base is adjacent, as most Air Guard
bases are--in close proximity to international airports. So I
am concerned about the C-130 modernization efforts made under
AMP.
I would especially like to know if these modernization
efforts are going to result in compliance with the FAA and
international regulations before 2020.
I want to know what is underway to make sure not only the
Air Guard in Minnesota, but all across this country, are going
to be in compliance where not only, as I said, here in the
United States we need to be in compliance, but we need to be in
compliance internationally, too, as we fly with our NATO
partners and we fly in international air.
So what can you tell me that is going to assure me that we
are going to be on time in 2020 with all of the C-130 aircraft
good to go?
And what does this committee need to do to make sure it is
there? Because we can't have you waived off an airport saying
that you can't take off because you are not in compliance.
General Clarke. Yes, ma'am. Important question.
The Air National Guard operates a lot of the legacy
airplanes, C-130Hs. So this is something that concerns us as
well, recognizing that the mandates, like you mentioned, both
domestically and internationally to comply with the management
that is necessary for future air operations, requires these
airplanes to be modified. There is no way around this. We have
to do this. Indeed, there are multiple airplanes in the United
States inventory that need the same modification, not just the
H models in the C-130 fleet.
The plan right now is that is top priority one for
modernization of C-130s. We have got to get on with at least
that part of the modernization in order to meet the compliance
date of 2020 for operations in air space domestically and
overseas.
After that, then there is other modernization programs that
would be, I would say, second tier to that one, but that one
has got to come first. So the Air Force is committed to putting
the resources behind this compliance issue in order to make
sure that we are compatible with the requirements for domestic
and international operations.
And, in my mind, one way to make that happen is to not just
count on, like, one vendor to do that. We are going to have to
have multiple vendors in order to make sure that we can
implement this program or modify the airplanes in time to meet
that mandate. Otherwise, they won't be able to operate in this
air space.
Ms. McCollum. So we have got 5 years to do it and there is
a plan? There isn't a plan unless we change the way we are
doing it right now? Is that fair to say? If we keep doing stay
the course, we will not make the 5-year deadline for all the
aircraft?
General Clarke. Right now we got a little bit behind
because of the issue of whether or not the AMP program was
going to be used or not. All of the Adjutants General that have
them in their States today agree that we need to get this first
compliance issue completed and then we will start worrying
about other modernization programs. I believe this Nation can
do whatever it really wants to in regards to modifying
airplanes, depending on what the pressing priority is to make
it happen.
I know that the Air Force realizes that we have that
capability, that they are going to make this modification
alongside with us to make sure it happens in time to meet that
2020 mandate. Ma'am, it is absolutely priority one for all of
us in the Air National Guard.
Ms. McCollum. Well, Mr. Chair, I am--you know, with
sequestration, we don't know what the budget numbers are going
to look like in decisions that we need to make. I would think
that we would want to have all of our aircraft capable of
flying within the United States and flying internationally, so
to make sure that the committee knows what the schedule is
going to be and we do what we need to do to make sure that this
happens.
This isn't about picking, you know, favorite bases or, as
the General said, I used the C-130 as an example. It is about
making sure that all of our aircraft are able to be up in the
air and flying as needed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Mr. Graves.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it is a privilege to have you before us today.
And let me just, on behalf of the committee, thank you, as you
have heard previously, for all you do in providing readiness to
the good men and women in each of our States and as it relates
to the Guard and Reserve units. And you have got a tough task
ahead of you. I know we have discussed that.
And I want to change gears a little bit. The committee is
certainly concerned about a lot of the equipment of old and the
past a little bit, and I want to step and look to the future
some and talk a little bit about cybersecurity as it relates to
a GAO report that recently came out--and I know you all are
familiar with it--that they estimate that there is currently a
need for 40,000 cybersecurity professionals just to satisfy the
government's demand.
And that is a tremendous number. That is a huge number. And
I am sure each of you agree that these are skill sets in the
cybersecurity realm and beyond that reservists and guardsmen
are prime to fill based on the skills that they have developed
in their own civilian careers.
So, General Talley, you have commented in the past that the
demand for cybersecurity professionals and cyber-experienced
soldiers far outpaces the current inventory.
Could you share with the committee and maybe elaborate on
some of the Army Reserves' initiatives that are being pursued
to help recruit some of the most talented individuals with the
particular skill sets that are going to be required in the
future.
General Talley. Yes, sir, I will. And thank you for the
question.
Recently, the Army Reserve, as part of our private-public
partnership, launched an initiative here on the Hill with
support from members and their staff as well as six
universities and the private sector where we have brought
together the best from the private and public and academic
sectors to say, ``How can we take the already strong capability
in cyber in the Army Reserve and leverage it with, again, the
academic and the private sector?''
And that just started--we just launched that about a month
ago, and it was at that event where I was citing the same
report that you just cited that we are showing about a need for
40,000 more professionals in this area.
Well, the Active component has a plan to engage and train
their own cyber warriors and are starting to recognize that the
Army Reserve--and I think the Reserve components, in general,
can contribute a lot more than we have been asked to
contribute.
In the case of the Army Reserve, to run the numbers real
quick, I have almost 7,000 cyber warriors--or cyber-related
warriors. That is my military intelligence capability under the
only one-star MI command in the Army called the Military
Intelligence Readiness Command. They provide offensive support
to the National Security Agency, of course, above a TSI level.
On the defense side, in protecting the platform, which is
the Department of Defense Information Network, that is signal
capability. And I have a two-star command, the 335th Signal
Command, that has a lot of those cyber units under it. So they
protect the platform. They do defense. And then the MI folks do
offense. Put all of that together, we have a tremendous
capability.
Then we also have reinforced with subject matter experts
the USMA West Point Cyber Institute with expertise. And in
addition to the public-private partnership I mentioned, we are
creating IMA billets, individual mobilization augmentees, in
the private sector. So I would have an Army Reserve billet in
Google, in Microsoft. And all of that together provides
tremendous capability, and we are pretty pleased with the way
it is going.
Mr. Graves. That is good. Well, thank you for that
clarification.
And you feel comfortable with the path that the Reserve is
on and moving towards filling that gap? I mean, that is a
tremendous gap. I know that is in totality, 40,000 for
government. But you feel good with the direction that you are
able to work within?
General Talley. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
I want to highlight--there was a classified competition not
too long ago at MIT's Lincoln Labs, and we had our Active
component folks kind of paired up against our Reserve component
folks, Guard and Reserve.
And let's just say the Reserve component guys pretty much
kicked butt because, during the exercise, the RC folks were
actually writing code in their head during the competition as
opposed to just responding.
The expertise of the Army Reserve not just in cyber, but
across all of our areas--the reason we are so sharp is because
they stay sharp because they learn that and stay focused from
private-sector experience and then they bring that in the Armed
Forces. In my opinion, we have got to leverage a lot more of
that capability.
CYBER PROTECTION TEAMS
Mr. Graves. Right. Thank you. And I appreciate your focus
on that area. I think that is an area that this committee and
others will continue to point towards as a focus that is
required of the defense side.
And then one final followup, General Lyons, if you don't
mind. I want to first thank you. We are very pleased in Georgia
to have been selected as one of the locations for the National
Guard cyber protection teams and strongly believe it was a
right decision, good decision, given the talent pool by the
universities and the industry in the State.
In your view and maybe for our committee a little bit, can
you describe to us what is the importance of guardsmen or the
role, as you may see, in meeting the cybersecurity needs from
your perspective on an ongoing basis and into the future?
Because this is very new for a lot of our constituents, to
know that--cyber warfare and cybersecurity. We all know it from
a personal perspective. But from a national defense
perspective, your view of the role there.
General Lyons. Thank you, Congressman.
As you noted, the Army National Guard, the National Guard
at large, has made fairly substantial progress in 2015 year in
what we call cyber protection teams. So we have currently one
full-time Title 10 Active-Duty cyber protection team.
And, as you have noted, we recently announced the first 3
of 10 traditional Guard teams. So these are part-time men and
women that will bring their civilian skill sets, like General
Talley highlighted--bring those skill sets with them to these
teams.
Between the cyber protection teams and, in the Army
National Guard, computer network defense teams that we have in
the 54 States, territories in the district, which are really
protect-the-network kinds of teams, we think that we are very
well postured for the future in cyber defense. And I think that
is important, Congressman, that we continue to have structure
like that in the Reserve component.
I will speak colloquially for the National Guard. As the
Active component stands up their cyber mission force and we
invest tremendous amount of dollars in training and education
for those men and women, should those men and women decide that
they want to continue service, but perhaps pursue a civilian
career with information technology industry and industry like
that, we offer them a place in the National Guard and the
Reserve to continue their service, but do it on a part-time
basis.
And so we harvest those dollars, the training, the
education, and development by allowing them to continue to
serve. So the cyber protection teams in the Army National Guard
are a part of that, and we look forward to standing up the
remaining seven.
Mr. Graves. Okay. Great.
Well, thank you again for your service and, again, the
adaptation to the future demands that we will see as a country.
Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
Mr. Ryan and then Mr. Calvert.
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Two issues, two questions, one more of a comment and the
other more of a question to all of you. In my congressional
district in Youngstown, Ohio, we have President Obama's first
Manufacturing Innovation Institute, it is additive
manufacturing, three dimensional printing. We are working with
the Air Force and the Air Force Reserve in partnership with the
University of Dayton to figure out how to use this new
capability, this new technology called additive manufacturing
to help us reduce costs for replacement parts and to help save
money for the military, and specifically, the good deal of
money that we spend on replacement parts, whether it is in the
Air Force or another branch.
So I want to bring that to your attention, because I think
it is ripe for a partnership with all of you as well, as we
continue to move, because every hearing we have here, it is
about money, it is about budgets, it is about what we don't
have, and we have a technology coming online that the
Department of Defense is in partnership with the Department of
Commerce, Department of Energy to figure out how to drop the
costs for a lot of this where you would be able to print,
literally print a part for an airplane in theater or a truck or
a tank or whatever. And when you factor this capability into
our long-term budgets, I think we can save a lot of money.
So I wanted to let you know that the Youngstown Air Reserve
station, the 910th, is participating in that, the Air Force is
participating in that in conjunction with the University of
Dayton. So I wanted you to know that, because I think there is
room for a broader partnership here throughout the military.
SUICIDE
I wanted to ask about the issue that I know everyone cares
about. First I want to associate myself with Mr. Graves'
questions. I think the issue of cybersecurity is a huge one and
I am glad he asked that and peeled off the onion a little bit
on that. I want to talk about the issue of suicide, and I just
want to pose one question to all of you. I am looking at, you
know, some of the statistics that are here, Army Reserve had an
increase from quarter two to quarter three of 2014 of 11;
General Talley, and the National Guard has seen a slight bump
as well.
These numbers are still really high. And I wanted to ask
each of you, are there programs that you have gotten rid of?
Are there programs that you are highlighting now? Are you
trying to push men and women into that you are seeing more
benefit and seeing some impact, because it is still amazing to
me today that these numbers are still this high, and it seems
that we are not getting to the levels we certainly need to get
at.
So if each of you can just briefly comment on what is
working, because I think it is important for us to know what is
working as we are figuring out where to spend some of this
money.
General Lyons. Congressman, thank you for the question. And
share your concern and the committee's concern with the
behavioral health posture and support to our men and women that
serve, and our efforts at suicide prevention. So I would like
to address this in a couple different ways, if I could.
First, I would like to say that this is a leadership
priority in the Army National Guard, the adjutants general,
myself, in the 54 States, territories, and the District. We are
approaching this from a holistic and team-based approach. And
thanks to Congress, beginning in 2014, we were able to hire 78
full-time psychological health coordinators out in the 54
States, territories, and the District. That gave us a ratio of
psychological health coordinators to soldiers of 1 to 4,500 in
2014. Again, thanks to Congress's support, in 2015, we were
able to double that number to 157 psychological health
coordinators. That reduced that ratio from 1 to 4,500 to 1 to
2,000.
Now, we think the Army actually has this right. The Army's
goal is to get to a 1-to-333 ratio of psychological health
coordinators to soldiers, so with continued support, we will
continue to pursue that.
I talked about the holistic approach. We see an at-risk
population out there that is a younger generation, so we are
rolling out a Guard-ready application for smart phones to try
and tap into our most at-risk population, but it really goes
beyond that. It is a team-based approach. And when I talk about
that, I talk about our chaplain corps that is available 24/7 to
help our soldiers and family members. It is those first line
leaders in the units; it is those psychological health
coordinators that I talked about; but most importantly,
perhaps, it is their fellow soldiers, the young men and women
that serve with them.
We have devoted a tremendous amount of time in training so
that they can recognize signs of stress, signs of crisis,
escort that person to care. We have seen a 27 percent increase
in interventions in suicides with folks that have suicidal
ideations and we have increased our trained force by 25,000 in
the last year in the intervention skills training.
So we think that with the increase in interventions, we are
seeing a decrease in the number of suicides. In calendar year
2013, we had 120 suicides in the Army National Guard. In
calendar year 2014, that was down to 76.
So we continue to work to reduce stigma, we continue to
work to train our men and women to be there when their fellow
soldiers need them, and to support their families. And I want
to thank Congress's support for our ability to do that.
General Talley. Sir, thank you very much for the question.
It is a very important area. I think we have some good news to
report in the Army Reserve. This year, in calendar year 2015,
we are at five suicides, which is a downward trend from where
we were last year. At the end of calendar year 2014, I had 40
suicides. That is a 30 percent decrease of where we were from
calendar year 2013. In fact, our suicide rate and levels are
the lowest now they have been in over 5 or 6 years.
Having said that, we are not happy where we are, we have
got to continue to drive those down. So--and I have testified
to this a number of times, so I am actually real comfortable
and pleased to get the question again. When I first got on the
job as an engineer, business guy background, I thought I should
be able to tease out where the population was, so I thought the
people that are killing themselves in the Army Reserve are
people that aren't actively engaged in the Army Reserve, they
are not involved in family programs, you know, they are
absentee employees.
I was wrong. Spent about 6 months researching that. I own
almost all the doctors and nurses in the total Army. They are
in the Army Reserve. I own also most of the mathematicians. So
as I drilled down on that, who is killing themselves in the
Army Reserve: predominantly young males, never been deployed,
and they come to drill, and you think they are model soldiers,
and in some cases, their families may be participating in
family programs. Why are they killing themselves? Number one
reason, failed relationships with their--with a spouse or a
girlfriend or a boyfriend; second reason, right there close,
financial stress.
So how have we been getting after it? Using the Army
program, but also an Army Reserve program. So first off, we
look at the Army Reserve as a family, and so part of the Army
funding that is come from you and others have allowed us to
create these directors of psychological health and our RSEs,
also to put in place the suicide prevention program managers
that Judd mentioned, but also we have a great program called
Forward Family. 24/7 a day, you can call Forward Family. They
are not part of the chain of command. So they might get a phone
call for someone who is thinking about suicide, and they often
do, or sharp issues, who won't feel comfortable for whatever
reason going to their chain of command. That is showing
tremendous success in having us intervene and help people
before it is too late.
The other program that we have implemented is a life skills
coping program. So I had Dr. Bryan Kelly, who is a clinical
psychologist who commands--a two-star that commands my Army
Reserve medical command, I had Bryan look into this, and he
looked at--it is really an issue of lack of coping skills. So,
again, I don't want to hog more time than I already have, but
we are trying--we have to create--teach people how to cope with
stress today. For whatever reason, they don't seem to be able
to cope the way that previous generations and populations have,
according to the psychologist. So we have created a life skills
coping skills program in partnership with academia, and we are
starting that program throughout the Army Reserve. We are
seeing success.
PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PROGRAM
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Briefly, General.
General Clarke. Briefly indeed, because I am going to
parrot both of their comments. What I get from my wing
commanders is that the director of psychological health
program, having these people embedded in each of our wings, we
have 89 of them in the Air National Guard, is probably the
keystone to all of it. They have made efforts, they ensure that
there is appropriate focus, they talk to individuals. So that
is a--but to go a bit further just on the--
What General Lyons indicated about the soldiers themselves,
you know, with the airmen, they all know that they are sensors;
every single one of them is a sensor to what is going on, and
they sense things either at drill, they also sense things when
they are off with their civilian employees and with their
families, and they are watching things like Facebook and all
that.
They know--we told them when to watch out. And we don't do
this through computer-based training modules anymore, we don't
send our airmen to go look at a computer to figure out whether
it is how do you be a better sensor for things like suicide
prevention. We tell them face to face now, eyeball to eyeball,
what you need to know, how you need to respond, and who to
contact. And that, we think, is a good intervention effort in
itself.
We are down-trending from our efforts, but even one of
these suicides inside of a unit is devastating to the readiness
and morale of that unit.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. It is a
critical issue. It is one that the committee has invested in,
and we will continue to invest in it. It is very important.
Mr. Calvert.
UAVS FOR FIRE FIGHTING
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
my tardiness. We had an Interior Appropriations meeting on at
the same time, so--but I appreciate General Lyons, General
Clarke, General Grass and General Talley for being here, and
thank you for your service. All of us understand your
challenges you face, and we look forward to working with you to
support the men and women of our Army and Air Force Guard and
Reserve.
In the job that I have on Interior Appropriations, we deal
a lot with wildfire in the west. Wildfire is as catastrophic as
a tornado or a hurricane or earthquake to many parts of the
country. And in 2013, during the Rim Fire, which was over by
Yosemite National Park in California, the MQ-1B Predator was
utilized for fire mapping and perimeter spot fire detection. It
was highly successful in aiding the firefighting efforts on the
ground. The State of California was the first State to utilize
UAVs in support of a State emergency. The after-action report
showed that the UAVs took off several days of containment time,
saving money and possibly lives in a fire as catastrophic as
the Rim Fire, which the cost of that fire was well over $250
million to extinguish that fire, days, not as extremely--not
just the cost, but the amount of land that is consumed by fire.
However, it did take a huge effort on the part of Congress
to help move along the authorization process for the Predator
to be utilized in a State emergency situation. Many members
personally called the Secretary of Defense, I actually called
him on an airplane going somewhere, and asked Secretary Hagel
to personally, on a piece of paper on the plane, would he
please sign off on this thing, because we need to get on this
right away.
It took 3 days to get the U.S.--use of the UAVs to be
authorized, 3 days. And at that time, we said, look, that is--
you know, in a fire that catastrophic, that can take a lot of
lives, a lot of land and a lot of money. And so there was talk
about efforts to streamline that authorization process to
utilize National Guard UAVs during a state of emergency.
So I am going to ask the question, have we got that problem
resolved so--this summer, I am afraid, we are going to have a
lot of catastrophic fires.
General Grass. Congressman, if I can start, and I will turn
it over to General Clarke. I was on the other end of the phone
when we got the approval to put the MQ-1 up there from
California, and it was a game changer, as you said, sir. We
worked with the National Interagency Firefighting Center, we
worked with the FAA, with Cal Fire, and the Secretary's office
and Northern Command to get approval. We learned so much about
that, that platform and being able to take the live video feed
and infrared feed some nights right into the command center so
the incident commander knew when a flare popped out that they
could get on it quickly versus waiting to see a large scale
fire break out.
We also found that the ability of the MQ-1 to rely on the--
a repeater that we put on it, a communications repeater so that
the firemen on the ground in this very rough terrain where they
can't communicate, can now communicate better.
We are still working through the approval process. As you
know, there are many concerns from a--you know, citizens of
being able to--the military looking at the citizen on the
ground and anything to do with the UAV, human protection, you
know.
The one thing that I think will make some progress on
definitely with the Forest Service and others where there
aren't much of a population out there, those will be much
easier, but we have a lot of detail to work through. I will ask
General Clarke to comment on this, but this is a game changer,
and I know the National Interagency Firefighting Center is
very, very concerned that we have it up and ready for this fire
season.
General Clarke. I agree with General Grass's comments about
the sensitivity. We don't call it an ISR asset at this point,
it becomes an incident awareness asset, and you have to go
through the proper channels, the proper use memorandum has to
be agreed upon, the Secretary of Defense has--anything that
streamlines that, obviously we need to get the appropriate
authorities to make that happen, but we do want to share that
the citizen on the ground realize that our objective is to
protect their life and property, and we have no interest in
doing anything beyond that with these platforms.
With the proper oversight, with the proper integration of
the FAA and others, I think we can get there. As a former
commander of 1st Air Force and Air Force's Northern, any Title
10 asset, including the Predators that we used, would have fall
on their own, but I think there is a way of doing this in Title
32 under the same construct. And it would make a big difference
if it was a little bit faster in the allowance for the use of
these assets in the homeland for things like the fires,
earthquakes, fires, flood--we see a lot of this throughout the
year, so we are a little bit closer to that as the National
Guard watching it. We would appreciate any authority to speed
this up in order to respond appropriately.
And the great thing about the Predator, by the way, because
it is coming out of a training unit, it has an unclassified
line that feeds its information to the training part of what we
do, which then once it is hooked up to the network and global
information piece, it can be exploited out to whoever needs to
see it at that point. We have to be careful to make sure that
that doesn't get into the wrong places, because people would be
concerned about the overhead use of an asset like that, but I
think we can control that also. So I think there is a way ahead
on this, we just need to get the appropriate authorities to----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Will the gentleman from California
yield?
Mr. Calvert. Yes. Be happy to.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So to answer the gentleman's question,
has this been worked out or is this still a work in progress?
General Clarke. From my perspective and opinion, it is
still a work in progress.
Mr. Calvert. Well----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope it gets worked
out pretty soon, because we are going into fire season in the
West, and these--as you know, these Predators were able to
locate, as the General mentioned, with the infrared camera,
with the--and coordinate with the tanker fleet to pinpoint
where the drops for fire retardants and to take these fires out
very rapidly. And so this can save the taxpayer a lot of money
and it can certainly save a lot of property from being burned
up, so I would hope this can get worked out.
And if any language we need to do in a bill, Mr. Chairman,
I hope you would entertain such a thought, because we need to
get this done. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Visclosky.
F-16 MODERNIZATION
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Air National Guard is the primary force provider for
NORAD for the defense of the U.S. airspace. And as I understand
it, the Air Guard is responsible for 15 of the 16 fighter alert
sites, including Atlantic City that is responsible for
Washington and New York, but some of these units fly the oldest
F-16s in the Air Force.
Generally what needs to be done to ensure that these
aircraft remain fully capable? And secondly, is there
specifically an R&D need as far as research and development as
far as the upgrade of these aircrafts with the electronics and
other assets?
General Clarke. One of the sites, obviously in New Jersey,
provides the 24/7 response for homeland air defense. What I
wanted to tell you about these airplanes and the people who fly
them and maintain them, it is not just air defense they do.
They also deploy overseas. So anything we do to these airplanes
will be used for both the war fight and homeland operations,
the air defense mission. This--upgrades that we need would be
important for the surveillance and the ability to detect target
threats to the homeland, and in this session, that is about as
far as I can take that conversation, but indeed, it is a
deficit and we need to address this.
And I think with regard to the R&D for that, the R&D has
been pretty much done. Now it is an opportunity to purchase the
equipment and start implementing it into the aircraft. So we
have already tested some of this equipment out at our test
center in Tucson, and we think that it is a perfect match with
current capabilities. There are several vendors out there who
would vie for a competition to implement new radars into the
aircraft, but I think we are ready to go.
Mr. Visclosky. So for 2016, you don't think there is a need
for R&D, or if there is, it is not a significant amount?
General Clarke. Sir, I will take that for the record with
regard to 2016 for R&D.
[The information follows:]
To remain fully capable, F-16 aircraft require active
electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. AESA radars provide a
critical capability for aerospace control alert F-16s to detect and
track multiple airborne targets of interest in dense civilian air
traffic environments near major population centers. Simultaneously,
AESA radars improve the capability of ANG F-16's in close air support,
surface attack and defensive counter-air. AESA radars detect, track,
communicate, and jam in multiple directions simultaneously.
Additionally, AESA radars eliminate several components associated with
mechanical radars, thus significantly improving reliability and
reducing maintainability costs.
Currently NORTHCOM has a Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) to
put AESA radars on ANG aerospace control alert aircraft. We anticipate
the USAF will fund the initial RDT&E requirement and procure a portion
of the JUON required radars with current FY15 funding.
In order to exploit the full capability of the radar, we estimate
the need for an additional $75M of FY16 RDT&E for software development,
and up to $150M of procurement funds to compete the JUON radar
purchase.
Mr. Visclosky. If you could, as well as the moneys that
would be needed for the upgrades in 2016, that would be
terrific.
General Grass, for the fiscal year 2014 budget, the Army
National Guard requested reprogramming of $101 million for
military personnel training. As you know, and I think others on
the panel know, the committee was not happy with the request,
and just wonder what actions the Guard has taken to put
controls in place to avoid a situation like that occurring
again?
General Grass. Congressman, thank you. And I thank the
chairman and this committee for your great support that allowed
us to get to the end of the fiscal year and still have a drill
period for all of our National Guardsmen.
In August of last year, we realized that we were on a path
to run out of money before the end of the fiscal year,
primarily because of our tracking, and we had--as we draw down
the number of forces that are deployed overseas, what we found
was that over 13 years of war, our inactive duty training
periods, the money was not--it had been there, but we had moved
it an offset because those forces were gone.
As we come out of war, we found that we had created
internally checks and balances that were lacking to be able to
track that money down to the eaches by each State. So in the
process, I have established a one star in the Army National
Guard that works for General Lyons immediately. He went over,
he is looking at all the processes we use. The material
weaknesses that we found were probably a bit decentralized,
because in the past, we have had significant amounts of money,
but since that account gets smaller and smaller, you have to
manage it much, much closer than we ever had before. You can't
wait until the last month of the fiscal year.
So what we have done, we have done an internal review with
our plans programs chief, Mr. Carpenter, and he has briefed me
and the adjutants general on the first phase of that internal
review, and we have taken corrective action.
The second phase now will be to look at the people that are
involved to make sure they have the right training and that we
implement the right checks and balances for the future. But I
do plan to keep the one star there supporting General Lyons,
you know, for the long-term.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you. If I could for the record, the
Indiana National Guard is actually pursuing a partnership for
peace relationship with Kenya. And, again, for the record, are
you missing any required materials or need any additional
information from the Department of Defense for Indiana to
pursue that?
And, Mr. Chairman, I don't know about time. I have one
more. Would you like me to wait for a second round? I will
wait. I will wait.
READINESS OF THE GUARD
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Well, thank you for yielding. And
may I thank Mr. Visclosky for raising the profile on the good
work that is done out of Atlantic City for the east coast. They
do some remarkable things. And I think the committee's focus of
questions, we have covered a broad range here, including Mr.
Calvert's observation relative to firefighting, that the width
and breadth of what you do, and I know this sounds rather
solicitous, is amazing, domestically and internationally.
I would like to sort of talk a little bit about there is a
feeling sometimes we are not at war, but if we are coming out
of war, maybe we are getting into other wars, so I want to take
a look at the role you will be playing. We seem to go back and
forth in terms of whether we are reducing our force in
Afghanistan or whether we are going to maintain the force or we
are going to increase it, and then Congress is sort of in a--
has been tossed a hot potato in terms of the authorization of
military force, and whatever the force is and whatever our
decisions are, you are going to be a part of that force.
General Grass, you sit on the--as a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and I think Congress had quite a lot to do
with that, not only because we thought it was important, but we
obviously have a high regard for you and your professionalism.
How do you--do you have a seat at the table as these types of
issues are discussed? We know the Secretary of Defense has been
over to the Middle East to sort of meet with the combatant
commanders and all of the military brass over there. Where do
you see your role in future hot spots, including what appears
to be somewhat our more enduring role in Afghanistan?
General Grass. Chairman, as a member of the Joint Chiefs, I
do have the opportunity to participate in very senior-level
discussions. And if you look back a year ago at what we knew
about the world situation and what occurred within the last
year was a surprise to everyone between the development, you
know, of the Ebola outbreak, what was happening in eastern
Europe, what happened in the Middle East almost overnight. What
does that do for the Guard? Well, we have to be ready quicker.
General Welch and General Odierno have told me, you have to be
ready quicker. When the Ebola outbreak occurred, I mean, I got
a call in a meeting from General Welch--I mean, from General
Odierno, and he said, you need to be ready to go. Get us a
unit. Well, luckily, you know, the response has mostly been
international. The great work that the 101st airborne division
that went in there, air assault division, but we would have
been the next ones in.
That is on every mission out there for the Army National
Guard today, is there is not much depth left across the force
to respond to this many crises around the world. And I think
General Clarke will tell you as well, we are in every mission
and General Welch has asked us to even mobilize more now just
to meet the requirements around the map, and a lot of that
deals with readiness of the force, but the size of the force is
down to a point where your Reserve component has got to be
ready in much shorter time frames than we ever were 15 years
ago.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So you are really worried about the size
of the force, you are very worried about end strength, and you
have obviously let the powers that be know you are concerned?
General Grass. Yes, Chairman, I have.
TURBULENCE
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And in the mix with just the issue of,
you know, military specialties, I think we have talked about
some of the specialties here, what areas are you weak on that
need to be part of any force that could be mobilized at a
moment's notice? And since many of your men and women have been
mobilized a lot under multiple deployments, you probably have a
pretty good handle on where you have some major gaps, I
wouldn't say deficiencies, but take a look at some of the
military specialties here that are essential to join the fight.
READINESS
General Grass. Yes. And, Chairman, it all comes back to
readiness. On the Army National Guard, again, thanks to this
committee and many others who have modernized our equipment,
but the readiness of our individual soldiers, the ability for a
soldier, a guardsman to go to a school, a 2-week school or to
go to annual training, we have been able to do that throughout
the war so they could stay at a very high level of individual
qualification. That money is gone. So that starts right there.
That means that most of our units will train, as General Lyons
said, at the individual, crew and squad. We need them training
at platoon, company, battalion level, but that is readiness
dollars that make that happen.
On the air side, sir, I think you came out very loud and
clear here: It is modernization, recapitalization.
HUMVEES
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mention was made of the committee's
congressional interest in Humvees, and special attention was
focused on those medical equipped ones. You may have them be
equipped, but in reality, you need people to man those
specialized units. Can you talk a little bit about where we are
here?
General Lyons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you have noted,
what we call turbulence that is associated with drawdowns and
end strength and force structure, there are costs of that
turbulence, and we see that in two different areas, personnel
and material. So as you have highlighted, thanks to NGREA, we
have made tremendous--I mean, it cannot be overstated the
support to allowing us to recapitalize and modernize our
fleets, for example, Humvee ambulances. But what I am concerned
about is as end strength and force structure comes down, people
are still in units, they are out in the communities, but the
unit's mission may change. That soldier then needs to be
retrained into a different military occupational specialty.
There are costs associated for that that is not programmed.
If we have to move equipment from one State to another
State as we rebalance the force at lower end strength and force
structure levels, there are costs for that that is not
programmed. The facilities themselves out in the 2,600
communities, the average age is 43 years old. If there is a new
mission in that community, perhaps that facility needs to be
modified to accomplish that new mission. That cost is not
programmed. So that is turbulence.
But I am also concerned about, to your point, about our men
and women, the intangible aspect of turbulence that is
associated with end strength and force structure reductions.
There is uncertainty that is introduced in their minds about,
am I going to be a member of the same unit? Will I continue to
serve with the same men and women that I have spent my career
with? Will I still accomplish the same missions and the same
equipment that I have been trained on? So that is the
turbulence associated with end strength and force structure
drawdowns that I think introduces both a tangible aspect, but
also an intangible aspect of an uncertainty in the force, and
we are concerned about that.
STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Womack mentioned our visit to the
Texas unit at the base of the Sinai, and Mr. Visclosky and I
led a group to Egypt, a brief stop in Cyprus and Ukraine. Can
one of you or all of you talk about your connectivity, military
to military, around the world? I know from BG right to my left,
that the National Guard had some very early relationships with
what we used to call the captive nations, the Baltic nations,
but as we see a disassembly in Ukraine and the leadership of
the President, you know, trying to keep his country together
and Russians mobilized in the country, you know, not just
separatists, but Russian command and control, and we see Egypt,
you know, looking for supplies, military support that actually
has been set aside for them but hasn't been delivered, talk to
us just for a few minutes about how the role that all of you
play with your military counterparts, and how, given what is
happening in the world, how that is something which we need to
enhance rather than drawback on.
General Grass. Chairman, if I could open it, the State
Partnership Program that the National Guard has been a part of
now for 22 years, we are getting ready to kick off our 75th
partner here, probably within the next 2 months, but we have 74
countries that we are partnered with around the world. Many of
our states now have two, even a few have three partners.
And one of the missions we got early on from General Phil
Breedlove in Europe was when Crimea first hit the news, he
said, reassure our partners in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, all those partners in eastern Europe, reassure them
that we are still there with them as NATO partners. And only
immediately, the adjutants general, who are partnered with
those states were called by either the chief of defense or the
minister of defense's office and said, we would like you to
come over for a visit, we want to continue. And we are already
doing many exercises there.
So we do that on every continent. Those 74 partners that we
have now, soon to be 75, we will do about 700 engagements in
support of the combatant commands each year. An engagement may
be a chief of defense from a foreign nation coming to the
United States to meet with their partner, it may be an exercise
of a company or a battalion on their land or at home here. And
we do all of that a lot with training dollars and with support
from the combatant command and the Department of State.
Department of State and the combatant command gives us our
strategy for those missions.
So it is a great program. This year we will spend about $9
million above what is in the budget to do 700 engagements. And
I know that all the way to the Secretary of Defense, they have
stressed the importance of this program.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is an excellent investment, and we
saw some of it firsthand. I think other nations would benefit
from it.
Yes, General Talley. And then I am going to go to Mr.
Israel.
General Talley. Sir, great question. As the chief of the
Army Reserve, I routinely get asked by heads of states and
other heads of government outside the United States, they want
to use the Army Reserve as the business model for their Reserve
component, and so I routinely engage with them. So, of course,
the United Kingdom just changed the name of their Reserve
component to the Army Reserve, and we see lots of increased
corroboration.
Because we are a global command, we are not tied to state
boundaries. So I am in 32 countries right now, and because we
are directly embedded in every combatant command, we are
engaging mil to mil every day. I have 5,000 forces in the
Pacific, I have 1,500 and a one-star command permanently in
Europe that takes care of all the evacuations and coordinations
for General Breedlove.
So because--again, because we are a global command, because
we are not tied to a state territory as a Federal force under
Federal control, we are directly engaged with these mil-to-mil
programs throughout the globe.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Israel.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also apologize
for being tardy. General Grass, I wanted to talk to you and
follow up on the engagement that you all had with Congressman
Ryan about suicides and PTSD. Some time ago Congressman Peter
King and I were able to pass an amendment to the DoD
authorization bill providing $10 million for new public-private
partnerships between DoD, primarily in the Guard and Reserve,
to engage in research, treatment, outreach and other aspects of
PTSD. I have to tell you I am rather disappointed. This is a
bipartisan amendment supported by every member of the House of
Representatives, $10 million was authorized. One program was
stood up under this amendment, one program was stood up in
Indiana, and I have nothing against Indiana, but one program.
In addition to that, it is my understanding that DoD is
intending to roll out a second program. I have two concerns:
Number one, the pace of the program; number two, this was
clearly intended to be primarily utilized by the Guard and
Reserve. My understanding is that the Guard and Reserve has not
been included to the extent that Congressman King and I and the
United States Congress had intended.
So my question is, are you aware of this funding, are you
tapping into it, why so slow, and are you making sure that you
are maximizing the intent of the program for the Guard and
Reserve components?
General Grass. Congressman, let me start by saying this is
where we have to go for the future, private-public. As our
defense budget shrinks, as thousands come back home with 10, 15
years experience, you know, the problems we are going to see
and how people are affected by long periods of war will espouse
in our communities, and that is why private-public partnerships
are so critical.
General Lyons can talk in much more detail as far as what
we are doing, but we started a program just in the last year,
actually, it started some time ago, but it is called Joining
Community Forces, and, in fact, Indiana has one of the models
right there in Indianapolis, but many States now have created
their own Web sites and their own brick and mortar facilities
that if you have an issue, whether it is fiscal, family, you
know, you are a veteran, you don't know where to meet with
medical staff, psychological health, we have a setup now where
you can walk into a facility and they will advise you, and we
don't care whether you are a family member, a guardsman, a
reservist or veteran of any type, retiree.
And, again, it is the Joining Community Forces. We did our
first conference about 3 months ago. We had over 400 attendees,
the Department of Labor, Veterans Administrations, Commerce,
State government was represented there, and we modeled five of
the programs at that session, so the States will pick up on it.
But I think your proposal and your legislation is exactly
what we are going to have to drill drown even further and look
at those programs that have already been tested.
General Lyons. Thank you, Congressman. I wanted to address
the Indiana example that you highlighted. And there are other
States involved in that as well, but I think it represents, as
General Grass said, this idea of joining with community forces,
I believe that is the spirit of the public-private legislation.
So this particular program is pretty innovative, and there
are others out there, but I just wanted to highlight what they
are doing with this one particular program. So the National
Guard has partnered with Purdue University and other local
alliances and they are offering training to civilian behavioral
health providers on the unique challenges that military members
and veterans face, how to recognize those challenges if they
are presented to them. It is a three-tier program that these
civilian providers attend.
They actually get CEUs, civilian education unit credits for
going through that program. And at the end of that should they
complete that, they are actually entered into a registry, so
that if a family member is seeking a behavioral health provider
in the civilian community, they can go to that registry and
they will know that that particular provider has gone through
this program and has been trained to recognize the signals, the
symptoms, the characteristics that military members and
veterans recognize. So it really does reach deeply into the
public-private partnership spirit, I think, of which you are
talking. So I just wanted to commend that one particular
program.
Mr. Israel. Well, I don't dispute anything you have said,
it is a wonderful program, but the point was that $10 million
was meant to replicate that program, to start up that program
and replicate it around the country, and I don't know that that
programmed has been replicated around the country. I guess my
question is, is that $10 million entirely funding the Indiana
program, or are there plans to expand it beyond?
General Lyons. Congressman, I would like to take that for
the record so I can have the staff come back and outline
exactly where that has gone and what the plans are for the
future.
Mr. Israel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
The National Guard Bureau, in conjunction with Purdue University,
the Uniformed University of the Health Sciences and Center for
Deployment Psychology assisted in the development of an exemplary model
of this partnership, known as STAR Behavioral Health Program (SBHP).
The goal of SBHP is to provide not only training in military culture,
but evidence based clinical practice training. Other states have
recognized the value of SBHP; training community providers in local or
remote locations to better serve remote Service Members and Veterans.
California, Michigan, Georgia, South Carolina, Ohio and most recently
New York, are actively implementing SBHP models for behavioral
healthcare. The goal of these community-based public-private
partnership models focus on ensuring access to high quality mental
health treatment for our population, especially in remote locations.
The Star Behavioral Health Program initiated a study of the
efficacy of growing these public-private partnership initiatives. The
research sought to validate the fundamental aspects of these
initiatives--the training of local clinicians on the unique needs and
stressors specific not only to Guard, but all military Service Members.
I am pleased to highlight that these public-private partnership
initiatives have successfully trained many local providers and
accessible registries of all these providers are maintained and
regularly updated. These registries in turn help our Service Members
quickly find the most appropriate care for behavioral health concerns
within their local communities.
In addition to these programs, in the coming months the Department
expects to award a grant to public partners to address Section 706 by
supporting research on the causes, development and innovative treatment
of mental health, substance use disorders, Traumatic Brain Injury and
suicide prevention in members of the National Guard and Reserves, their
family members, and their caregivers. The Department also expects to
award a grant to enhance outreach and education efforts to members of
the National Guard and Reserves, their families and caregivers.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Israel.
Mr. Womack.
ATTACK AVIATION
Mr. Womack. Thank you. I have just got one follow-up on ARI
for General Grass. You know, Congress last year created the
Commission on the Future of the Army, and one of the many
topics, of course, is attack aviation. It is my understanding
that the Commission's findings aren't going to be available
until February of 2016. General Grass, is that your
understanding as well?
General Grass. Yes, Congressman, it is.
APACHES TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS
Mr. Womack. It is also my understanding that the fiscal
year NDAA restricts the transfer of Apaches to only 48 aircraft
until about the 1st of April of 2016, but after that date,
there is nothing that I see that would currently stop the Army
from going ahead and moving all of the rest of the Apaches. Is
that your understanding as well?
General Grass. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Womack. It is my understanding that the NDAA
protections expire next April, and as we have indicated, that
they can move those. So, Chairman Frelinghuysen, I would just
like to say for the record that it is my opinion that the NDAA
serves as a Band-Aid to what amounts to an open wound, and if
the Army is allowed to transfer the aircraft in April of next
year, they will probably be gone from the Reserve component
forever. And I would hope that this committee will take steps
to ensure that the right decisions are made and that we don't
live to regret an action by the Army that I think would be
devastating to our Guard. And that is all I am going to say
about that. I think I have made my point about ARI.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD FULL-TIME SUPPORT REQUIREMENT
General Lyons, it is my understanding the National Guard
full-time support is about 17 percent of the total Army Guard
and the foundational force. These guys do a lot of things that
keep us ready, and 17 percent is a pretty small number to do
such an important job. And I understand it also represents
about 70 percent of the total number required for full-time
manning. So I have just a couple of questions.
When was the Army National Guard full-time support
requirement generated, and is your requirement as a result of
growth during the wars?
General Lyons. Congressman, thank you. In direct answer to
your question, pre-9/11, beginning in about 1999 and up to
January of 2001, so 8 months before 9/11, Congress and the
Army, I think, recognized an underresourced strategic reserve
in terms of full-time manning and took definitive steps to
increase the requirements and authorizations to recognize that
underresourced strategic reserve. So those decisions were made
prior to 9/11.
Mr. Womack. What is the impact on generating combat
capability if full-time support continues to be cut, and does
it jeopardize the Guard's ability to remain operational?
General Lyons. It does, Congressman. It is a deep concern
as we reduce full-time manning, both active Guard and Reserve
and military technicians, you know, about 97 percent of them
are deployable with their units; they are assigned to their
units, they provide the foundational readiness across the
spectrum of our formations for the 83 percent that are
traditional men and women.
So they pay our soldiers, they help account for the
equipment that Congress has appropriated funds for properly,
they take all the actions to maintain our equipment so that we
are able to respond both for overseas and at home. So when we
take reductions in full-time manning, particularly as
programmed under sequestration, it has a direct impact on both
our capability and our capacity, and the response time that we
have for responses here at home and overseas. It has a direct
impact.
Mr. Womack. Do you have a cost analysis of maintaining the
Army Guard full-time posture at previous years' levels?
General Lyons. Congressman, I do. We estimate that in this
fiscal year, to retain the 1,700 AGRs and military technicians
that are programmed to come out, it will be about $79 million.
Mr. Womack. Okay. And then finally, my last question, I am
going to--you know, I am a Guard guy, so I have to give these
guys a softball, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. They deserve at least one.
NGREA FUNDING
Mr. Womack. We have already talked about NGREA, so I am
just going to just throw it out on the table. This was a $1.2
billion I think, and the Reserves got a piece of it, the Air
and the Army split, I think, 415 apiece, whatever the number,
$415 million a piece. Think for a minute if that money was
gone, if that capability was not there. This is a pretty
important part of what you guys depend on, is it not?
General Lyons. Congressman, that is absolutely accurate. As
I stated earlier, the impact of NGREA funding on the Army
National Guard as an operational force can't be overstated. Had
we not had those funds to recapitalize and modernize our
equipment lines, we would not be as operational as we are
today.
So to put that in perspective, thanks to the committee's
support in what we call critical dual-use equipment, those
items of equipment that have a war fight mission, but also here
at home, thanks to NGREA, we have been able to modernize up to
92 percent of that equipment. But there are still requirements
that remain. So with additional NGREA funding, we are going to
continue to modernize our fleets, we are going to focus on our
domestic operations with construction engineer equipment, our
Humvee ambulance fleet that we talked about, our civil support
team equipment, as well as bridging equipment. So there is a
legitimate need to continue to modernize.
Mr. Womack. I know I am out of time. General Talley.
General Talley. Congressman--excuse me. Thank you. I know
you love the Army Reserve too, even though you are a Guard guy.
Mr. Womack. Oh, I do, I do. So let the record reflect.
General Talley. Let the record reflect.
$185 million for 2015 is what our scheduled NGREA is. That
is 30 percent of the total procurement fund for the Army
Reserve. So that pretty much answers your question on how
important it is.
On full-time manning, on 13 percent, the lowest of any
component or service, and I am as big as all the other Federal
Reserves combined. So 17 percent's not too big, but 13
percent's way too low.
Mr. Womack. But we are still asking these guys to do a lot
more than----
General Talley. Absolutely. So I need help on full-time
funding and keeping the NGREA coming. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Womack. General Clarke, NGREA?
General Clarke. Yes, sir. For us, you know, there are
multiple examples of how NGREA has made a difference. In fact,
if we didn't have it, combatant commanders wouldn't even allow
us in their area of operations. That is a fact.
Mr. Womack. I think that speaks volumes, Mr. Chairman. And
I yield back.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Womack. Well done.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
CYBER SECURITY
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have some severe threats, as we know: weapons of mass
destruction, terrorism, the Russia-China threat, but I think
one of the most serious threats is as dangerous as those other
threats is cyber and cyber attack, and it is going to be
warfare of the future, if it is not now, and not only in the
amount of money that is being stolen, billions of dollars, and
the attacks on everything that we do, whether it is our
business, our military, but I know that you are engaged in the
cyber issue too.
And could you explain what your mission is in cyber, and
address the fact what you are doing and to make sure that there
is not duplication of effort on what regular Army, Air Force,
Navy, Marines are doing also? And maybe you could refer--I
know, again, talk about my district, but I know the 175th is
involved with cyber, and if you could explain, you know, what
their mission is and what they are doing and why it is so
important we continue the funding in this cyber realm as it
relates to your role to protecting our homeland.
That is kind of a softball too.
General Grass. Congressman, if I could open it. As was said
earlier, we have a capability here within the Guard and Reserve
that the Nation needs more than ever. And we also have an
opportunity to be able to capture those men and women that we
invest in in the future that decide they want to go on a
different career path and they want to leave active duty, they
can come into the Guard and Reserve.
One of the things we have made very clear from day one
working with both the governors, the adjutants general, as well
as the Department of Homeland Security and CYBERCOM is that we
want to be trained, organized, and equipped the same way as the
active components of the Air Force and the Army, and so we are
training our cyber warriors right now to those same standards.
And actually we are going to have a facility which will be
certified here in the future, where we will actually train Army
cyber warriors at a Guard facility.
The intent is for distributing this capability across the
States where the States have civilian employment available that
can grow these warriors, and then also that can allow
opportunities for them to progress up through the ranks. We
don't want them to get to a certain rank and leave.
So we are looking at that. I have got General Clarke and
General Lyons both coming side by side. And as we look at
stationing Air Guard and Army Guard cyber structure of the
future, we do that together to make sure that one day we don't
wake up and we have it all sitting at one location. But again,
the governors, I am committed to them, to trying to put
something in each State.
Congressman, the big challenge here, and we are working on
this right now with inside the Pentagon, the Deputy Secretary
of Defense has tasked one of his Deputy Secretaries to take a
look at this, but it will take probably some change to law
somewhere down the road, but it deals with the authorities both
from State, Federal as well as private-public. And there are a
lot of things the Guard can do with various authorities. But
how do you know when you have left state boundaries in cyber
world? And how are we going to handle that both working with
FBI, Department of Homeland Security, state government?
So a lot of work to do, but we are putting a lot of
emphasis right now on going within the authorities within
Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security. And I
think I have been with Admiral Rogers now six times since he
has taken over at CYBERCOM.
Mr. Ruppersberger. One of my concerns is that there are so
many people involved in the military with the cyber issue, and
it looks like, well, why do we need the National Guard to do
it? So could you explain really what your mission would be from
a National Guard perspective versus the regular Army and Navy
and the Air Force?
General Grass. Yes, Congressman. In fact, I will ask
General Clarke to comment and General Lyons, because they are
really given two different missions from the Air Force and the
Army.
General Clarke. So directly, you are looking for, sir, the
competitive advantages of the National Guard here.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah.
General Clarke. What we have found in our units is we have
people that do IT skills for corporations, State government,
and local government and Federal Government that are also
members of the National Guard that use those IT skills as they
play into the cyber units doing military tasking for--in our
case, for the United States Air Force and U.S. Cyber Command.
The relationships that they have with each other as they
come to drills and other times that they get together is a
network of people that share ideas on things like computer
network defense. They are getting that from their civilian
skills and their companies, industry and they are bringing that
to bear and using that within the military now.
Conversely, they are learning things about the military
side they might be able to use back with their State
government, if you will. That is just the skill part of it.
Then there is the relationship part of it. If you want to get
in the door at a place where people need assistance on things
like protecting a utility's infrastructure, you have got to
have a relationship or they might not let you in the door. And
we might be able to provide things as a part of the National
Guard that will let you in the door to assist them with that
further.
In the case of Maryland, Maryland was in--the Guard was
into cyber before cyber was even cool, and the relationships
that they have built, not just domestically with multiple
three-letter and four-letter agencies of the U.S. Government is
outstanding. They have now expanded that through the State
Partnership Program with Estonia. So now we have an
international piece of what we are doing with military members.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
General Lyons. Congressman, I would like to start out by
saying that our one full-time cyber protection team that I
mentioned earlier is, in fact, stationed in Laurel, Maryland,
there. But to answer your question about the mission sets, the
cyber protection teams that the Army Guard is standing up are
part of U.S. Army Cyber's mission set. So the missions that
Army Cyber will undertake, our Army National Guard teams
eventually will participate in those. But it is important to
put this in context. We have the one team full-time that is
stood up, they are undergoing training as we speak. We just
announced the three traditional Guard teams. It will take time
to get them stood up, plug them into schools for both basic
training and advanced training so they become what we call
fully operational capable.
Once they do that, though, they will participate in all of
the missions that Army Cyber is participating in in cyber
defense, vulnerability assessments, protect the network, those
types of missions.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger.
Both the private sector and the defense sector, the whole
government sector is subject to hacking, and goodness knows, we
are making some substantial investments, and I hope that, if
you will pardon the expression, we de-conflict all those
investments so we get the maximum advantage over the people
that are doing this, nation states or other groups.
As we move towards the top of the hour, I just want to
raise the question, all of your Reserve and Guard men and women
are bread winners for their families, and I think we recognize
that important contribution, that there is always the view in
some quarters, and I would like to have it either substantiated
or dismissed, that some employers sometimes discriminate or
have some sort of a bias. Of course, from our standpoint, that
sort of is unacceptable. What is--how would you describe--I
know we have some wonderful partners and wonderful employers,
but can you talk frankly just for a minute as to what you are
doing to sort of combat this issue where it arises?
General Lyons. Mr. Chairman, I will speak for the Army
National Guard specifically. The adjutants general in the 54
States, territories, and the District are continuing to engage
at the local level with employers. They do that on a daily
basis. So at the end of the day, we feel that this is all about
communication. And we stress this with our soldiers, our men
and women that serve with us, that should they be employed for
an overseas mission, that as soon as we know it, that they are
talking to their employer about it and giving them a heads-up.
We most recently saw this example in Minnesota with
Operation United Assistance when the 34th was postured to
undertake that mission. They immediately engaged with employers
to talk about that. And I think that communication is what
really bridges that gap and reduces those sources of friction
that do come up from time to time. There are points of
friction. But we have tremendous ombudsmen in the employer
support to the Guard and Reserve community that help us address
those issues when they do come up, and we think that is really
a recipe and a best practice to get at that. So we are very
well focused.
The last point, Mr. Chairman, is I will tell you, talking
to the TAGs, talking to commanders, this is part and parcel of
retaining an operational force is that continued engagement
either in combatant commander requirements, or here at home.
The men and women who want to be engaged, they expect to be
engaged, and they are willing to talk to their employers and
their family members about that and the importance of that, and
I think they will get that support.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, communication is one thing,
obeying the law is another thing, and it is the law. So where
you run into instances, I am sure you will bring them to our
attention.
General Talley, you wanted to get in or General Grass, jump
in just for a minute, and then we are going to go to Ms.
McCollum.
General Talley. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the question. The
Employers Partnership program actually started in the Army
Reserve by my predecessor, Jack Stultz, and became so
successful, it was replicated throughout all the services and
components, one of the few times plagiarism is a good thing. I
say that as a recovering academic.
We have taken that program and brought it to the next
level, our P3 or private-public partnership. We have over 6,000
agreements in place. We believe the Army Reserve is probably
the best connected of all services and components with the
private sector, and we utilize that to help our Army Reserve.
Those soldiers have to be the best employees, because what we
do see, and I will be very frank, and I saw it when I was a
traditional reservist, is, yes, you are disadvantaged in some
employment situations because they know even if you are not
deployed, you are still gone a lot doing Reserve stuff, and
they, even though it is against the law, do--it does cost you
partnerships, it does cost you promotions, and we still
struggle with that.
EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Grass, briefly. General Clarke,
if you will, please. And then to Ms. McCollum.
General Grass. Congressman, I think most of the stress we
see are on the small employers, and we have to do things. I
know there has been some great work by the Congress, too, to
help them. But that is our focus right now.
The medium to large size, they are on board with us. If we
have someone--a soldier or an airman that has an issue out
there, we will work very closely with the Department of Labor
to bring it to closure quickly. And they have been very
supportive.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. General Clarke and then Ms. McCollum.
General Clarke. Yes, sir. Briefly, I parrot the same
comments. But post-deployment, when the members return home, I
think it is important to embrace the employers, too, not just
the members themselves and the families. But bring the
employers out to be a part of everything when they come home.
We mentioned how outstanding the SGR is. To date, I do not
have one single complaint from an ESGR ombudsman. Not one that
has come forward. So we are getting a lot of support out of the
employers out there across the Nation.
And the last one I say, we have recognition programs for
the outstanding employers. And that is largely a DoD-led
effort, but even the local units have their own recognition
programs. That is a big deal. People like being patted on the
back and their hand shaken and say, ``Thank you for supporting
our members.''
Mr. Frelinghuysen. They have a lot to be proud of. As you
represent all of that, we want to make sure that recognition is
given and, if there is any issues, you will bring them to our
attention.
Ms. McCollum, I believe, unless Mr. Visclosky has any
questions.
Ms. McCollum.
TURBULENCE
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know one of the stressors for the long deployment for our
volunteer departments is standing up to serve in the National
Guard--quite often are serving in their communities.
To my question, you talked about turbulence. And one of the
things that I think was very turbulent, self-inflicted wound,
was the budget shortfall that Mr. Visclosky started asking
about.
I heard it from General Nash, who was going to have to tell
people coming in for drill what was going to happen. I didn't
hear it from the committee. I didn't get a heads-up from our
folks here. And, you know, called back and we were finding out
at the same time. So obviously you knew you had a shortfall.
Obviously, you knew there were problems.
I am very disappointed in the way in which it was handled.
I have not been satisfied with any of the answers that have
been given as to the diagnostic of why it happened. Many of us
have either served in the private sector on boards or small
businesses or served in local government where we do routine
audits, and when there is something really wrong, the auditor
has nailed it down.
So I would very much like a detailed report as to what the
forensics were on finding out what this problem was, why it
happened in the first place, and what action you have taken so
it doesn't happen again.
Because that was a very stressful thing not only for you
here, finding out there was a shortfall, but for all the Guard
men and women and for those who were going to have to stand in
front of folks and say, ``Sorry. The drill has been cut'' or
``This that you have planned on has radically changed.'' There
is a lot of turbulence at a time when we are trying to, you
know, retain and recruit people in the Guard.
So I just want it on the record. I was dissatisfied in the
way it was handled in the beginning, and I am dissatisfied with
the way it has been handled even today with the answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
Mr. Visclosky.
OPERATIONAL ROLE
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could ask about the operational role of the Guard,
there are currently some ongoing missions preserved by the
Reserve components and Guard that provide an opportunity to
help maintain an operational Reserve. The Sinai has been
alluded to a number of times this morning.
I have always thought about it, not being an expert on
military matters, operational preparedness. But I was struck
Mr. Womack, when he was addressing the Guard at the Sinai,
encouraged them not to talk to each other, but to get to know
their coalition partners and to get to know the people who live
in that area that they were serving in. And I thought it was a
great admonition and good piece of advice and additional
benefits to our country.
What, if I could--and if you want to for the record--types
of mission looking forward will make effective use for the
Reserve component skills and that would help the Reserve
component maintain operational status?
And is it DoD policy to make use of the Reserve components
in this manner? And, if not, if you think more could be done in
this regard, if you could provide that, if you have a short
comment. I have a couple more questions, too, though. And if
you want to do it for the record, that will be fine or----
General Lyons. Well, Congressman, just a couple of quick
examples of some of those missions that we talk about being
able to engage our men and women who have grown up in 13 years
of operational tempo. These are missions that we consider to be
foundational missions for the Army National Guard, in
particular.
The Sinai mission, that was an example. Kosovo forces is a
mission that we have routinely engaged in over a number of
years. We also have the Horn of Africa, which has traditionally
been a National Guard mission.
Virtually anything that a combatant command is doing, we
think the Army National Guard has equity in that because of our
force structure, our equipment, and our training. So these are
all examples of missions.
Combat training center rotations are another key event for
leader development engagement that we would like to see
continue that helps posture us as an operational force, along
with joint and multinational exercises.
AUDITABILITY
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. I am very drawn to the idea that the
Department meet its goal as far as auditable financial
statements by 2017. The Marine Corps has been certified at
least as far as making progress on part of that.
If you could describe--and, again, I think, for the
record--your component's progress toward establishing auditable
financial statements by 2017, I would appreciate it.
And, also, do you believe you are on schedule to meet that
goal or will there be a shortfall? If so, for what reasons that
we should be concerned about?
The last question I have, if you would care to comment, is:
If Congress determines that the A-10 should be retained during
the consideration of the fiscal 2016 budget, what would the
effects of the delay of divestiture be on your forces?
General Lyons. Congressman, I think for the Army National
Guard I will take the auditability question for the record and
we will come back on how we are progressing toward fiscal year
2017.
[The information follows:]
The Army National Guard continues to improve our financial
processes as we prepare for a full financial audit by 2017. We have a
team working closely with the 50 states, three territories and the
District of Columbia, with a firm commitment to achieve and sustain
audit readiness. The Army relies on this team to assist and advise on
financial processes. Our Army National Guard finance officer works
side-by-side with the Army to ensure the Army National Guard is
auditable by 2017. The Army National Guard issued that objective to all
adjutants general in our 2015 Strategic Planning Guidance.
The results of our monthly testing, conducted by the Army, reflect
how well the Army National Guard is performing as we prepare for a full
financial audit. With regards to general equipment, the Army National
Guard pass rate is currently 83 percent; the Army-wide pass rate is 76
percent. For real property, tracking all the assets at 2,386 readiness
centers and 102 Army National Guard installations, the Army National
Guard pass rate is 93 percent; the Army-wide pass rate is 96 percent.
For Operational Materials and Supply, tracking of ammunition assets at
48 ammunition supply points, the Army National Guard pass rate is 90
percent; the Army-wide pass rate is also 90 percent. For budgetary
activities, tracking financial statements and financial transactions,
the Army National Guard pass rate is 95 percent; the Army-wide pass
rate is 90 percent. For military pay, tracking of military pay
transactions, the Army National Guard pass rate is 77 percent; the
Army-wide pass rate is 69 percent. The Army Reserve recently requested
training from the Army National Guard audit team, and is currently
using several of our training tools to improve its testing results.
One of our major challenges is the reduction of full-time manning,
military technicians or Active Guard and Reserve personnel. These are
the people who deliver Army programs We must sustain our full-time
workforce in order to ensure we have sufficient personnel to maintain
audit readiness. Additional reductions could cause separation of duties
conflicts within our financial processes and weaken financial controls.
Additionally, the demand of the audit to provide appropriate supporting
documentation for financial transactions requires the immediate
attention of full-time personnel. Reductions in personnel will
negatively affect our ability to support the audit with timely
responses.
Currently, the Army National Guard is on track to achieve auditable
financial statements by 2017.
Mr. Visclosky. I don't make light of my concern by saying
``the record'' because I just want to make sure--you know, I
think it is a very important issue. But go ahead on the A-10.
General Clarke. Sir, the same for us on audit goal. Is that
the one you want to address first?
Yeah. We are in lockstep with the United States Air Force
on audit responsibilities to be compliant by 20--I think we are
on track for that.
And then I also worked that on the National Guard side to
make sure that we are fully meeting anything that they request
in order to push forward and meet that goal by 2017. To my
knowledge, we are on track.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
General Talley. Sir, I will answer that question directly.
The Army Reserve is doing pretty well, actually, in
auditability. Looking at three areas in support of the Army's
auditing program, one, general equipment, which is the tracking
of all the Army Reserve equipment, we are at 100 percent pass
rate right now. Army-wide rate right now is 91 percent. Army
Reserve, 100 percent.
Real property, tracking all the assets we have at Army
Reserve centers, which is over 2100 and 6 installations, Army
Reserve rate right now, pass rate, 100 percent. Army-wide rate,
94 percent.
Budgetary activities, the Army Reserve, that is, tracking
financial statements and financial transactions, you know,
handled by CFO, the Army Reserve currently, according to the
Army, 100 percent. Army-wide rate, 84 percent.
And then to try and--but not so good area, military pay, we
are currently tracking our auditability at 56 percent. Army-
wide is 63 percent.
One of the challenges I have there--and we are trying to
work on it--is that is that full-time manning, those MILTECHs.
I need my MILTECHs and my full-time manning to pay those
troops. But, overall, we are doing pretty well.
That is it, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Gentlemen, on behalf--oh, yes. General
Grass. Excuse me.
General Grass. Congressman, I just wanted to share with you
that, in each State, there is a colonel that works directly for
me, and I hold them accountable for, you know, the FIRREA
legislation. And we are making significant progress. We will
submit that to you for both working with the Army and Air and
show you the progress we are making.
But I also have, of course, my head comptroller and my
audit team that provides me regular updates on this. But the
key for us is to work it through the State, and that is why we
do have those colonels out there that work directly for me.
A-10
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. And on the A-10, if we don't divest?
General Clarke. Sir, directly on A-10 divestment, could you
restate your question so--I am going to get----
Mr. Visclosky. As you know, last year Congress decided to
continue, if you would, with the A-10 program.
Assuming that is Congress's decision for the 2016 bill,
what types of situations, problems, benefits does that cause
you?
General Clarke. Right now, none. As you know, the unit from
Indiana is in current combat operations with the A-10. So no
slowdown in what they have done in their capabilities.
The future holds for continued mobilization of A-10 units
to actually support combat operations. In order to be there,
they have got to have the full-up training kit, the equipment,
and the opportunities to train. That is there. So they will be
fully trained and capable when they show up in theater to do
these combat operations.
Beyond that, then there is going to be a degradation of
that unit's capability because they are going to convert to a
different platform. At some point, when we divest the A-10s,
whether it is today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now, sometime
that A-10 is going to leave and they will be converting over.
So that would be a difference in their readiness at that time.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
On behalf of the committee, gentlemen, thank you for your
testimony and thank you for the great work you do representing
the best of America. Thank you.
We stand adjourned.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015.
UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND AND UNITED STATES FORCES KOREA
WITNESSES
ADMIRAL SAMUEL J. LOCKLEAR III, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES
PACIFIC COMMAND
GENERAL CURTIS M. SCAPARROTTI, U.S. ARMY, 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. Committee will come to order.
Mr. Visclosky, I recognize you.
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 morning the committee conducts a closed--I remind
everybody--closed hearing on the posture of the United States
Pacific Command and the 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 NationsCommand, Commander,
United States-Republic of Korea Combined Forces Command, and
Commander, United States Forces Korea. Three hats.
Admiral, welcome back, and thank you for your many years of
distinguished service. The committee notes that you assumed
command of PACOM in March of 2012, and this is your fourth time
testifying before this committee.
Today we look forward to your update on a broad variety of
topics in the Pacific AOR.
General Scaparrotti, welcome back, and thank you as well
for your service.
General Scaparrotti assumed command of U.S. Forces Korea in
August of 2013. Two years into your command you have amassed a
wealth of experience in working with our allies in Korea. We
look forward to your candid assessment of what is going on, on
the Korean Peninsula and that environment.
Gentlemen, we are pleased to have you both here today. We
are constantly reminded that the situation in Korea is, to say
the least, fluid. In fact, we can never be completely sure what
will happen next in Korea, or for that matter in the Taiwan
Straits, in the South China Sea, or the Sea of Japan. China
continues to modernize its Armed Forces and adds to its fleet
in both numbers and quality, including more subs, and is
working on a second aircraft carrier. Longstanding disputes
over territory can surface with little or no warning. Frankly,
many people wonder if the recent Russian annexation of Crimea
may encourage similar actions by other nations in the Pacific
AOR. And we can't forget that the Russians have contacts and
interests there as well.
We are aware that the ongoing pivot or rebalance to the
Pacific will involve shifting as much as 10 percent of our
Navy's war ships into the Pacific. The buildup of assets on
Guam continues. However, some of the Army's increases in
military assets will rotate forward into the Pacific to train,
but will actually remain based in the continental United
States.
Of course, the committee will continue to ensure that our
Armed Forces have the resources they need to be well maintained
and trained. We are reminded that our naval air and land forces
cannot be in two places at once. A force that is smaller but
more agile is still smaller. And of course we always are
reminded of the tyranny of distance.
We look forward to a robust question-and-answer session
this morning. It is important for this committee to have a
clear picture of operations in the Pacific in general and on
the Korean Peninsula specifically. We are particularly
interested in the readiness of forces that are assigned which
rotate through Pacific deployments and the many potential hot
spots you monitor. We want to hear about your ISR requirements
and efforts by our adversaries to deny sea and air access and
our ISR, and the cyber component of all of that.
Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to ask my
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for any opening
comments he may wish to make.
Remarks of Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, just to thank you for holding
the hearing, gentlemen, for your service, and look forward to
your testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
Admiral Locklear. Good morning. Thank you. Your full
statement will be in the record.
[The written statement of Admiral Locklear follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The written 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.]
[all]