- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019

[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

_____________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE

KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
KEN CALVERT, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
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 HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama

NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, 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.

Jennifer Miller, Walter Hearne, Brooke Boyer, B G Wright,
Allison Deters, Collin Lee, Matthew Bower,
Hayden Milberg, and Sherry L. Young
Subcommittee Staff

________

PART 1

Page
Fiscal Year 2019 United States Navy
and Marine Corps Budget Overview................................... 1

Fiscal Year 2019 United States Air
Force Budget Overview.............................................. 75

Fiscal Year 2019 United States Army
Budget Overview.................................................... 141

Public Witness Statements........................................ 191

U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).............................. 223

Fiscal Year 2019 National Guard Bureau........................... 241

Fiscal Year 2019 Department of Defense
Budget Overview.................................................... 367

Testimony of Members of Congress................................. 405

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

______________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE

KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman

Jennifer Miller, Walter Hearne, Brooke Boyer, B G Wright,
Allison Deters, Collin Lee, Matthew Bower,
Hayden Milberg, and Sherry L. Young
Subcommittee Staff

_______

PART 1

Page
Fiscal Year 2019 United States Navy
and Marine Corps Budget Overview................................... 1

Fiscal Year 2019 United States Air
Force Budget Overview.............................................. 75

Fiscal Year 2019 United States Army
Budget Overview.................................................... 141

Public Witness Statements........................................ 191

U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).............................. 223

Fiscal Year 2019 National Guard Bureau .......................... 241

Fiscal Year 2019 Department of Defense
Budget Overview.................................................... 367

Testimony of Members of Congress................................. 405

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

33-358 WASHINGTON : 2018

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

----------
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\ 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
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM GRAVES, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
KEVIN YODER, Kansas C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. VALADAO, California GRACE MENG, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada PETE AGUILAR, California
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
----------
^\1\}Chairman Emeritus

Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director

(ii)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019

----------

Wednesday, March 7, 2018.

FISCAL YEAR 2019 UNITED STATES NAVY AND MARINE CORPS BUDGET OVERVIEW

WITNESSES

RICHARD V. SPENCER, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
ADMIRAL JOHN M. RICHARDSON, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
GENERAL ROBERT B. NELLER, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS

Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

Ms. Granger. The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning, the subcommittee will begin a series of open
defense posture and budget hearings with our military services.
Today, we will hear from the Navy and Marine Corps leadership.
Although we are still completing work on the fiscal year 2018
bills, we must also begin the fiscal year 2019 budget process.
The schedule will be very tight.
I want to thank the Navy and Marine Corps leaders for being
here today to provide the subcommittee with their honest
assessments of the readiness of our Navy and Marine Corps and
the path forward, as we begin our work of carefully----
Mr. Womack. Madam Chairwoman, the sound system is not
working.
Ms. Granger. I have said nothing that you haven't heard
before.
So we will get to work carefully reviewing the
administration's defense budget request.
Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like to recognize
our ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for any remarks he would
like to make.

Opening Remarks of Mr. Visclosky

Mr. Visclosky. Madam Chair, I appreciate the hearing being
held.
And thank you all for your service.
Ms. Granger. Allow me to introduce our briefers: the
Honorable Richard Spencer, Secretary of the Navy; Admiral John
Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations; and General Neller,
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Secretary Spencer is making his first official appearance
before the entire subcommittee.
Beginning with Secretary Spencer, I would like to ask that
each of you take approximately 5 minutes to set the stage with
some opening remarks.

Summary Statement of Secretary Spencer

Mr. Spencer. It was on just a second ago. I will use my
command authority voice.
Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, distinguished
members of the committee, thank you for the time that we come
before you here and talk about the status of the Department of
the Navy.
It is an honor to sit here with the Navy-Marine Corps team
in front of you, the CNO and the Commandant, two men whom I
respect and support. And I have found that in the short time
that we have worked together, 7 months so far, so we have
rapidly joined together as an effective, seamless management
team.
First, on behalf of the sailors and Marines, I would like
to express gratitude for the efforts put forth by you and the
Congress in addressing the President's budget request. We are
very much aware that this process has stretched Members to
limits on many fronts. Please know that the resources that we
will receive will be expended in focused alignment with the
National Defense Strategy building our combat-credible force.
Today, 94,000 sailors and Marines are forward deployed and
stationed, using the global maritime commons as a medium of
maneuver, ensuring the maritime lanes of commerce remain free
and open, ensuring access to overseas regions, defending key
interests in those areas, protecting U.S. citizens abroad, and
preventing adversaries from leveraging the world's oceans
against the United States.
For almost 30 years, we have enjoyed a well-earned,
uncontested global dominance. Those days are over. Your Navy-
Marine Corps team remains very capable; however, our
competitive advantage is being challenged. That said, our
budget request enhances readiness and continues to increase the
capability and capacity of the Navy-Marine Corps team.
As directed within the 2018 National Defense Strategy, our
budget submission supports building a more lethal, resilient,
and agile force to deter and defeat aggression by peer
competitors and other adversaries in all domains across the
conflict spectrum.
My priorities for the Department center on three
categories: people, capabilities, and process. The ability to
accomplish our mission relies on people: 800,000 sailors,
Marines, Active Duty, citizen soldiers, and civilian teammates
and families. The ability to accomplish our mission relies on
having the capabilities necessary to fight tonight, challenge
competitors, and deter rivals. Lastly, the ability to
accomplish our mission relies on having efficient processes
that will speed value and support to our warfighters.
The Department is committed to follow reform guidelines and
has identified savings already of more than $1 billion in
fiscal year 2019 and $5 billion over the Future Year Defense
Program, which will all be reinvested in force structure and
readiness.
I deliver you today a plan with a sense of urgency. We
cannot and will not allow our competitive advantage to erode.
With your guidance, these planned investments will provide
combat-credible maritime forces now and in the future. We will
ensure that we are exceptional stewards of the resources that
you provide. We will drive efficiency across the Department to
maximize every dollar and invest smartly to leverage the return
on our investments.
I look forward to your questions.
[The written statement of Secretary Spencer follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
Admiral Richardson.

Summary Statement of Admiral Richardson

Admiral Richardson. Congresswoman Granger, Ranking Member
Visclosky, and distinguished members of the committee, thank
you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
And I just want to echo the Secretary's remarks concerning
how grateful we are for the tough work to get us to these
funding levels. I know that that was hard work, and we do
pledge to spend those funds responsibly and transparently.
I am also, as the Secretary said, very pleased to be here
with Secretary Spencer and General Neller, two great leaders
with whom I am working to increase warfighting lethality of our
Navy-Marine Corps team. And make no mistake: A strong Navy-
Marine Corps team matters to America's security and economic
prosperity now more than ever.
This hearing comes at a critical time in our Nation's
history. Thanks to decades of bipartisan congressional support,
America's Navy still holds the title of best in the world. But
our recent years of combat and fiscal uncertainty have eroded
our warfighting advantage. And as our National Defense Strategy
makes clear, we are now in an era of great-power competition.
With a rising China and a resurgent Russia, America no longer
enjoys a monopoly on seapower or sea control. And, meanwhile,
rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran threaten global
stability.
Given these challenges, it is absolutely critical that we
increase American naval power with a sense of urgency. In order
to win in this competitive environment, we must take a balanced
approach to build the Navy the Nation needs. This Navy requires
a bigger fleet, more ships, submarines, aircraft, and special
operations forces.
Congress agreed with the conclusions of several thoughtful
studies, and a 355-ship Navy is now the law of the land. This
will increase our Navy's ability to protect our homeland and
our allies, to expand our influence as America's global
maneuvering force, and to support American prosperity by
safeguarding access to critical waterways.
And while there will always be a debate about the final
number of ships to build, and that will fluctuate with the
security environment in any given year, we can all agree on one
thing: The Navy must get bigger, and the demand signal is to
start building now.
The Navy the Nation needs requires also a better fleet--
more capability achieved through modernization, networking,
agile operating concepts, and a talented force of sailors and
civilians, with officers of competence and character to lead
them.
And, finally, the Nation requires a ready fleet--more at-
sea time, more flying, more maintenance, and more weapons of
increased lethality that go faster, farther, and are more
survivable.
As we discuss the 2019 budget request today, it is
important to stress our Navy's commitment to good stewardship
for every precious taxpayer dollar. Under the Secretary's
leadership, we are determined to better understand the business
of our business, to include embracing full participation in the
Department-wide audit, so we can look every American in the eye
and tell them with confidence that their hard-earned money is
being spent as carefully as if it were our own.
I am very grateful to this committee and the Congress for
recent budgetary actions that put us on a strong trajectory to
increasing American naval power.
The stakes are high, and there is more work to do. War at
sea is unforgiving. The winners sail away, and the losers sink
to the bottom of the ocean. In this complex and dynamic
maritime environment, eager contenders are training to defeat
us. So I give you my word that we will work every day to earn
the title of the world's best Navy.
I look forward to sailing alongside Congress to build the
Navy the Nation needs--a lethal Navy for our enemies in combat,
a committed Navy for our allies and partners, and a safe Navy
for our sailors.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The written statement of Admiral Richardson follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Granger. Thank you.
General Neller.

Summary Statement of General Neller

General Neller. Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member
Visclosky, members of the committee, I am here today to testify
on the current posture of your Marine Corps. Thank you for that
opportunity to be here, and I look forward to your questions.
I know this committee, the Congress, the American people
have high expectations for our Marines as our Nation's
expeditionary force in readiness. You expect your Marines to
operate forward with our Navy shipmates, reassure our partners,
deter our rivals, and respond to crisis. And when called to
fight, you expect us to win. You expect a lot of your Marines,
and you should.
As we hold these hearings, 34,000 Marines are forward
deployed, some in harm's way, all engaged doing just what you
expect them to be doing. Your Marines are an integral part of
the new defense strategy, and, rest assured, we are doing our
best to increase our competitive advantage against our
strategic competitors.
That said, we continue to face challenges, some a
consequence of rival adaptations, some a result of
unpredictable funding, some as a result of our adjustment to
the new strategic environment.
I echo and support what our Secretary and the CNO said.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the sea services have
enjoyed a well-earned, uncontested global dominance. Those days
are over. Your Marine Corps remains capable, along with our
Navy shipmates, but our competitive edge has eroded in every
domain of warfare. We must modernize and address great-power
competition or risk falling further behind.
As we look ahead to the 2019 budget, developing your next-
generation Marine Corps requires modernization of our Corps,
the continual recovery of our current readiness, and further
investment to resource the next generation of Marines. These
priorities, coupled with adaptations to our global posture,
will provide our Nation's leaders the right capabilities at the
right places to create the decisionmaking space necessary for
the Nation to compete and, if necessary, fight at the lowest
cost and resources possible.
Despite the challenges facing us in today's strategic
environment, our Marine Corps remains the Nation's forward-
deployed, agile expeditionary force in readiness as part of
that Navy-Marine Corps team.
To preserve that role and sustain the readiness it entails,
we continue to require sustained, adequate, and predictable
funding to develop the right mix of advanced capabilities and
ensure a ready and relevant force. With Congress's support and
sustained commitment, we can begin to restore our competitive
naval advantage, enhance global deterrence, and ensure that we
send our sons and daughters into the next fight with every
advantage that our Nation can provide.
I look forward to your questions.
[The written statement of General Neller follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
Before we begin questions, in the interest of time and in
fairness to our briefers and all the members, we will limit
each member's question to 5 minutes.
And I would ask that those who are asking questions, if you
are going to direct your question to one particular person,
please do that. If not, indicate that you would like to ask
that question of the entire panel.
Mr. Visclosky and Chairman Frelinghuysen have both said
they will wait and move to the end. So I will follow their
wonderful tradition and do the same thing and call in order of
the time that you arrived at the hearing.
Mrs. Roby will go first.

LCS

Mrs. Roby. Whoa. This is an unusual turn of events. I did
get here a little early today.
The Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan maintained the
recommendation for 52 small surface combatants. As the LCS has
been plagued with issues, I want to just talk about, in recent
media articles, the Navy has stated that one LCS is sufficient
to sustain the shipbuilding industrial base in the hot
production lines as you transition to the new frigate.
Both LCS shipbuilders have publicly stated that they do not
believe that--one ship in the fiscal year 2019 budget--there is
enough work to sustain the industrial base in hot production
lines going into the frigate competition.
So can you explain your differing position on the
industrial base from those who comprise the industrial base?
Mr. Spencer. Congresswoman, thank you.
As you read in the 30-year shipbuilding plan, one of the
key attributes that we wanted to make everybody aware of is,
yes, we need to increase our capacity, but we also need to
understand what the industrial base can absorb and how we can
work as partners with the industrial base while purchasing our
assets at the most effective and efficient rate.
We believe, between 2018 and 2019, having four LCSs in the
line for the yards will provide them, granted, not optimal--we
believe that is a good sustaining rate for both yards as we
move into what is going to be a very robust competition for the
frigate, which, as you know, looks like fiscal year 2020,
decisions, and 2021, build.

AIR-LAUNCHED AND SURFACE-LAUNCHED MISSILES

Mrs. Roby. Thanks.
And, Admiral Richardson, as you know, the long-range anti-
surface missile LRASM is made in my district, in Troy, Alabama.
And I realize we can't discuss all of its capabilities in an
unclassified setting, but I am impressed with what I know. And
I am glad that the Navy has asked for an additional 10 missiles
on its unfunded priorities list.
However, I am concerned that this is currently only an air-
launched missile. Wouldn't it be prudent for the Navy to also
develop a surface-launched variant, whether it be from the
vertical launch system, tube, or topside launcher, to help
provide you with distributed lethality?
And then, also, I understand that some would consider this
an expensive missile, but on a cost-per-kill basis, compared to
everything else the Navy has, it seems quite inexpensive.
Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, we agree. And we are
accelerating the production of that missile. We have moved it
into the air-launched, as you said, and we are investigating
expanding that to surface-launched applications as well.
Mrs. Roby. Well, since I got to go first, I will yield back
my time.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby. Thanks.
Thank you for your answers.
Ms. Granger. We will move to the other side.
Mr. Ryan.

DIRECTED-ENERGY WEAPONS

Mr. Ryan. The trend continues here, I guess. Thank you,
Madam Chair. And I appreciate this hearing, and thank you for
your time and your leadership.
One of the vulnerabilities we have with our Navy and other
navies is the small seaborne and airborne threats. And this
includes remote-controlled boats and drones that might pass
unnoticed by traditional radar technologies.
And as we work to stay ahead, as we talk about the great-
power competition, ahead of China, ahead of Russia, militarily,
we have to be focused on the newer technologies. So I want to
ask you about the directed-energy weapons that could give our
Navy the capabilities that we need to apply the right amount of
force to the right type of threat.
And we know that the DE weapons can take the place of
multimillion-dollar missiles, which we are interested in on
this end, as far as helping us keep the budget contained as to
where we think it needs to be.
So I will just ask a couple questions and let you all touch
on it wherever you can. What is the Navy's broader strategy for
directed energy, and how are we addressing the growing threat?
And, then, do you view the directed energy as a necessary part
of the Navy's future offensive and defensive needs?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will take that. I will be happy
to take that question.
We have in the Navy an accelerated acquisition program
comprised of some designated capabilities that we want to move
to the fleet as fast as possible. And inside that, there are
very few programs, but one of those involves directed energy,
both high-powered microwave but more specifically in the laser
regime.
And so we are moving forward with a family of lasers to get
those to sea for exactly the reasons that you state. They are
absolutely fundamental to allowing us to address some of these
small threats--small boats, small aircraft, unmanned aircraft--
but, also, as the technology is allowing us to really address
some very high-end threats--antiship cruise missiles and those
types of threats.
Furthermore, they can be used as a counter-ISR type of a
thing, a dazzler. And so, depending upon the energy that you
are employing, they can be used across the full spectrum.
Finally, they get you on the right side of the cost curve
in terms of dollars per shot instead of millions of dollars per
shot.
So we are accelerating this as fast as we can. We have some
great progress. I would love to come and brief you on the whole
portfolio. But by virtue of moving this into the accelerated
acquisition program, we have achieved time scales, you know,
compressing from 3 years to less than 1 year, in terms of
moving some of these lasers through to production and testing.
And so I look forward to briefing you on this. It is an
absolute high priority for us.
Mr. Ryan. Anyone else?
General Neller.
General Neller. I would just say that it is just not at
sea. I mean, there is a lot of activity if you--if we could
talk in a classified setting, we could talk to you about what
is going off the west coast of Yemen. There is kind of a live-
fire laboratory down there with some of the threats that you
describe.
But the same capabilities that we are going to need at sea
we are going to need ashore. So the small UAS threat is
something that we are--there is a lot of activity going on,
from basic kinetic ``shoot them down,'' to try to break the
link, to use a laser. And all the services are involved, and
the Department is involved. The OSD is involved. Dr. Roper, I
believe, is working for the Air Force, and his office, the
Strategic Capabilities Office, is working a lot of this stuff.
So there is, as the CNO says, a lot of activity, and it is
going to start to funnel down as we get to where we have to
pick this. But I think for the naval force, mounting these
capabilities on ships, I think, fairly soon, we are going to be
able to see what their impact is. Because, clearly, our
adversaries, to include violent extremist organizations, have
taken advantage of very cheap, off-the-shelf technology that
gives them an advantage that right now we are still--we have a
capability to contest it, but the DE stuff would really change
the game for us.
Mr. Ryan. Great.
Admiral, I had a very good brief your team gave us.
And, Madam Chair, I would just encourage everybody in the
committee to get that brief. It is, I think, a very important
next step for us to continue to fund and take to the next
level.
I yield back.
Mr. Spencer. Congressman, if I could just----
Mr. Ryan. Sure.
Mr. Spencer. Could I just add a footnote there? Because I
think it is important for the whole committee to hear this.
Starting when Secretary Esper was the last one to land on
the ground, but Secretary Esper, Wilson, and myself meet with
great regularity now. And one of the things that we are
actually doing--we had a meeting last week--was pooling our S&T
projects. Because we realized that we were parallel-tracking
many of the technologies we are talking about.
We are working with Mike Griffin, now that he is on board,
and really seeing how we can align our resources in the most
effective manner in order to tackle some of these issues at
hand.
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.

MAINTENANCE WORK AT PUBLIC SHIPYARDS

Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Gentlemen, thank you.
And two questions, if I may throw them out there. First is
that, no secret that our public shipyards are having problems
in providing scheduled overhaul and maintenance. And that is
going to continue for the foreseeable future. So we are
optimistic, you know, that the fiscal year 2019 budget will be
on track, and that is great, but I wonder if the public
shipyards are prepared for the increases.
So does the Navy have a plan to correct the backlog and the
overload of maintenance work at our public shipyards,
obviously, to get more hulls operational?

INDUSTRIAL BASE

And then the other one is that--no secret there either,
that the industrial base has continued to express concerns
about the feast-and-famine cycle of skilled labor at shipyards.
And so, obviously, that is problematic as the shipyards are
leading up to multiple new projects in the next decade, like,
whether it is the Columbia-class sub or the Ford aircraft
carrier.
So the public shipyards, as you all know, have similar
issues with an unexperienced, new labor force. And the second
question: Is there any consideration of using our capable
private shipyards in a greater capacity to offset some of these
maintenance and workforce issues, which potentially could only
increase?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will take the first whack at
that, and then the Secretary will come in behind me.
First, I think you have characterized that exactly right.
The public shipyards are at capacity. We are growing in those
public shipyards. We have done a lot to discipline our
processes in the public shipyards. And that maintenance backlog
is decreasing, particularly with our ballistic missile
submarines and our carriers. Our attack submarines are coming
into that discipline.
We are hiring in those public shipyards. And so we are
doing everything we can.
We also recently issued our report on the public shipyards
that the Nation needs, which is the complement to the 355-ship
Navy the Nation Needs program as well. This requires an
extensive 20-year plan to recapitalize those shipyards so that
we can improve capacity, very much in the same way that some
private-sector industries have retooled, remapped production
lines, et cetera, to increase capacity.
With respect to the industrial base, we also signed out a
shipbuilding plan that complements the Navy the Nation needs.
And it talks exactly about this feast-and-famine cycle that you
described, how we need to get out of this boom-and-bust
approach to business, where peaks and valleys--very, very hard
for the workforce to accommodate that.
Finally, to get to your question, we are already moving to
the private sector to help us with the overload in the public
yards. I think we have moved four of our maintenance
availabilities into the private sector. The private sector
comes into the public yards to help us with capacity where that
is appropriate.
And so there is a good dialogue in terms of how to manage
that workload over this national treasure, which is the
combination of the skilled shipbuilders and fitters in both the
public and private sector.
Mr. Spencer. I think, just to add to that, Congressman, the
conversations that we have been having with industry are really
starting to move the needle. As long as they see a signal that
we are going to have the ability to put resources forward, they
are more compelled, obviously, to put money into research,
development, and enhancements.
It is just a punctuation on what the CNO just said. They
are ready and willing, the private sector, to work with us on
managing capacity and will keep the public shipyards,
obviously, at the full capacity. But managing the workforce is
going to be a challenge, but it is something that we are up and
ready to do.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And so you foresee the private shipyards
having, again, a larger role?
Mr. Spencer. Yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, let me just punctuate that too.
The shipbuilding plan starts in 1955, right? And it projects 30
years forward. Since 1955, there have been 14 shipbuilders that
have gotten out of the defense business, right? And so, you
know, the industrial base that we talk about today, that you
questioned us earlier, ma'am, it is not the industrial base
that we had in 1955.
And so, given this signal to grow the Navy, preserving and
managing this industrial base would be a key component to that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome. Thank you so much for your service to our country
and all those under your command.
Both General Neller and Admiral Richardson, in your
testimony, you talked about, General Neller, three main
priorities, manpower being one of them; and, Admiral
Richardson, you talked about people and the young men and women
under your command.
My question really goes to your assessment, based on
everything you know through recruitment and retention, on the
physical and mental well-being of those under your command and
some of the challenges you are facing, both in recruitment and
retention.
And, particularly, I was going to ask General Neller, the
deployment-to-dwell ratio is, you say in your testimony, one to
two now. The optimal ratio is one to three.
And you mention in your testimony some of the destructive
behaviors that impact those who undergo the stress of military
service. These include, of course, sexual assault, suicide,
hazing, excessive alcohol consumption.
I learned this past week, to my great dismay, that the
Naval Academy has had to expel 40 of their cadets for drug
trafficking and use. I can't tell you what an impact that had
on me. I didn't read it in the newspaper. I wanted to verify if
that is true or untrue and whether this is something new or
this is something that the military has faced consistently.
And I would like to know, in terms of what you see in terms
of recruitment across our country, some of the challenges you
face with the ability to put together leaders who are mentally,
morally, and physically fit.
General Neller, those are the words that you used.
Admiral Richardson. Ma'am, if I could, before--I just want
to address right upfront that I am not aware of any expulsion
of 40 midshipmen for drug use. And so I am not sure where that
information came from. We discussed it quickly----
Ms. Kaptur. Yes, yesterday.
Admiral Richardson [continuing]. I checked on it, and there
is nothing. I mean, there is an investigation going on, but
there have been no expulsions, and it is nowhere near that
number, so----
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you.
General Neller. So I think we are all aware that, you know,
in the Nation, I mean, it is a strategic issue that less than
30 percent of the young men and women of our Nation are
qualified just to join the military, either because of
physical, mental, or moral issues.
So now we are down to 30 percent, and now we have to find
those that have a propensity and are interested in doing this.
And as there is some growth in the force, we are all out there
competing in the same--looking for the same type of young men
or women.
So, for your Marines, right now, you know, we are getting
99.7 high school grads. We have a delayed-entry pool of high
school seniors that are waiting to graduate that comprises
about 50 to 60 percent of those that we are going to assess and
send to recruit training next year. I would----
Ms. Kaptur. Is it easier, General, or harder to find
individuals to----
General Neller. It is always hard work. Our recruiters work
really, really hard. And, you know, the retention of these
folks and their completion of their first contract is something
we track.
Our attrition numbers are down, not to the degree that I
would like for every Marine. And once you earn that title,
Marine, we expect there to be some attrition at entry-level
training.
So they are really smart. They have a different
expectation. They are digital natives. Social media and the
things that happen on social media affect them in different
ways. I am not a psychologist. But this is a really good Marine
Corps. And I could tell you about the Marine Corps I joined in
1976, and I don't want to be in that Marine Corps. Not that
there weren't good Marines, but I like this Marine Corps a lot
better.
On retention, I was concerned about that last year, because
for the first time we were really struggling to make our
numbers, to keep folks, particularly in our senior enlisted.
This year, we are on track to make it. So whatever happened--I
think there was--you know, because we had an appropriation,
then we had money for bonuses. Even with the economy being what
it is, we are keeping enough qualified folks and some of the
very best.
So there are some behaviors--I mean, I could show you the
stats. I don't want to take up all the time. I will tell you,
though, the one stat that consistently goes down: the number of
people that are involved with the illegal drug use. That number
continues to go down every year, which is good.
We do struggle, like all young people, we struggle with
alcohol and certain behaviors. Because 62 percent of the Marine
Corps is 25 years old or less. So we have the blessing and the
curse of youth and all the good things that youth brings. And
sometimes we are trying to make these young men and women grow
up.
So we watch this. I am content with the force. We can
always get better. But I think that you--I mean, as you have
traveled around and seen them, I think everybody would be
eminently proud of the young men and women that wear the
uniform of any service in the United States military.
Ms. Kaptur. Could I ask you----
Do you, in your budget, do you feel you have enough funds
for behavioral specialists to deal with some of the challenges
you may face, as special ops did with some of the challenges
they faced?
General Neller. We continue to look at that. And we
continue to look at MARSOC as a--and there are probably some
diagnostic cognitive tools that we want to take a look at. I
have to price those out. But I think there is enough money that
we will be able to do that, and if I cannot, I will come back
and let the committee know.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Judge Carter.

NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW (NPR)

Mr. Carter. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Welcome, each and every one of you. I appreciate you being
here.
We learned about the--pardon my voice. I was checking votes
till late last night. The NPR, Nuclear Posture Review, came up
with some recommendations, one of which is that we put low-
yield warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, SLBM,
along with sea-launched cruise missiles, SLM variant.
Secretary Spencer, how does your budget address the
recommendations from the NPR to develop low-yield nuclear
weapons? And when can we expect these capabilities to be added
to the Navy?
Mr. Spencer. Congressman, as you know, it is a new
initiative, and we are just getting started, to be very frank
with you. To give you an answer right now as to calendar dates,
I am not prepared, but more than happy to address it when we
have it in the sights and come and brief you.
Mr. Carter. And you will let us know when it is going to be
reflected in your budget? Because we have been given a
directive that is very important to our country.
Mr. Spencer. Most definitely.
Mr. Carter. Also, on that very issue, how do you respond to
claims that modifying the current delivery system, such as the
SLBM, to carry a low-yield weapon decreases the nuclear
threshold because adversaries might not be able to correctly
identify a potential nuclear launch?
Mr. Spencer. Gracious. To be very frank with you, I will
come back to you on that. That is an excellent, pointed
question that, at this point, I do not have an answer for.
I defer to the----
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will take a stab. I mean, this
gets into some pretty big questions about deterrence theory and
all those sorts of things. But, in general, what we are finding
is that some of our adversaries are developing capabilities.
And what you want in terms of that is to have, sort of,
proportional responses so that it does have that deterrent
effect that we are looking for. And I think that is the theory
behind the recommendations in the NPR.

MODERNIZATION PRIORITIES OF THE MARINE CORPS

Mr. Carter. Thank you.
General, I have a question. Can you briefly discuss the
modernization priorities of the Marine Corps? Are there
specific modernization requirements, such as the next-
generation combat vehicle or tactical communication networks,
where inter-service collaboration may be beneficial to
developing new systems? We have currently ongoing the DOD-wide
inter-service collaboration in many areas. I would like to hear
your comments on that.
General Neller. There are a number of areas we need to
modernize in. Information warfare, which would include
electronic warfare, is probably at the top of that. And we are
getting after that by changing our higher headquarters at our
three Corps-level headquarters, changing it from a headquarters
group into an information group and developing electronic
warfare capabilities.
So that is one area, which it also includes information and
intel analysis, where we need to expand our capability in long-
range precision fires, which I think gets at what was talked
about earlier. And we have to improve our air defense, which is
also tied to directed energy.
Command and control in a degraded environment. We have
lived in a world, for the past--since 9/11, where we didn't
have to worry about being contested in the communications area
and that we thought we could--you didn't have to worry about
moving our headquarters or masking our signature. I would say
those days are gone.
And we always have to be able to be more lethal in the
ground fight and the air fight.
So there are a whole lot of things going on, Congressman,
that we are working on, but those are the priorities that are
addressed in the budget. And aviation is a key part of that,
but there is ground modernization.
So, you know, the dilemma we face and the committee faces
with us is we have to sustain the force for the current
deployment, we have to maintain legacy gear as we go out and do
that, and we have to field and modernize the force and
transition to the new equipment, all at the same time. And, you
know, the new stuff is very capable, but it also is very
expensive.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.

TORPEDO THREATS AND DEFENSES

Mr. Ruppersberger. First thing, Marcy, I wanted--your
question. I am on the board of the Naval Academy, and anytime
we have incidents that you talked about, we get notified
initially. We don't wait for a meeting. I think it is one of
the finest institutions and boards I have served on. So, if
there is anything there, we would know about it. I just wanted
to verify that for Admiral Richardson.
Admiral Richardson, I am going to ask you this question.
The last 2 years, I have been asking questions about torpedo
defenses for our Navy.
In 2010, as a result of an urgent operational needs
statement issued regarding torpedo threats to our Nation's
high-value units, such as our aircraft carriers, in the Seventh
Fleet area of responsibility, the Navy accelerated development
and deployment of a Surface Ship Torpedo Defense program.
And just last month, Admiral Harris testified to the House
Armed Services Committee on challenges in the Indo-Pacific
region--Armed Services Committee in that region--stating that
the torpedo threat, particularly from the Chinese and Russian
submarines, has increased.
Now, it is my understanding there are three Navy offices
involved in the surface ship torpedo program. However, looking
at the fiscal year 2019 request, the Navy has effectively
canceled the program, despite recent positive test results and
milestone achievements.
And my questions are: First, which Navy office is
ultimately responsible for developing and deploying this
critical capability? And then secondly, what role has funding
constraints in the Navy's fiscal year 2019 budget request for
this program had in this? And is addressing this threat still a
priority?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, talking to a career submariner,
so----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, I know that.
Admiral Richardson [continuing]. Completely in on the
threat that the undersea domain brings and completely dedicated
to mitigating that threat against our entire Navy, not just our
high-value units.
And the way we do that is through a layered defense--a
layered defense with global and theater sensors, both fixed,
mobile, and deployable, and then through a mixture of aircraft
and payload delivery platforms. We want to hold that threat out
far away from any kind of a target. And then we have sort of an
in-close strike group defense that can address those.
We have been putting investment into this anti-torpedo,
sort of, very last bastion of defense, you know, this shipboard
platform-level defense, for some time. And recent testing has
shown that, particularly in ocean and prototypic environments,
there is just too much of a false-alarm rate for the system to
provide an effective contribution to that layered defense.
So we are sort of dialing down the investment in that
program until the technology, the detection schemes, the
signal-to-noise ratio, artificial intelligence, whatever, may
develop that will allow us to get to that system to a position
where it really provides a contribution to that defense. And so
we are watching that very closely.
Mr. Ruppersberger. So are you saying the program is not
being canceled but there are other alternatives? I mean, what
is the conclusion to----
Admiral Richardson. We have some systems deployed. As I
said, we invested in that. And we are just finding that the
performance of those systems is not living up to what our
initial hopes were.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
Admiral Richardson. So we are just continuing to follow the
technology very closely, investing proportionally with the
capability.
And, boy, I will tell you, sir, that is a great thing. If
it comes back and delivers reliable capability in prototypic
environments, we will be in.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And I also want to ask you--I don't
think I am going to have the time.
Are we having a second round?
Ms. Granger. Yes.
Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. About hypersonic and
dealing with the same type of issue.
Admiral Richardson. Yes, sir.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Calvert.

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary Spencer, Admiral Richardson, General Neller,
thank you for being here. Thank you for your service to our
country.
First, I want to be parochial for a moment and mention
NAVSEA Corona, which is located in my congressional district.
As you know, the small lab delivers big capability for the Navy
through several mission areas, including performance
assessment, readiness assessment, measurement calibration,
system engineering. They are also rapidly growing in the live,
virtual, constructive data analysis, directed-energy mission
areas. I am proud of the work they do to support you and
warfighters, so I just wanted to bring up that.
Secretary, Admiral, I have had the opportunity to talk to
both of you about the importance of innovation. I think you are
both here at a unique time and here at the right leadership to
bring about change in the Navy in how we acquire and
incorporate innovative technologies.
However, as history has taught us, bureaucracies outlast
the best of us. As you know, bureaucracy favors the status quo,
and there is little incentive for achieving efficiencies,
incorporating disruptive technologies or methods, or deviating
from incumbent providers.
I have no doubt you are committed to reforming how the Navy
does business to better serve the warfighter and to have a more
lethal force.

WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT

One of the priorities to accelerate capability--and the
budget requests $18.5 billion for that effort in research and
development. A couple of questions.
The Navy budget document mentions workforce management. Can
you please tell me how you plan on reforming the workforce and,
importantly, changing the culture to be more adaptive and
agile?
Mr. Spencer. Congressman, you hit the nail on the head when
it comes to being in the right place at the right time for
innovation. I just want to comment on that first, because it
starts at the top, coupled with urgency, because the two fit
hand-in-hand, especially when we look at what our mission set
is.
As we go forward, one of the battle cries that is
permeating throughout the organization is innovation doesn't
mean we have to sit here and bang your head against the wall
thinking something new. Look above your silo, look out of your
area of expertise, find some innovation, and what we call
``R&D,'' rip it off and deploy it, and get it into the service
as quickly as possible to the warfighters' hands. That is one
of the primary themes that we are working now for innovation.
As far as workforce management goes, one of the greater
assets that we were lucky enough to recruit is our head of
acquisitions, as you know, Mr. Geurts, who has been at this for
quite some time.
We really do have to spend the time, energy, and resources
to bring our workforce around to the sense of urgency and give
them the tools to actually explore and leverage the ability to,
quote/unquote, ``R&D'' as I just explained it. It is going to
be some new muscle movements for the organization. It is going
to involve some new DNA. But I also think we can manage with
what we have, to provide a leverageable return.
Mr. Calvert. We all know that innovation rarely comes from
big companies. How will you change acquisition practices to
seek out innovators, typically midsize, small businesses? If
innovation is disruptive to current practices and even may
result in a PM savings on budget, how do you ensure that these
innovators are not discarded to protect budgets?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I will tell you, I will just
support the Secretary's comments on this and say that Secretary
Geurts and I have already met, a couple of different venues,
where we just are talking directly to small business. And we
are listening as much as we are providing opportunities for
them to join, listening to them tell us what our bureaucratic
obstacles may be, where we can knock those down, how they can
get better into the game, to have that agility and flexibility
that you have described.
So we are very focused on small business and their role in
innovation. I agree with the Secretary's comments that having
the right people in the right place is absolutely essential to
doing that. And with the combination of authorities that the
Congress has already given us, the focus on small business, and
the tremendous opportunity, I think we will get at this.
Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you.
And thank you for your answers.
And I just want to put a little shout out for NASSCO down
in San Diego. Great little shipyard.
Thank you.
Mr. Spencer. If I could also just put a punctuation mark,
if I could, Ms. Chairwoman?
Ms. Granger. Sure.
Mr. Spencer. A vignette for you, Congressman, is that we
found--and this actually came up through NCIS--we found that
there was a component manufacturer in our hypersonic
experimentation that is a very small organization. And what I
mean by small, it is four Ph.D.s, and the intellectual property
goes home with the, quote/unquote, ``CEO'' on his laptop every
night. And NCIS said this is too much of a threat and came
down, as you might imagine, with the best intentions in the
world as a big bureaucracy, to challenge this. And the little
business owner said, I can't afford this.
We are actually trying to adapt now and find a construct
and a context that works to provide us the satisfaction it is
protected and allows him to keep doing business without being
suffocated.
Mr. Calvert. Good. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Ms. McCollum.

PILOTS--PSYCHOLOGICAL EPISODES

Ms. McCollum. As has been said earlier, thank you for your
service and for those who serve under you.
I go to deployments. It is Reserve and National Guard. And
most of us, I included, always say, ``We wish for you a
successful mission, we wish for you a speedy mission, and to
come home safe.''
So I am going to ask some questions, and I know there will
be followup in the office.
Ms. Granger. Ms. McCollum, can we just--your mike isn't
working. It is sort of----
Ms. McCollum. I am trying to do the best. I will use my
substitute teacher voice. How is that?
I want to ask you about the concerns on this committee, and
one of them is our pilots. Our pilots across the services are
increasingly experiencing reports of psychological events,
including hypoxia. And I know you will all agree with me,
safety in flight is non-negotiable, but a recent NASA report on
this issue shows that the Navy has more work to do.
I understand that the Navy has been making a strong effort
to ensure any aircraft mechanical issues are fixed, but I
remain concerned that we are not doing enough to focus on the
pilots themselves.
The NASA report states, and I quote, ``Events do not happen
to planes; they happen to people.''
So can you give us an update on the Navy's actions, team's
efforts, and how involved the Navy medical community has been
in determining the potential causes? Can you describe the
Navy's coordination across services in solving this problem,
particularly with the Air Force, to ensure that we are
leveraging solutions across the military?

SHIP COLLISIONS

I would also like to ask you about two concerns that were
trending this year. First is a series of fatal ship collisions,
including the USS Fitzgerald and the USS McCain; second, what
appears to be an increasing trend in the Marine Corps in the
number of aviation crashes and fatalities. In fact, Breaking
Defense reported last year that the Marine aviation deaths were
six times that of the Navy.
Now, obviously, both of these trends are concerning to
everyone in this room, and that includes you gentlemen.
So, Admiral Richardson, now that the Navy's comprehensive
review of ship collision is completed, how has the Navy changed
training procedures to reflect what is found in this proper
procedure? In your full testimony, there is some, but I would
like more.
And, General Neller, are these crashes are a symptom of a
readiness crisis, an issue with the airframes, or is it with
something else? What is the Marine Corps doing to address these
aviation failures?
In the time remaining, if you want to just touch on it. I
know I haven't given you enough time remaining to get into it
fully, so please brief me.
Admiral Richardson. I will start, and I will address the
physiological episode issue right up front, which, as you said,
is a combination of system, you know, the aircraft, and also
the person.
In fact, just last week, I was down at Oceana, and I
visited both the repair facilities that are doing the system
modifications to address, sort of, the system degradation and
get at this, and also held a roundtable with 12 of the pilots
who had experienced these physiological episodes to make sure
that they are getting exactly what you say, you know, the
proper medical care individually, and that we are approaching
this as a system properly.
In fact, one of those aviators is my aide, Lieutenant
Commander Danielle Thiriot, a strike fighter aviator, right
behind me. She was part of that roundtable.
I think that a major part of this is it involves
communication so that everybody knows exactly what is
happening. We are moving together. We brought NASA on board. We
brought on all of the private vendors--Boeing, Cobham, the
manufacturers that are doing this. We are working very closely
with the Air Force and the medical community to make sure that
we are moving forward in as focused a way as possible.
With respect to the breathing gas issues that are resident
in the training aircraft, the T-45, those efforts are paying
off, and we are seeing a decrease in breathing gas issues in
our training community.
With respect to the F-18s, those are mostly cockpit
environment pressurizations. And while we are seeing some
progress in those, we haven't really found a full smoking gun,
but we have a number of material issues and upgrades that we
are doing to address that problem; and then also, as I said,
making sure that these aviators get the full medical treatment
and we are concentrating on them to learn everything we can
about this phenomenon.
With respect to the Fitzgerald and McCain, I appeared and
briefed this committee earlier. I thought that was very
thorough. I will be happy to answer more thoroughly for the
record. But suffice it to say that, since we last talked, we
are moving out with alacrity in this area, both from an
education and training standpoint. We have $600 million in our
budget to address increased simulators, both in the schools and
in the fleet concentration areas, common bridge equipment
across the surface force, all of these operator tools that both
for training, education, and operations will help us get after
this.
I am going to take a brief this afternoon on the
modifications to the surface warfare officer career pattern, to
include increased education opportunities and certification
opportunities.
And so everything that we talked about before during the
brief remains valid. Much of that has been accomplished, and
what is not already accomplished is in full-speed development.
General Neller. So I agree with everything the CNO said
about the physiological, which is both the quality of the air
and the pressurization of the cockpit.
Our numbers are a little bit different. For whatever
reason, even flying the same model-type series, we haven't had
the same number of incidents as the Navy. But we track it.
Certain things that we did: I will tell you that, before,
if something within the--there are, like, 14 parts to the
oxygen system of an aircraft, and we didn't fix it unless it
failed. It was like, okay, you have to wait for it to break.
Now, it is, okay, we are going to repair this part. And we had
to do a better job of maintaining the system. So we gave pilots
different sensors, we changed the altimeter--you know, we did
everything.
And we listened to them. I think that is the most important
thing, is when people were telling us, hey, we are having these
issues, you know, we said, okay, let's talk about it. Now, it
is part of the training regimen.
I mean, I am an infantry officer, but I spend a lot of time
on aviation, and, obviously, we want everybody to be safe. And
so I don't know if we will ever get to zero, because I think
that is just part of the high risk of flying at high altitude,
but, you know, we try to put everything in there. And the
numbers are what they are, and I can give you all that data.
On the Class A, we had a horrible year last year. It was
terrible. We had 12 Class A's. And part of the reason that we
had some of the high casualties is we had one aircraft where we
lost 16 people, a C-130. And so I think we know what happened
in that case, and the families are in the process of being
notified. I will tell you that, in almost all the cases,
though, the material condition of the aircraft was not part of
the event.
So what are we doing about it? This year, we have had one,
and we have not had any fatalities. So I am very superstitious,
and I would rather not talk about that anymore. So we are
tracking, and we will see what happens.
We are flying a lot more, although there is no correlation
between flight hours and these events. In some cases, there
were some aircrew that didn't have enough hours.
But I think, whether it was a wake-up call or we are
doing--I know we are doing a better job of paying attention,
but we are flying more. The hours are going up. I think
everybody is focused on this. And, you know, I am hopeful that
we will be in a better place at the end of this year and we
will not lose anybody.
I mean, it is one thing to lose an airplane--but it is not
just the Class A's. I mean, Class A's are the ones that make
the news, but we have to do better across the board. I mean, we
end up damaging aircraft, certain things. Being at sea is a
tough environment. You have to tow the aircraft, whether it be
a helicopter or a tiltrotor. You have to get across the flight
deck. You have to get it on the hangar bay. It is not a lot of
space. You have really got to pay attention. So we have talked
to commercial industry. We have had Delta come out and talk to
us.
I would say one of the things we have done is we have
increased the number of maintainers that go to our weapons
training instructor course. Because we realize you just can't
train the aircrew, you have to train the maintainers. And so
now they are involved in this.
So, just like the CNO said, I mean, this is an enterprise
effort to try to arrest these issues, because we need to keep
all the planes that we have flying. And so we will continue to
work on it, and we are not going to take our eye off it. It is
not going to get fixed. It is something that, you know, you
just kind of keep your eye on all the time. And whenever I talk
to the commanders, we make sure that they understand that, you
know, we have to be safe.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Chairman Rogers.

EUROPEAN DETERRENCE INITIATIVE (EDI)

Mr. Rogers. Thank you for your service to your country.
One of the major policies of our government is ensuring
that we are doing all we can to deter Russian aggression in
Europe. Whether we are talking about kinetic operations in
Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, attempting to influence foreign
elections, just recently boasting about their military
capability and this so-called new missile that they crow about,
it is clear that Russia is obviously seeking to re-exert itself
as a global player.
I recently met with the Estonian Secretary of Defense,
visiting also in Ukraine the same, as well as Georgia, all of
whom are very much concerned, obviously, because they are
impacted in a direct way in Russia efforts in Europe.
One of the primary means that we are responding to this
aggression is through the European Deterrence Initiative, EDI.
Mr. Rogers. In 2019, the lion's share of Navy and Marine
Corps EDI is for theater antisubmarine warfare, P-8 airfield
enhancement, multinational exercises, and prepositioning of
Marine Corps equipment.
This question is for any or all of you, but can you
describe your view of our efforts with EDI, or otherwise,
encountering Russian aggression in Europe?
Mr. Secretary, would you lead off?
Mr. Spencer. Certainly, Congressman.
Let me just emphasize, one of the first overseas trips I
took was up to the Arctic conference. And we spent some time in
Norway and listened to both the MOD and the CHOD in Norway talk
about what is going on. Zapad had just finished the summer
exercise in Russia, and it was a very eye-opening exercise for
me, and I consider myself somewhat informed. Up in the Arctic
Circle alone, you are seeing Russia repaving 12,000-foot
runways, putting 10,000 Spetsnaz up above the Arctic Circle for
search and rescue. Everyone is quite keyed up.
The EDI, as far as dollars and cents go, for the Navy and
Marine Corps, is our contribution. Remember that we are the
forward deployed force. The fact that we have our submarines,
our surface ships, and our aviation assets already deployed and
flying is meaningful. This is additive on top of that.
I defer to both the CNO and the Commandant to add on to
that, but it is definitely a concerted, combined effort.
Admiral Richardson. So I will take the next stab and then
let the Commandant finish up.
But I will tell you that, as a major component of this
resurgent Russia has been in their maritime, they have really
never taken their eye off the development and deployment of
their undersea forces, but they have really stepped on the gas
and stepped that up, both in technology and in, sort of, the
capacity, the amount of time that they are spending deployed.
That is exactly why our investments there are focused on
the antisubmarine warfare problem, both enhancing our undersea
sensors and then, as you pointed out, infrastructure for the
antisubmarine aircraft, the P-8. As well, we are making more
robust our facilities in Rota and some of the other Navy ports
that we forward deploy to.
As well--and it is indicative of this global problem--the
Navy-Marine Corps team, your naval forces, as the global
maneuver force, is that we are spending a lot more time in the
European theater. And so career strike groups, for instance,
that would just transit through the Mediterranean at maximum
speed to get to the Middle East are now spending much more time
in the Mediterranean, not only contributing to operations in
Inherent Resolve, et cetera, but also working the Russian
presence problem in the Eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea,
Baltic, et cetera.
So I think we are very focused on this, sir. We have flexed
both from an investment standpoint and an operational
standpoint.
General Neller. We have had a Marine presence in Romania
for many years. Special Purpose MAGTF that operates out of
Moron, Spain, is a force that is available to both the
Commander of AFRICOM and to EUCOM. We now have 300 Marines up
in Norway, and although you would think 300 Marines are not a
big deal, I am sure that Mr. Putin is well aware that they are
there. Because we needed to get back in the cold-weather
environment and take advantage of the gearset that we have
there that we have started to rebuild.
So right now today, Congressman, we have Marines training
in Sweden, with the Swedes and the Finns. There is an amphib
ship that just transited into the Black Sea that is going to do
an exercise with the Romanians.
We continue to train a Georgian battalion that goes to
Afghanistan. The Georgians have no marine corps, but we have
been doing this for years, and, quite frankly, they like having
the Marines there. And I was just there recently, and the
United States agreed to sell them Javelin missiles for their
own self-defense. And I think we are going to do the same with
the Ukrainians, because we hear the same thing.
So that is not our area of strength. I mean, that is really
a continental theater. And if you look at the National Defense
Strategy, the Army is pretty much told to go there and do that.
But we will continue to work that.
There are contingency plans that are being drawn up where
there is a sufficient Marine and Navy capability that would be
involved if Russia were to violate Article 5 of the Washington
Treaty of the NATO Alliance. So we are there, not in the
numbers that you might like or others might like, but within
our capacity.
So I will tell you, this fall--and just close on this. We
have done a lot of stuff--a lot of our allies in NATO have
marine corps and amphibious capability: the Spanish, the Brits,
the Greeks, the Italians. The Portuguese have a small
capability.
So, this fall, in October, there will be a large NATO
exercise, probably the largest amphibious naval exercise that
has been held since the height of the Cold War. It is called
Trident Juncture. There will be 45,000 NATO servicemembers and,
you know, tens, if not dozens and dozens, of ships and aircraft
that will be exercising off the coast of Norway against a
simulated threat. And I am sure there will be demarches and
other things by the Russian Federation.
But I think that is an indication of the seriousness that
the strategy takes, that our NATO allies want to see us there
and be committed to their defense.
Mr. Rogers. Well, some of us are very much concerned
about--as you are.
As part of the building-partnership-capacity category of
EDI, you are only requesting $3 million for multinational
operations, compared to $22 million for Air Force, $56 million
for Special Operations, $21 million for the Army, $200 million
for security assistance to Ukraine.
So I would hope we would--Mr. Secretary, I would hope that
we would put more weight on the EDI, particularly in the
Ukraine, Georgia, and that world between Western Europe and
Russia.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. That wasn't a question, right?
Mr. Rogers. Right.
Ms. Granger. So I will call on Mr. Visclosky.

SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
Gentlemen, I have four or five questions. I will only ask
two now, because we have colleagues and I don't know if we will
go a second round.
Just an observation before I begin.
Secretary, I appreciate your interchange with Mr. Calvert
about the four Ph.D.s. I never came close to getting one of
those. But I appreciate the attentiveness to small-business
people. My colleagues have heard me complain in the past that,
while the Department has talked about fostering small
businesses, I tend to doubt that they actually do it or have
their heart in it.
I have used a firm in my district that does cybersecurity,
a very small group, startup, with a couple of people. And the
board of directors had to invest more than $1 million in cash
simply to qualify, to begin to bid on contracts they had no
guarantee they were ever going to get. And I view that as a
huge discouragement.
So I appreciate your comments and believe your sincerity,
as well as your colleagues', in fostering that.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT

General Neller, what I would ask about is your request in
2019 for an increase of a thousand troops. Absolutely believe
you need that. But also note that, for 2019, there is a
reduction in the request for operations and maintenance.
Could you explain, with additional troops, why you would
have a reduction in the O&M account?
General Neller. Congressman Visclosky, the thousand
people--you know, there is always a bill out there that we
never, ever reduce which we get from the operating force for
what they call Table of Organization and Equipment Change
Request. In other words, ``Hey, I need more people to do this,
and I can't afford to give up other people.'' So we are always
trying to buy that down.
The Marine Corps force 2025 changes some of the capability
sets that we need and some of the skill set we need. So those
thousand people are already asked for in a number of different
ways, whether they be cyber, more intel analysis, more security
cooperation, ability people to do--advisers, different people
here and there. Some are civilians.
So, on the O&M side, we have looked at what we do on the
O&M side, on the green side, and, quite frankly, we have had
enough money to do the training that we need to do. And so we
were able to take some risk and able to move it to that other
account to buy these individuals, and we felt that that was a
better use of our money at that time.
So I think we felt that, if there was any risk, that risk
was manageable. And that is why we did what we did.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
The second question I would have is on environmental
restoration. There are a number of compounds--PFOSes, PFOAs. I
couldn't begin to pronounce the names of these compounds. But
both the Navy and Air Force have identified areas beyond their
bases where the groundwater has been contaminated. It is an
issue Department-wide.
It is an issue in civil society as well. A number of us--
Ms. Kaptur is ranking on Energy and Water; Chairman
Frelinghuysen and I both serve on Energy and Water--we see it
at the Department of Energy.
My sense is, every year, we invest in environmental
restoration and cleanup, but I don't see the list getting
smaller in any discernible way.
Given the fact that you have taken over, Mr. Secretary, is
there a matrix you are going to use? Is there some way we
could, if we are having a conversation a year from now--and I
realize these are each unique, very difficult--some way to
discernibly know that the moneys are ensuring progress here?
Mr. Spencer. The bottom-line answer is, yes, Congressman,
there will be. We can do that and we can produce that for you.
On the top of the wave, I will tell you, having been
intimately involved with one major environmental impact program
that is facing us out in Long Island, it is an ever-evolving
issue. They are adding new chemical compounds to the list all
the time.
But the bottom line is the Navy-Marine Corps team is
everybody's neighbor where they are living, and we will hold up
our responsibilities to make sure that we are correcting issues
that we caused.
Mr. Visclosky. I would appreciate it if we could follow up,
because both for our personnel, military and civilian, on those
bases, around those, as well as civilians, we do have an
obligation. And on the committee, it is not the first thing I
think about when I get up in the morning, I have to admit that
too, but I think it is very important.
Mr. Spencer. Certainly.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Cole.

NATIONAL STRATEGY

Mr. Cole. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am going to build on the question that Chairman Rogers
asked. I would like you to give us--I want to ask two questions
and then give you as much time as you want to respond.
First, since we have changed our national strategy to
recognize we are in a new period of great-power competition,
give us a quick description of the things that worry you most
that the Russians and particularly the Chinese are doing now,
the capabilities that they are developing that, both
quantitatively and qualitatively, you are worried about.
And, second, I would also ask you that, in addition to what
we are doing to counter that, how much are our allies doing to
be helpful, particularly the Japanese in the Pacific and,
obviously, the European powers in the Atlantic?
Mr. Spencer. Let me provide the 30,000-foot view from the
Department of the Navy, and then I will ask the Commandant and
the CNO to step in.
But what keeps me up at night, there are two different
organizations.
If I look at Russia, one of the things that keeps me up is
their underwater capabilities. They never let up on that, as
the CNO referred to earlier. I am still flummoxed by their
economic model, to see where they are putting their resources,
and is that, in fact, sustainable when you look at the
demographics of their society. But, nonetheless, in the
immediacy, it does concern me.
When it comes to China, the bottom line there is the
checkbook, to be very frank with you, not only in the dollars
and cents that they are writing to support their military
expansion and their technological R&D work, but what they are
doing around the globe that I know that you all are aware of,
which is weaponizing capital, to be very frank with you. Going
into Sri Lanka, redoing the port, putting an interest rate--not
as aid, but as a total secured loan with a pretty hefty coupon.
Debtor fails on that, and the asset owner comes and reclaims it
and says, ``These are now ours.'' They are doing that around
the globe. And so their open checkbook keeps me up at night.
I would defer to both the CNO and the CMC as to their
observations.
General Neller. I kind of look at those like the near term
and the long term. The Chinese are playing a long game. As the
Secretary said, everywhere I go, they are there. They don't
have a list. And I am just--you know, their concern with human
rights is not there. They have big bags of cash.
And if we have an issue with a host nation--I was just in
Thailand, and, since the coup in 2014, they have not had a
duly, democratically elected government. So, by law, I cannot
have Thai officers attend our schools, which they have done for
years and years and years and years. I met three Thai officers
that I trained as a captain. They are now generals that lead
their marine corps. So we don't need a lost generation of Thai
officers like we had a lost generation of Pakistanis and
Indonesians, in my professional opinion.
So they are very clever. And they are in the Marianas. They
are down in the Solomons. They are doing exactly what the
Secretary said; they are going in and they are buying airfields
and ports to extend their reach so that--they want to win
without fighting.
The Russians, I think, are a little more in your face. I
don't think they want to fight us personally, but I think they
want to be able to impose their will and use intimidation. I
mean, they are capable. They have recapitalized their
capability. I am not going to get into specifics, because that
is really classified. But whether it be undersea, whether it be
strategic weapons, whether it be their aviation, even their
ground combat.
And I believe they have used the Syria operation as kind of
a live-fire evaluation for their systems and for their
military, to get them--because the one thing they don't have,
like the Chinese don't have, that we have, is they don't have
17 years of war to give you the experience. Although the war we
would fight with them is a little bit different than what we
have been fighting.
So we pay attention to it. You know, it is something we
watch. And I think that is why we are here, and I think that is
why the Congress has decided that the U.S. military, in order
to compete against these so that we don't have to go to war, we
want to be in a position to negotiate from strength and make
sure our State Department folks and the President of the United
States can negotiate where we are not being held hostage by
somebody's capability.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, if I could just close it up, I
don't have anything to add to the Secretary or the Commandant's
comments on Russia and China and their capability, anything
more. I would be happy to bring you a classified brief on both
of those situations.
With respect to our allies, we continue--and I think the
naval forces, in particular, continue--to partner with our
allies. And some of those allies and partners can go to the
pretty high end in naval warfare with us, and they have both
the capacity, the capability, and the willingness to do that
against some of these emerging threats. And we exercise with
them routinely. You know, a lot of our exercises, while the
funding may not be tagged for partner development, those
exercises serve to do exactly that, as when we operate
alongside our partners.
And then the spectrum unfolds, right? So you go from the
very high end down to allies and partners that are challenged
to secure their territorial seas. And we help them with
maritime domain awareness and those sorts of things.
So there is a very coherent team approach. Our foreign
investment strategy and our FMS programs are targeted towards
that strategy. The important part is to enable
interoperability.
With respect to what keeps me up at night, the highest
priority I think I could offer for myself is a return to normal
order on the domestic side that allows stable, adequate funding
on a predictable basis, that allows us to address these threats
at pace, at tempo, to stay in competition.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Granger. Chairman Frelinghuysen.

APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your service as Secretary. I
also thank you for your service as a Marine. We know Marines
never retire.
Let me say, I have some rhetorical questions, but this is
the House Appropriations Committee, and once we get our bill
passed for 2018, you are going to have a lot of money to deal
with. And this is a rhetorical question, but perhaps you want
to--how are you going to spend it in the time that you have
between now and October 1st?
Let me ask a few other questions.
And will you be using some of this money to deal with the
coming strike fighter and submarine mission shortfalls? And
apropos of Mr. Diaz-Balart, how quickly can the Navy reduce its
depot maintenance backlog? These are the type of questions that
I think deserve some responses.
And may I say, apropos of the comments relative to what
China is doing in the South China Sea in terms of denial, I
mean, it is sort of parallel to what the Chinese are doing with
One Belt, One Road. They are in a commanding position.
And we have talked about it. Numbers matter, the size of
the fleet. I mean, what are shipbuilding's prospects as a
result of this influx of money for 2018, which will hopefully
be done shortly, and the 2019 funds, which go up to $716
billion to be shared by all the services?
Mr. Spencer. Mr. Chairman, excellent question and front of
mind.
If I was to relay to you how I approach the Secretary of
the Navy's position in Title 10, it is running a business. We
are now coming out of a period of doing more with less, and we
have been in the backward crouch, so to speak, in that regard.
We now have the resources to stop analyzing the threat and be
the threat. But that is going to take some new muscle
movements, and we are going to have to really make sure that we
are on game for this.
We are putting the tools in place to monitor how we are
going to put the resources out. In my weekly meetings with FMC,
we are monitoring what we are doing now on the CR curve. And we
will step up into 2018 when the bill is approved, ready to step
to 2019.
We would ask--and I totally understand the role of the
Appropriations Committee, and I understand the control, which
is warranted. I would ask if we could find any relief in--
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, we are addressing the whole issue
of flexibility.
Mr. Spencer. It would be greatly appreciated, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Obviously, the committee has its
interest in jurisdiction, and oversight is important. Sometimes
when you get a huge bucket of money, people say, ``Well, this
is the gold mine.'' But the committee still, I know, under Ms.
Granger's chairmanship, wants to make sure that all of those
dollars are spent responsibly. So I think we have worked out a
path forward to provide that degree of flexible you and the
other services are looking for.
Mr. Spencer. Outstanding. We welcome that with open arms.
We will not do any sort of, quote/unquote, ``foolish
spending.'' We can't afford to.
I will tell you that we have programs racked and stacked.
We have our contracting people already gearing up, because it
is going to be a task. But we will come before you when, in
fact, we see some difficulties to see if we can make you
completely aware and transparent of where we stand.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, if I could just add, you asked how
were we going to spend the money. I would say from a top-level
perspective, we are going to spend the money responsibly, we
are going to spend the money in a way that is completely
auditable, and we are going to spend the money in a way that is
fully transparent and cognizant of the oversight
responsibilities of this committee.
And so, while you have given us great resources, we
pledge----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We weren't happy about--none of us
here--about the series of continuing resolutions. We know that
does terrible things to the services, and it is an
embarrassment to the appropriations process, that we had to go
through this. I won't say, you know, we weren't part of the
problem, but sometimes you can blame the higher-ups or you can
blame the other body, but it was inexcusable that we went
through this process.
But now you have, I think, some degree of stability for a
couple of years, and----
Admiral Richardson. There is no doubt about it. The request
for additional appropriations in 2017 stopped the bleeding, got
us onto a path of health. 2018 and 2019, those figures
absolutely will do a tremendous amount to cure that.
With respect to the industrial base, which you touched on
in your question, the numbers do count. We are at 282 ships in
the battle fleet. By 2023, we will be at 326. And so we are
building ships. We are building ships in a balanced way that
not only builds the platform but builds the weapons, builds the
system, the people, the infrastructure, the whole, you know,
naval-power enchilada to make sure that we deliver naval power
and capability.
Also, as we talked about earlier, investing into the
industrial base, both the shipbuilders and the ship
maintainers, on the public and private side.
Finally, we are fully funding our readiness accounts. And
so, whether that is in ship maintenance, aircraft maintenance,
whether that is parts, whether that is flying hours, steaming
hours, all of that.
And if we run into issues with executability, we will be
back here first to make sure that we identify that to you, and
we will have a solution for where we can spend that money to
great effect.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Following up, I would remind you that I think
you still have a goal of reaching 355 ships by the mid-2050s. I
had the great opportunity of visiting some of the shipbuilders,
and they were very concerned that they don't have the
workforce. It is generational. Many times, it is families. And
so keeping up with that will be very important.
We are going to have a very quick second round. If you can,
limit it to one question that can be asked quickly. And we are
going to start with Mr. Ryan.

RAILGUN SYSTEM

Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Briefly, I have a question on the railgun, again, talking
about a technology, a railgun system for our U.S. ships. My
understanding is these weapons can fire projectiles at
extremely high speeds with a range exceeding 100 miles once
fully operational.
I know China has demonstrated a capability for shipboard
railguns. And, you know, I am just concerned, again, that we
are maybe falling short here. Can you give us an update on what
we are doing to increase the rate of fire?
Admiral Richardson. Fully invested in railgun. We continue
to test it. We have demonstrated it at lower firing rates and
smaller ranges, shorter ranges. Now, we have to do the
engineering to sort of crank it up and get it at the designated
firing rates at the 80- to 100-mile range that you describe.
That involves a number of technologies. The barrel itself
is probably the limiting case, the engineering on that; the
materials required to sustain that power pulse, and the heat
and pressure that is involved in launching those projectiles,
and we are doubling down on that. But, also, sir, as you know,
you know about directed-energy types of capabilities. The power
system to generate that power pulse is another thing. And then
integrating it into ships the size of a destroyer is the final
piece.
We are very conscious of the recent reports about Chinese
progress in that area, following that very closely.
It has a benefit too--of the program, the railgun program.
We have developed a projectile, high-velocity projectile, which
is actually usable across the fleet in a number of different
applications, not only in the railgun. And so it is a very
fruitful program that we continue to invest in.
Mr. Spencer. And, Congressman, since both of your questions
were technology-oriented, let me say that, when it comes to the
secretariat level, running the R&D enterprise under the thesis
of portfolio management, we are linking that to the NDS
implementation. And, while classified, I can tell you we are
aligned in where we are putting our dollars. In the two buckets
that you spoke about, there is alignment there. And we are
focusing where our dollars are going in a much more keen
fashion in portfolio management.
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you. Well, given your background, we
are counting on you to make this happen. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby.

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Just real quickly, as the chairman stated, numbers matter.
Words matter too. So I just want to clarify for the record
that, as it relates to LCS, the issues that I was specifically
referring to are those that have been created due to a lack of
predictability in funding, specifically, as I have referenced
and you have heard others of our colleagues talk about, as it
relates to the industrial base. And that has been said several
times.
So, just real quickly, Admiral Richardson, as the
President's national security strategy is laid out, the U.S.
military and associated policies are increasingly focusing on
our near-peer threats. These near-peer threats are also
proliferating offensive and defensive systems to places such as
Syria, making operations in the Middle East with the fourth-
generation aircraft much more challenging.
And so, with the F-35 fifth-generation capabilities, talk
to us about how it will help the Navy fleet in whole being more
lethal, survivable, and capable.
Admiral Richardson. I am happy to do that, ma'am. And I
know that the Commandant wants to talk about Joint Strike
Fighter as well.
I will tell you, they call it a different generation
because that is exactly what it is. And the early flight
demonstrations show that it is delivering on the capability, in
terms of its sensor suite, its ability to process information
on board, its stealth capability, all of that. It really brings
us to a new regime in terms of aviation capability.
We are generating that capability in the Navy with the F-
35C, as you know. We have the squadron out of Lemoore. We are
making steady progress towards IOC in 2021. We are looking to
do the first deployment on an aircraft carrier. And so we are
marching down there.
The Marines are sort of the early adopters here, and so if
I could just turn it over to General Neller to provide some
more.
General Neller. We have our first prep for deployment
undergoing in the Pacific right now. You may have seen pictures
in the paper of the F-35B landing on an LHD. There will be
another ARG/MEU, Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary
Unit, deploying off the West Coast later this year with the
same ship.
And we are also working with our U.K. allies on possibly
deploying with them. So, other allies: The Norwegians have a
couple planes. The Israelis have a couple planes. The Italians
are training up. Others are looking. There is a large
consortium.
So, as the CNO stated, without getting into the details,
the airplane has capabilities that we expected it to have.
There are other things about the airplane that we are still
figuring out. And we decided to go early because we didn't buy
Hornet E and F, and we needed to replace the old iron we had.
So we are going to learn. Capability-wise, though, it is
doing what it says it does. Talking to the aircrew, they can do
things they couldn't do with other aircraft.
The concern you expressed about what is going on in the
Middle East with certain air defense systems, I would rather
talk to you about that in a private setting.
But we will learn, and we will find out. And that is why I
will be anxious to see when the--because the MEU going off the
West Coast this fall is going to the Middle East. So I am sure
there will be an interesting welcoming party for them when they
get there.
Mr. Spencer. Congressman, I would be remiss if I didn't
bring up the fact that we still have quite a bit of work to do
with the F-35 when it comes to cost control and what we expect
out of it. It is a major focus of the whole Department of
Defense, i.e., because the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine
Corps are all in on the A's, B's, and C's.
It is front and center in my window as to how we are going
to purchase this effectively, efficiently, and how we are going
to sustain it. And we are working with industry and having some
very sober conversations on where we are going on price.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
And thank you all for your service and that of your
families as well.
Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur.

NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to ask Admiral Richardson, the new Nuclear Posture
Review has been characterized by some as a very large shift in
our country's nuclear posture. And I am interested in your
comments on its potential impact on deterrence, particularly
related to the additional funding you are seeking for the new
sea-launched cruise missile, which some say sounds like the old
nuclear-tipped Tomahawk that was retired in 2010, and then also
on the proposed new submarine-launched ballistic missile that
is planned to be a modified version, we think, of the W76,
which is presently being modified.
So what do you think the impact on deterrence will be? And
do you agree with the characterization that this is a major
shift in our nuclear posture?
Admiral Richardson. I think that it is a shift in the
nuclear posture. It provides a broader range of deterrent
options to national decisionmakers.
And with respect to the programmatics, we are just getting
started, as the Secretary said. We will probably be able to
address the low-yield warhead sooner than we will the sea-
launched cruise missile. We really have to bring that program
back from scratch.
So we have started to formulate our thinking in those areas
and are moving out briskly to fulfill the new tenets of the
Nuclear Posture Review.
Ms. Kaptur. And what potential impact do you think it will
have on deterrence?
Admiral Richardson. I think it will enhance deterrence.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Diaz-Balart.

OFFICE OF COMMERCIAL AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Actually, first, a comment, which is: Whenever we have
these meetings, we always hear about the potential threat of
China and Russia, and yet there seems, a lot of times, to be a
disconnect between the political and particularly the
commercial relationship with China and attitude versus the
threat that they potentially have. And that is something that I
think we need to really spend a little bit more time on one of
these days.
And I know you probably won't be able to answer this now,
but we have all seen Mr. Putin's presentation and the video of
him, in essence, nuking Florida. And so it might be interesting
to get, in potentially a classified brief, information as to
how threatening this potentially new technology that the thug--
or that Mr. Putin has been talking about.
I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Spencer. I would just like to bring up one thing,
Congressman. You hit the nail on the head on an issue that
specifically the Navy and the Air Force is funding called OCEA,
the Office of Commercial and Economic Activity. And it is
specifically looking at the commercial intertwine of China and
the United States.
Just the other week, we let a contract for Military Sealift
Command, with a prime who I won't mention here. And as we
drilled down, we found out that a joint venture partner of
theirs was Huawei. Huawei is on the NSA list for ``don't
touch.'' We have stopped that contract. We have asked the prime
for the governance documents of what the joint venture looks
like.
This is the kind of attention we are going to have to have
going forward.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I appreciate that. And, again, we have
to do more of that, but, also, I think in general, not dealing
with the military, not even dealing with procurement, just in
general. We kind of assume that China is a, you know, trading
partner like India, when, in fact, they are not.
So thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.

HYPERSONIC MISSILE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, I am going to get to the
hypersonic, Admiral Richardson.
It appears we can't go a week without having conversations
or news about a hypersonic missile development. President
Putin, earlier this week, revealed a new Russian hypersonic
missile that supposedly boasted some impressive capabilities.
And the Department of Defense stated in, I think, 2010 that
China has developed a hypersonic land-based antiship missile
based on the DF-21--I don't know what that is--DF-21. It is no
secret that these weapons could potentially threaten the Navy's
largest power-projection platforms and our aircraft carriers.
My questions are: While I understand this is an
unclassified setting, I believe that speaking publicly about
the hypersonic threat is important. And can you share with the
committee a general update on any progress that we have made in
developing credible defense against hypersonic weapons?
And considering the threat that hypersonic weapons play, do
you see the role of our aircraft carriers changing,
specifically when it comes to operating in anti-access/area-
denial environments?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, thank you for the question.
I think there is a technological--a bit of a race going on,
in terms of hypersonics. It is a tremendous capability. It
reduces transit times of warheads from hours to minutes. And so
there is a lot of attention being paid on that around the
world, including here in the United States, where there is, I
think, a recent renaissance in terms of getting after this with
some dedicated focus. And that is across the Department.
With respect to defense against those types of
capabilities, just as the capability is emerging, it is the
chess game that manifests itself. And so we will be generating
defenses and responses to that.
The aircraft carrier in an A2AD environment continues to be
relevant. I will tell you that this is not just a one-sided
thing either. This gets at classified levels very, very
quickly, and so we will need to find the appropriate room to
talk about that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And that is why I said that.
Admiral Richardson. Right. But I can tell you that we have
confidence that that carrier delivers decisive capabilities in
some of the high-end conflicts, even in these environments,
that we wouldn't want to go into combat without.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I suggest that this is a high
priority, because it seems that is where the new weaponry is
going, both with China and Russia.
Admiral Richardson. The Department sees it the same way.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And you see it the same way.
Mr. Spencer. Congressman, just to add, too, when I talked
earlier about what the three services are doing together on
S&T, this is exactly in that area.

SEQUESTRATION

Mr. Ruppersberger. And you are going to have some money now
to deal with it.
Speaking of money, I know I have tried to ask this question
for years, when we passed that terrible law, sequestration, and
it really has done a lot to hurt our military. And almost every
four-star who comes in this room--I mean, General Neller, you
have said it before, and Admiral Richardson, how sequestration
is doing so much to hurt us and weakens our military.
Now we have a 2-year hiatus, so to speak, and we are having
some money come in. But I would suggest that all of our four-
stars continue to put pressure on Congress and let the public
know that sequestration makes us weaker and allows Russia and
China to become stronger.
General Neller. Will do, sir.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
I have asked for a classified briefing on the most recent
advances in China and Russia, and you will get a notice very
quickly.
Judge Carter.

READY RELEVANT LEARNING

Mr. Carter. I thank you, Madam Chairman.
When we talked about our shipwrecks we have had--the
McCain, the Fitzgerald, and others--the answer we got in those
hearings was: Sequestration has prevented us from being able to
do adequate training, and, therefore, mistakes were made,
commanders have been relieved, et cetera.
We talked about a big pot of money. It is coming your way.
Tell me about enhanced training you have planned for incidents
like this and making better sailors and Marines.
Mr. Spencer. Let me provide the 30,000-foot view, if I can,
Congressman.
Out of the accidents that happened over in the Seventh
Fleet, you might remember we had the comprehensive review stood
up by the CNO, and I stood up the strategic readiness review.
The 90-plus-some recommendations are now being handled by our
oversight committee. We are well along the way. I am looking at
14 different items here, which have some items that are already
engaged in awareness and training, the way we handle equipment
on the bridge.
And then we have my strategic review, which is dealing more
with culture and structure and C2. We have a brief, the CNO and
I are sitting down here on our C2 discussions here momentarily.
We are also addressing the way forward for the career path of
the surface warfare officer.
Specifically, when it comes to training, let me defer to
the CNO.
Admiral Richardson. Sir, the training enhancements really
leverage what has been almost a renaissance in understanding
how people learn. And you harness that along with the sum of
the really high-end technologies--a lot like a game, but a game
that teaches you rather than just a game. And we have found
that these have tremendous impact, you know, orders-of-
magnitude improvement in terms of getting people to learn how
to do their job.
Some of this was already underway in a program that we call
Ready Relevant Learning, where we harness these technologies,
we package them in blocks, and deliver them right before time
of need so that that they are most relevant there. And that
whole program has been enhanced by what we have learned to the
tune of about $600 million over the 5-year defense program, to
focus those specifically on the surface warfare challenges that
we saw in the Pacific.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky.

BUY AMERICA PROVISIONS

Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary, there is a dance that administrations of both
parties play with Congress on Buy American provisions in the
Department of Defense. Every year, when the budget comes up,
there are no provisions. Every year, when the budget is
completed, there are five provisions, basically. I assume that
will hold true for fiscal year 2018.
Also, there are no waivers to those pending that I am aware
of. So I would simply make the observation that, should the
Department feel at some point in the future that a waiver might
be necessary from the Department's perspective, that, in the
future, I would also hope that the Department looks at those
requests as to how they could be avoided in the future, whether
or not Congress would accede to it or not. My sense in the past
is administrations--and, again, both parties--have just been
gratuitous. ``We are going to ask for it, and we don't care if
the problem is ever fixed.''

FACILITY SUSTAINMENT AND MODERNIZATION

The one question I would have, in conclusion here, though,
is on facility sustainment and modernization. It is my
understanding that, in the 2019 request, the Navy's request is
under a model, as I am told, is at about 78 percent; the Marine
Corps at about 80 percent.
For any of you on the panel, though, concerns you have as
far as just your basic facilities that we should have a focus
on?
Mr. Spencer. I will start, Congressman. And I will back up
real quickly on an earlier question.
One of the things that we are focusing on in the Department
of the Navy, specifically on the acquisition side, is
management of our supply chain. That is a key, critical
enhancer for us, and it really hasn't been--a lot of light
hasn't been shined on that. If we manage our supply chain
correctly, we should be able to manage the situations like
that.
Mr. Visclosky. And I appreciate you saying that, because I
was going to acknowledge, because a number of members have
talked about that. And I do, again, believe people's sincerity
on the panel of managing that industrial base. I am sorry for
not saying that.
Mr. Spencer. No, not at all. I just wanted----
General Neller. On the facilities, sir, you know, I would
say our facilities are probably as good as I have ever seen
them, but that doesn't mean that we are 100 percent.
And one thing about building a new facility is, in a few
years, you have to maintain it. And in order sometimes to build
it, you have to tear things down. And that is not a cheap
thing, because a lot of the old facilities have environmental
issues and they have to be properly disposed of, et cetera.
So we are always accepting risk with facilities, because if
we had to pay a bill or do something in the past, particularly
under sequestration and a CR, the facilities and the training
ranges and the things like that always, kind of--they were the
first ones to take the hit. So we think we have found a balance
here. You are never going to get all the new stuff as fast as
you want, and you are never going to get all your facilities to
be brand-new. But we watch that, because we have to maintain
what we have.
And there are some things, quite frankly--there are some
areas we end up spending money to maintain things, or people
use things that would be better if we just tore them down and
we didn't have to deal with them. And so that is all part of
our overall plan to get our facilities right-sized.

BRAC

Mr. Visclosky. And, General, I might just mention that I
think Congress is part of the problem. It would be my
anticipation in the fiscal year 2018 bill we will have
prohibition on even considering how to approach the issue of
BRAC. I realize the political sensitivity. I am not completely
naive. On the other hand, I think it is very foolish public
policy not to study issues to gain knowledge to make an
informed decision. And I think sometimes we forced these costs
on you by not at least seeking knowledge as to what makes sense
with the taxpayers' dollars and what you need to utilize for
your efforts.
So thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Cole.

GLOBAL MANEUVER FORCES

Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Just a quick question, Admiral Richardson. A couple years
ago, the then-current Commander at PACOM was appearing before
us, and I just asked him, what was your greatest concern? He
said, my greatest concern was last year we went 135 days
without a carrier in the Pacific over the course of a year, at
different points in the year.
Do you envision any kind of gap like that going forward?
Admiral Richardson. Sir, I think we will be putting more
carrier strike groups to sea.
But where I am going with this, sir, is a bit of a shift.
And it goes back towards this idea of naval forces as global
maneuver forces. So I will tell you that, if in any particular
spot I don't have a carrier, I am just not very long away from
getting it there, right? And so it is just a matter of what are
the warning signs that are associated with any crisis that may
go up. And this is the really unique thing about your Navy-
Marine Corps team, is that we are just a week or so away from
being where we need to be. We are that dynamic.
And so, moving away from the thinking where it is a one or
a zero, I am either there or I am not. It is really moving
towards thinking, what is my tether to get there, and how does
that compare to the strategic warning for that situation?
A little bit of a long answer to your question, sir, but I
will tell you that, overall, the situation is improving.
General Neller. I would just add, Congressman, I think the
way--and to pile on with what the CNO said, I mean, the
advantage that our maritime force has is we can change our
position. We don't need host-nation approval. We don't need to
go talk to anybody diplomatically. We use the sovereignty of
the seas to move that force.
And we are looking now at a different posture of our force
as we set the globe in a different way. And you are going to
have fifth-generation aircraft on an amphib deck, which we
never had before. So that is going to cause our adversaries to
have to look at it in a different way.
So it is not a carrier. It is only going to be six
airplanes. It is not a carrier air wing. But it is a
capability. And then, when you combine that with other surface
action groups and other things, and even land-based aircraft, I
think we are going to put ourselves in a different posture and
force our adversaries to look at us in a different way.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Granger. Chairman Frelinghuysen.

ALIS SYSTEM

Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Navy should point with pride that
Admiral Harris will soon be wearing an ambassadorial hat. We
like to marry the power of diplomacy with the power that all of
you represent.
I couldn't leave here without asking whether--the landing
on the Wasp of the F-35, was the ALIS system deployed in that
maneuver? Because this has been a focus and concern of mine.
General Neller. Yes, Chairman. I mean, I know we have
talked about that. And we are still working through that. I
have not heard anything about--I mean, those are kind of the
initial bounces to get the aircraft qualified to land there. I
don't believe they deployed the whole squadron there.
I know that the squadron that sourced that aircraft
operates out of Marine Corps Station Iwakuni, where also now
the carrier air wing that supports the Japan-based carrier is
moving down. They are working the ALIS system. And there are
some things that are new as we work through that.
Although the real issue for part support there and supply
support there has to do not solely with that but the fact that
we are in a foreign country. And I would say, for example, I
know that squadron deployed to Alaska for an exercise, and
because they were in the United States and didn't have to deal
with some customs issues, their support was probably a little
bit better than it was, because we are in a host nation and we
go through the rules and regulations there.
So we work that every day. In fact, we were at an event
last night and saw some folks from that vendor, and we had a
nice discussion about support. And, as the Secretary said, you
know, I will say, having been in this office coming up on 3
years, having a DEPSECDEF and Ms. Lord and Mr. Spencer and
other people that are involved in the business world, that has
changed our discussion on how we see things. And I think it is
going to make us much more cost-conscious and more cost-
effective.
And, as the Secretary said, with all the people that
provide capability, we are making sure that we get value for
the dollars that the United States taxpayer spends on the gear
that we are going to operate, which is very effective.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, please keep all of us posted on
your work. I mean, obviously, it is the critical investment.
And it has been around for a while. So sometimes when things
have been around for a while, they have some vulnerabilities.
So I am sure in your discussions those issues will be
addressed.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
For our last question, Ms. Kaptur has asked for a brief
last question.

DRUG/OPIOD CRISIS

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair, very, very much.
I just wanted to raise awareness, though you may not view
this as your major mission, obviously, but the issue of the
drug/opioid/heroin crisis in our country is so extensive. Ohio
now is the number-one State for deaths per capita. This is not
just troubling, it is terrifying, what is going on.
And we don't have enough doctors in our country to meet the
need. We certainly don't have enough advanced practices nurses
in the area of neuropsychiatric care and substance abuse.
And within your departments, there may be a way for a
shared defense-civilian medical program where we could help pay
for the education of doctors that could then serve in the
defense arena, our veterans hospitals, as well as the civilian
sector.
I would ask you to consider how we might use your
experience and training in past decades to create a program
where we can attract enough people into this specialty to serve
both in the medical arena in defense--I know Special Forces
told me that they were having difficulty, you know, recruiting
behavioral specialists. We just don't have them. We don't have
enough of them.
And so there may be a program where, through your medical
facilities and of the other departments, we could help to pay
for the medical education of people, so we get people serving
in the defense sector, and then they could rotate out perhaps
for a few days in the civilian and serve both sides.
I don't know quite the exact answer. All I know is the
problem. And so I just wanted to place it on the screen for you
as an arena for, perhaps, additional inquiry inside your
respective departments. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Spencer. Congresswoman, just to comment there, what you
will see coming out of the Strategic Readiness Review kind of
fits into where we will be coming before Congress for some
nibbling around the edges on DOTMA. And it is specifically,
whether it be cyber or the example you talked about, the
ability for our gray matter to cycle back through the civilian
sector, whether to become current or remain current or add
value to the equation, and have that ability to come in and out
of service.
So that is one of the things we are looking at. Duly noted,
what you just said.
And the fact that you brought up the earlier comment about
drugs in the service, the Commandant hit the nail on the head.
It is an area we are focused on. We are going down on the ramp
there. But I will tell you one thing, as the Secretary of the
Navy: We have services to support and take care of people who
have a drug problem. I have absolutely zero tolerance for
anyone distributing drugs in our Navy, and they will be dealt
with in that light.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
As we finish up, I would like to compliment you on the way
you work as a team. It is very important that your outreach,
and particularly in small business--how important that is, and
your coordination with Secretary Mattis.
I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today, and the
briefing of the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Rogers and the
answers thereto follow:]

CH-53K

Question. The Marine Corps' new CH-53K King Stallion helicopter
will replace the aging CH-53E Super Stallion, using proven and mature
technologies and will deliver more than three times the capability of
its predecessor. The CH-53K is designed to improve aircraft, aircrew,
and passenger survivability; increase reliability; and significantly
reduce operating and maintenance costs. The CH-53K will be the most
capable heavy lift helicopter in the world today, and should meet the
Marine Corps' warfighting requirements in the 21st century. The
complete Program of Record for the CH-53K is 200 aircraft.
Can you please describe the increase in capability that the K model
CH-53 will provide the Marine Corps?
Answer. The CH-53K immediately provides 3 times the lift capability
of its predecessor. It will be the only fully marinized, heavy-lift
helicopter capable of transporting 100 percent of the vertical Marine
Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) required to fulfill our role as
``contact'' and ``blunt'' layers per the National Defense Strategy
(NDS). The King Stallion will be able to transport up to two armored
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), two HMMWV
Expanded Capacity Vehicles (ECVs), or a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
(JLTV) out to 110 nautical miles (NM), enable the MAGTF to mass combat
power, maneuver, and maintain resilient and agile logistics and
maintenance while under persistent multi-domain attack.
Questions. If this production ramp was to increase even faster, and
you were directed to procure additional aircraft in FY 2019, could you
support that?
Answer. Yes, to a certain extent. Increasing the CH-53K ramp rate
will allow the Marine Corps to transition its Marine Heavy Helicopter
(HMH) squadrons to the CH-53K faster, but only up to a certain rate.
The Marine Corps--and Sikorsky--could support two additional CH-53Ks
(10 total) if they were included in the FY19 budget.
Question. Would this increased production ramp result in a better
per-unit cost?
Answer. Any increase in aircraft ramp would impact the per unit
cost in those specific years due to economic order of quantities and
learning curve. If the ramp would continue to grow, a savings in
Average Per Unit Cost (APUC) could be realized for procurement.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Rogers.
Questions submitted by Mr. Aderhold and the answers thereto
follow:]

LCS Workforce

Question. Secretary Spencer, I will not repeat the question from my
friend and colleague, Martha Roby, but I also want to express concern
about how having only one LCS ship in the FY19 budget affects our
workforce. As you know, a highly skilled and experienced workforce
cannot be restored overnight once that workforce dissipates due to
layoffs. Could you have some of your staff meet with industry and
report back to the Committee on how many months will be needed to
restore this workforce back to full operability, after the layoffs that
the FY19 budget request-level will cause?
Answer. There are four LCS planned for construction between FY 2018
[3] and FY 2019 [1] that are not yet on contract. These ships provide
sufficient work across the two contractors that, when combined with the
13 LCS hulls that will still be under construction in FY 2019, provide
for workforce stability and be competitive for the FFG(X) award in FY
2020. The Navy is confident that the FFG(X) shipbuilder selected will
be able to ramp up their workforce to meet the Navy's FFG(X)
procurement profile.

New Force Structure Assessment

Question. Both the National Security Strategy and the National
Defense Strategy highlight increased significance in the maritime
domain. The 30 year shipbuilding plan offers a path to a 355 ship fleet
in the 2050s--yet it follows a very similar Force Structure Assessment,
or FSA, to the last one submitted by the Obama Administration in 2016.
The current LCS, and the follow-on frigate we are about to procure,
offer an affordable option to be able to increase capacity across the
globe, while taking the stress off of our bigger assets (the ships
which have a larger role in our great power competition with Russia and
China).
Can we expect a new FSA to reflect the new strategies laid out by
this Administration, and will it include a role for small, surface
combatant ships as described above?
Answer. A new Navy Force Structure Assessment (FSA) will account
for National and Departmental strategic guidance to define the
capability and capacity of the future Naval battle force. Small surface
combatants, as part of the battle force, will be addressed in the new
FSA.

IAMD Interoperability in AEGIS

Question. In the recently released 2018 National Defense Strategy
for the United States, Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, said
regarding ``deepening interoperability:''

``Each ally and partner is unique. Combined forces able to
act togethercoherently and effectively to achieve military
objectives requires interoperability.''

Is there a need for better IAMD interoperability in AEGIS to
improve fleet defense in small operational areas, particularly to
counter large-scale, coordinated raids by our potential enemies?
Answer. Yes. The Navy continually strives to improve AEGIS
interoperability as an urgent warfighting priority. The Strike Force
Interoperability program and process, as an example, was expressly
created for this purpose; it examines interoperability challenges
within the Fleet and certifies ships as interoperable as a precondition
before deployment. Similarly, the Navy AEGIS Speed-to-Capability
(ASTOC) process takes advantage of the AEGIS Common Source Library and
the open computing architecture design to pace emerging threats. These
initiatives address the challenge of large-scale, coordinated raids by
our potential enemies. As the number of partner nations possessing
AEGIS combat systems continues to grow, the ASTOC process will enable
them to pace the threat as well.

AEGIS Force-Level Interoperability

Question. As such [relating to the previous question on AEGIS
interoperability], what is the plan for introducing that capability in
the near term to support our sailors? Finally, would you consider an
AEGIS Force-Level Interoperability definition and analysis study to
address maximum interoperability of AEGIS and related assets in a
limited operating space?
Answer. The Navy AEGIS Speed-to-Capability (ASTOC) process in use
today is designed to rapidly and affordably develop AEGIS
interoperability and warfighting capability improvements and get them
to the sailors in the Fleet quickly. Utilizing the ASTOC process, an
AEGIS update to address an emerging threat or add an identified high-
priority capability can be approved, developed, tested, certified, and
fielded within a year.
The Chief of Naval Research has sponsored a number of force level
resource management and interoperability studies and projects in the
past. The Navy sees the value of maximum interoperability of our ships,
aircraft, and submarines as a force multiplier. No further studies or
legislation is required to speed this program up.

Conventional Prompt Strike/Hypersonic Weapon

Question. The Navy has been assisting the Pentagon with the CPS,
Conventional Prompt Strike, program. One possibility is to field a
hypersonic weapon from a submarine. In each of the next five fiscal
years, what dollar amount of Navy-budget funding (not OSD funding),
separate and apart from the submarine development budget, is set aside
for work specific to hypersonic weapon development; for example, is the
development of a new booster motor being paid for by OSD funds
entirely, or by Navy-budget funding (not OSD funding), separate and
apart from the submarine development budget, have you set aside in past
fiscal years for work specific to the development of a booster for the
Navy's Hypersonic Weapon?
Answer. Starting in FY19, the Navy has programmed $700M/FYDP for
evaluating and integrating CPS on a number of candidate platforms.
Beginning in FY20, OSD will transition $906M/FYDP from the defense-wide
account to Navy for CPS weapon development, bringing the total
investment to $1.6B/FYDP. At that point, the Navy will assume the lead
for CPS efforts. In anticipation of FY20, the Navy and OSD have
commenced initial CPS transition efforts, to include scoping the
program, assigning a program manager, and early platform integration
work.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Aderholt.]

Wednesday, March 14, 2018.

FISCAL YEAR 2019 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE BUDGET OVERVIEW

WITNESSES

HON. HEATHER WILSON, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE GENERAL DAVID L.
GOLDFEIN, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE AIR FORCE

Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

Ms. Granger. The subcommittee will come to order. This
morning, the subcommittee will continue our series of open
defense posture and budget hearings with our military services.
Today, we will hear from the Air Force leadership on their
fiscal year 2019 budget request.
This is the second in our series of hearings with the
military services on the fiscal year 2019 budget request. We
know that the Air Force has pressing needs for modernization
across the board, and the National Defense Strategy demands an
even greater pace of innovation. The subcommittee is prepared
to help the Air Force meet that challenge.
This is an open hearing, but if our witnesses would like to
come back before the subcommittee in a different forum at some
time to talk in more detail about the challenges the Air Force
faces, please let us know.
Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like to recognize
our ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for any remarks he would
like to make.

Opening Remarks of Mr. Visclosky

Mr. Visclosky. Chairwoman, thank you very much.
I appreciate the panel being here today, your service. I
look forward to your testimony.
And, Madam Chairwoman, thank you for bringing us together
today.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
Allow me to introduce our witnesses, the Honorable Dr.
Heather Wilson, Secretary of the Air Force; General David
Goldfein, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
Secretary Wilson is making her first formal appearance
before the subcommittee.
Secretary Wilson, welcome.
Secretary Wilson is appearing alongside the chief of staff,
General Goldfein. General, thank you for your being here today.
We look forward to hearing your views. Please proceed with your
opening remarks.

Summary Statement of Secretary Wilson

Ms. Wilson. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to enter my full
statement into the record and just summarize a few comments.
First of all, let me thank all of you for your work on the
fiscal year 2018 Defense Appropriations bill. It makes a
tremendous difference to the airmen whom we represent here
today.
And thank you to the members of the committee who have met
with the chief and I over the last 3 or 4 weeks to talk about
individual concerns. We very much appreciate your openness to
do so.
The Air Force budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 aligns
with the National Defense Strategy. It recognizes that we face
a more competitive and dangerous international security
environment than we have faced in decades. We have returned to
great power competition, and the central challenge to U.S.
security and prosperity is one that we must meet.
I would say that, in this budget, there are really two bold
moves: The first is accelerating defendable space. We need to
deter, defend, and prevail against anyone who seeks to deny our
ability to freely operate in space.
And you will notice in the defense budget for fiscal year
2019, over the 5-year defense plan, we have an 18 percent
increase for space over the plan that we presented to you last
year at this time. And last year's was an increase over the
year before.
The second bold move that is included in our defense--
proposed defense budget for the Air Force this year is the
shift to multidomain operations. We are proposing to change the
way we do command, control, and communications on the
battlefield, a mission that we perform for the Joint Force and
particularly for the ground forces.
So, while there are two bold moves, accelerating defendable
space and the shift to multidomain operations, there is also
one continuing effort, and that is to keep improving the
readiness of the force to win any fight, any time. That is what
you expect of your Air Force and of your Joint Force, and we
are here to deliver.
With that, I would ask the chief to join in here.

Summary Statement of General Goldfein

General Goldfein. Thanks, Madam Secretary.
Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member Visclosky, distinguished
members of the committee, it is an honor for Dr. Wilson and I
to represent 670,000 airmen as we update you on the Air Force
and our budget proposal for 2019.
As Dr. Wilson stated, this hearing comes at a time of
increasing global uncertainty. The security landscape we face
has become more competitive, complex, and dangerous. In air, in
space, in cyberspace, potential adversaries are rapidly
leveling the playing field.
As stated in the recently published National Defense
Strategy, we face the reemergence of great power competition.
And while we didn't seek this competition, let there be no
doubt in this room and around the world, your airmen stand
ready to defend the homeland, deter nuclear conflict through
nuclear readiness, own the high ground in any military conflict
with air and space superiority, and project global vigilance,
reach, and power with our joint teammates, allies, and our
partners.
I saw it a few days ago in the faces of our defenders at
Fort Bliss training side by side with their joint teammates as
they prepare to deploy to CENTCOM and AFRICOM. We saw it in
January, when Secretary Wilson and I walked with our airmen on
the Korean Peninsula assessing our readiness and support of the
Department of State-led pressure campaign.
In January of 2018, this year, airmen flew 253 sorties
delivering lethal effects in the air-ground campaign that has
delivered a punishing blow to ISIS in Iraq and Syria, as we
simultaneously apply pressure to the Taliban across
Afghanistan.
At the same time, our continuous bomber presence in Guam
and the U.K. supported diplomacy in Korea and in NATO, as
airlift and tankers flew 1,400 sorties, taking off and landing
every 3 minutes, delivering 12 million pounds of fuel and tens
of thousands of tons of cargo and personnel when and where it
is needed.
We remain a global power because of global mobility. 89,000
total force airmen are deployed or forward stationed around the
globe, representing a fifth of our Active Duty force. And here
in the homeland, airmen executed space, nuclear, cyber,
remotely piloted ISR missions 24/7, to include flying the GPS
constellation used by billions worldwide every moment of every
day.
Airmen participate in some way in every mission the Joint
Force performs. We operate from below the surface in a remote
missile silo to the outer reaches of space and everywhere in
between. And we can do all of this only with the unwavering
support of the American people and the leadership and support
of Congress.
This Air Force budget request allows our Nation to confront
today's threats and moves us toward the Air Force we need to
face tomorrow's challenges. It builds on progress we will make
in 2018 to restore the readiness of the force, increase
lethality, and cost-effectively modernize.
But most important, as Dr. Wilson stated, we assured budget
alignment with both the National Defense Strategy and the
Nuclear Posture Review as both were being developed. And this
budget supports the greatest treasure in our Nation's arsenal:
our airmen and their families.
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, distinguished members of
the committee, thank you for your continued commitment to the
force our Nation needs and deserves. And on behalf of our
airmen, we stand ready to take your questions.
[The joint written statement of secretary Wilson and
General Goldfein follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

SPACE FORCE

Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
Before we begin questions, you understand that we have the
same limit on each member's questions and response, is timed to
5 minutes.
I am going to start with questions regarding something that
has just happened, so I would like to start that, go to Mr.
Visclosky. And then Chairman Rogers and Chairman Calvert both
have hearings they have to go to, so we will have a different
sort, and go to you all after that.
Secretary Wilson, yesterday, the President made a statement
suggesting that the administration supports the idea of a space
force. I want to know what your understanding of the current
policy is, and how do you interpret the President's remarks?
And then both of you and Secretary Mattis have expressed
concern about this in the past, could you please reiterate your
reasons for opposing this idea?
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
As the President said yesterday, the new National Defense
Strategy for space recognizes that space is a warfighting
domain. We appreciate the President and the Vice President's
leadership on space. Nowhere is that leadership more clear than
the President's budget, which the chief and I are here to talk
to you about today.
This budget accelerates our efforts to deter, defend, and
protect our ability to operate and win in space. There are a
number of different elements of this with respect to the space
portfolio, but they really--it really starts to focus intensely
on space situational awareness, the ability to command and
control what is going on in space, and the ability to create
effects in space in order to protect our assets on orbit. And
it is a significant change in this President's budget.
General Goldfein. Madam Chairwoman, I will just say that I
am excited about the dialogue. In 2011 to 2013, I was deployed
forward as the air component commander in Central Command, and
one of my----
Ms. Granger. Could you speak up a little bit louder,
please?
General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am.
I was saying Hagel that, from 2011 to 2013, I was deployed
forward with then-General Mattis as his air component commander
in Central Command. One of my responsibilities for him was to
be his space coordinating authority and to take those
capabilities that we bring from space and ensure that they were
connected to his operational planning.
As a Joint Chief, I see that same responsibility as the
lead Joint Chief for space operations, is making sure that we
have those capabilities that the joint team requires. And so as
the President stated openly, this is a warfighting domain. That
is where we have been focused, and so I am really looking
forward to the conversation.
Ms. Granger. Anything to add?
Thank you very much.
Ms. McCollum.

PILOT SHORTAGES

Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary, General, thank you for testifying here today.
Thank you for stopping by in the office.
So I am going to just follow up on the record and ask you
to continue to work with the committee on dealing with the
hypoxia issue, especially the psychological effects on our
pilots.
And, also, I asked the same question of the Navy--and I
will with all the branches, have people who are flying--what we
are doing to coordinate together to solve this problem because
this is across-the-force problem.
And I want to make sure that there is coordination,
because, one, we will get the answer faster; two, it will save
taxpayers money; and three, all the pilots in all our branches
of the service will know that they are being equally looked out
and after.
And then we talked briefly about pilot shortages as well,
and as I mentioned, we are experiencing that not only in the
Department of Defense but in other agencies as well. What we
can do as a committee to either help you with addressing the
pilot shortage as well as what we, as a committee, if you need
additional resources to deal with the pilot hypoxia issue.
And, Madam Chair, I know sometimes we hear from the senior
medical officers in a briefing, and if we do, I would like to
ask them this question; if we are not, if that is not on the
briefing schedule, I will be submitting some questions to them,
as well.

NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW

The question for today though is on the nuclear weapons
recapitalization, and I wanted to ask you about the budget
implications of this Nuclear Posture Review. The review states
that the recapitalization and modernization of nuclear forces
could require resources of over 6 percent--6 percent--of the
Department's current budget going forward. The requirement in
NPR could end up costing taxpayers well over $1 trillion over
the next few decades. And at a time when we are struggling to
meet domestic priorities for the people that we all represent
in this room and my constituents are telling me that their
needs are not being met, I find the budgetary implications here
to be quite alarming going out to the future.
The Department is also advocating for the modernization of
our conventional forces. So I want to ask you both, given that
the Air Force has responsibility for much of the Department's
nuclear command, how does the Air Force prioritize
modernization and recapitalization of our nuclear forces
against the needs to modernize our conventional forces?
And why are systems like the long-range standoff missiles
necessary to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent? How are you
going to prioritize to meet all your needs? Six percent of the
Department's current budget going forward is quite a bite out
of the budget?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wilson. Madam Chair, I will take on the first two of
those and then turn to the chief for some additional
elaboration.
The Nuclear Posture Review reaffirms the importance of the
triad and nuclear command and control and communication. And it
says that it is our responsibility as the military to maintain
a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent.
For the United States Air Force, that is two out of the
three legs of the triad. We are moving forward in this budget
with the recapitalization or the replacement of the Minuteman-
III missile, which has not been updated since the 1980s, and it
is just too expensive to continue to maintain.
The one that you mentioned, the long-range standoff
munition replaces the air-launch cruise missile. I was out in
Minot, North Dakota, with our maintainers there, and they were
showing me why we need a replacement for the air-launch cruise
missile for the airborne leg of the triad. The materials over
time just--they just wear out, and we need to replace the
system.
You also mentioned nuclear command, control, and
communication, and the Air Force has a significant part of that
as well. And this budget focuses on recapitalizing nuclear
command, control, and communication.
There is one piece that you didn't mention, and it is not
really an Air Force mission directly, although we operate part
of it, which is ballistic missile defense, which is also part
of the nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons have helped to keep
the peace since the end of the Second World War, and the
nuclear deterrent is a core mission for the United States Air
Force, and one that we have shouldered willingly.
I would add, your question about pilot shortages, this
budget proposes to increase training to about 1,400 pilots a
year for the Air Force to try to increase the way in which we
absorb pilots into squadrons, which is actually one of the
limiting factors, and then tries to retain more pilots. And the
Congress has authorized us to do some things with respect to
finances.
But the most important thing that we can do, and Congress
can help in this, is that we are too small for all of the
missions that the Nation is asking of us, and I worry that we
are burning out our people with deployment rates that are just
too hard to sustain over time; and that, in the middle of their
careers, airmen are often trying to make that choice of whether
they can continue at that high of pace for deployments.
And maybe I would ask the chief to answer the OBOGS
question and whatever else.
General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am.
And I would just offer, on the nuclear, I would just--
Secretary Mattis had stated, and I agree, that, you know, at 5
to 6 percent of the budget for the nuclear enterprise, the
Nation can afford to defend itself. And I absolutely am with
the Secretary when it comes to the loss of life that we
experienced before nuclear weapons were introduced and then
what has happened since then.
When it comes to the kinds of weapons, the Nuclear Posture
Review validated once again the requirement for three legs of
the triad and then tie it together with the command and
control. And then, as the service, they are responsible for
two-thirds of that. We make it an extremely high priority in
our budget.
When it comes to those specific parts of the nuclear
enterprise, you mentioned the long-range standoff missile. This
is all based on supporting General Hyten as the Strategic
Command Commander, or the STRATCOM Commander, and his plans
that require us to be able to hold targets at risk. And all
three legs of the triad and the munitions they carry all
contribute to his operational plan, so that is what drives the
actual requirement that was validated in the NPR.
When it comes to the--you know, when it comes to the T-6
and the oxygen generating system and the decision that the
Secretary and I made to ground the fleet, we just had too many
incidents that caused our concern. This is an aircraft that has
been flying for years. We have got over 2 million safe flying
hours.
But we had a series of incidents that happened in a short
timeframe that caused us to stop, ground the fleet, put a team
of engineers and operators together to go in and look at the
entire system, pull it apart. And what we found was that there
were three parts of the system that were actually failing at a
much higher rate than we had anticipated.
And so we put our actions in place to go replace those
parts. As those parts come in and we complete those actions,
those airplanes are getting back in the air. We are on track
right now to get to 275 this month aircraft back in the air of
the 444, and we will have the remainder of them flying this
summer.
What I will tell you is, we learned in the F-22 that as we
worked through the engineering piece of this, we lost the
communication with our families. And so one of the things that
we are doing aggressively in this T-6 is being really inclusive
with pilots and their families to let them know every step of
the way exactly what we are doing.
And so, as we get back in the air, I am pretty proud of the
team that has come together to make sure that we do this at a
level that the Secretary and I are comfortable with.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Chairman Rogers.

PILOT SHORTAGE

Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Secretary and General, welcome to the subcommittee.
We are especially delighted to see the Secretary back in
her old haunts here on the Hill. We are proud of you, Madam
Secretary, and we wish you and the general lots of good
results.
Let me talk to you briefly about pilot shortage, as has
been mentioned so far. At the end of fiscal 2017, Air Force
reported a shortage of 1,812 pilots. It has also been reported
recently that the Marine Corps pilots are flying more hours
than Air Force pilots.
General Goldfein, perhaps you are best to answer this: What
is the status of your pilot shortage now?
General Goldfein. Yes, sir. And, first, just to correct the
record, we went back and took a look at the actual number of
hours that our folks are flying. And, in fact, we are pretty
much in parity with other services and, in fact, our joint
teammates in many ways. The average pilot was flying, in 2016,
about 17.8 hours. We are on track now with investments we are
making to get up to 20 hours per year--or 20 hours per month
when it comes to the actual flying. So we are flying at the
same rate as the Marine Corps, the Navy. All the services are
flying the same.
As we have dug into the details and analyzed the issue, it
really comes down to two areas that we are investing in and
focused on: One is how many pilots we produce; and then, two,
how many pilots we retain, because you have to get both of
those right.
And we have identified a target that we have laid the money
in for it to get us to 1,400 pilots per year that we produce,
and we will achieve that in 2020. We are going to work our way
into 1,200 pilots a year, 1,300 pilots a year, 1,400 pilots a
year.
We are going to be short of that this year, primarily
because of the T-6 grounding, and so we are going to be about
200 short of that. But we appreciate Congress' help in this,
because the money that you laid in the budget is going to allow
us to produce at the rate that allows us to sustain the force
that we need.
On the retention side of the house, we really appreciate
what Congress has done to authorize us to increase the pilot
bonus, but we are also finding that it is a combination of
quality-of-service and quality-of-life initiatives that we are
working on to increase retention of the force.
We have over 66 initiatives that we are working
simultaneously now that is looking at, you know, how do we
produce more control over time? The Secretary talked about
operational tempo. We are looking at assignment processes, how
we can get people more time at one assignment. We are looking
at talent management that we are doing.
So we have a number of actions that we are taking that is
looking at both production and retention going forward. And,
right now, we believe we are on track to be able to get to a
sustainable force model in 2020.
Final point, while we are 2,000 pilots short right now, I
think it is very important to know that we are not short in the
operational field. We are manning the operational field in
cockpits to 98 percent to 100 percent. Where we are actually
managing the risk is on the staffs, where we have positions
where we require pilots. So the staffs are short, but cockpits
forward are full up.
Mr. Rogers. I understand that you have been seeking retired
pilots to return to Active Duty and that applications are being
submitted. Is that correct?
General Goldfein. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Rogers. And how is that working?
General Goldfein. Sir, right now, the authorization we have
is for 1,000, and we are just in the early day--early months of
that putting forward. We have had, on average, 15 or so folks
who are coming back, and we are actually reaching out.
I will tell you that my father, who is an 85-year-old
retired fighter pilot that lives in a retirement community, is
really excited about coming back. And I have had to tell him
that, hey, Dad----
Mr. Rogers. Old soldiers never die.
General Goldfein. That is right. That is right. He has a T-
shirt that says, ``The longer I live, the better I flew.''
Mr. Rogers. What is the reason that they are leaving the
Air Force? Is it money?
Ms. Wilson. Sir, I think it is--there is a variety of
things. First, the airlines are hiring. The airlines--you know,
it is mandatory retirement from the airlines at age 65, and
they are hiring 4,500 pilots a year, is what the projection is,
and that is not going to slow down. So there is an opportunity
to be able to make a fair amount of money as a pilot in the
private sector.
The second thing is, is that--a recent change to the law in
recent years that said you can't sign on with a regional
airline until you have 1,500 flying hours. So the path to be
able to get to be a commercial pilot is very limited. You can
fly in the Air Force for 3 or 4 years and still, you know, you
are finally at full-time flying, maybe get to 1,500 hours.
But from the inside, for someone who comes in and serves
for 10 years as a pilot, it is really not just about the money.
People don't come to be an Air Force pilot for the money. They
come to serve. But there is also that point it gets to where
you think: You know something. Over the last 3 years, I have
been deployed for 18 months, and even when I am home, I had 3
weeks of TDY, or temporary duty, to red flag, and then I was up
at Alaska, and then I--and I am--you know, 12 hours a day in
the squadron when I am training here, and I missed the last
three birthdays of my kids. Can I continue to do this? Can my
family continue to do this?
And so it gets to that point in life where some people are
finding it difficult to keep that balance, and that is what we
hear the most.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan.

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING INSTITUTE

Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So I want to talk about the Additive Manufacturing
Institute in Youngstown and just share with you and the
committee some of the things that have been going on, and the--
America Makes is the name of the institute in Youngstown, Ohio.
This was one of President Obama's initiatives where he
wanted to start 30 or 40 of these institutes to bring public/
private sector investment into newer technologies that could
help in the area of defense in particular to bring down the
cost, improve lead times.
So we have the 910th Airlift Wing Reserve Unit that does
the aerial spray in Youngstown; they are obviously a part of
this. And through America Makes and through some of the
research, this team has significantly reduced fabrication lead
times and proved to be a huge benefit to the Air Force.
In the case of the 910th Airlift Wing, the lead time for
parts was reduced from 10 weeks to 4 weeks, and the cost per
part was reduced by 30 percent. They are now moving onto F-18s
and F-15s. They have three areas that they are working on:
bellcranks, aircraft oil coolers, and fairings.
Now, I am learning about this as we go, but for the example
for the bellcranks, 30 percent reduction in lead time they are
thinking they are going to get and 20 percent cost reduction.
For the aircraft oil coolers, 30 percent reduction in lead
time and improved productivity are expected. And for the
fairings, which help smooth flight surfaces with good
aerodynamics, they think they are going to reduce production
time by up to 50 percent with a 30-percent cost savings.
So this is the exact kind of thing I would hope we all
could agree to keep investing in because it is reducing cost,
improving lead times for these spare parts where we don't need
necessarily a million of them; you may just need a few of them.
So I want to thank you for supporting this and just ask you
a question. The other point I would like to make is, when you
see who is doing the research--so, for example, with the
bellcranks, it is Youngstown State University, Pennsylvania
State University, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Youngstown Business
Incubator, M7 Technologies--it is truly public/private
partnerships in local communities. It also has a local economic
benefit for us as well.
So the question is, how is the Air Force developing this
expertise to apply additive manufacturing in these other
emerging advanced technologies for continued effective
maintenance and sustainment of the legacy aircraft? And what
steps are being taken with current or future contracts to allow
Air Force access to the electronic design files that we would
need?
I know, Madam Secretary, we talked about that, so if you
could just address those two questions.
Ms. Wilson. Congressman, first of all, the Air Force is
very interested in additive manufacturing and 3D printing of
parts for a couple of reasons: One is the logistics problem is
much less. If you can just take the raw material and build the
part where you are rather than trying to have to go back to a
supplier.
Second is so many of the suppliers are no longer in
business. I mean, you think about it: The A-10, the prime
contractor doesn't even exist anymore, and we often have
difficulty finding parts.
You highlight the issue, and it may be an area where we
need help from Congress, and that has to do with intellectual
property. If we need a new handle or a fairing on an aircraft
and the supplier is no longer in business and we can't get
somebody to make the part for us, we don't always have the
intellectual property to be able to do it.
Now, we might be able to scan an old part and be able to
use that, but the manufacturer may say, you know, we no longer
make those, but we still hold the IP. This will be an
increasingly contentious issue on contract negotiations going
forward, but we also have huge numbers of legacy aircraft.
If we want to drive down the cost of the Air Force and what
we spend in terms of equipment, we really have to focus on
sustainment. And it is going to be an area of increased
emphasis. We had a meeting about it yesterday with our new
Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, and we are looking at
really, really moving forward in this area in a fast--in a very
rapid way.
Mr. Ryan. Great.
Just so everybody is aware, so the--it is like a 3D printer
that you have heard of. And it sits--the desktop style can sit
on your desk and print the back of your case. They just get the
material and it pumps into the, what looks like a printer--it
is a printer, and it just prints. But they also have
industrial-sized one that can print parts for aerospace and all
kinds of cool things.
But this is a game changer for us. And when I was in Kuwait
last year, they had 3D printers, and it was the same thing,
right in the middle of the base where they are printing this
stuff out for smaller things.
But we have got to solve this intellectual property issue
so that we can access this stuff and be able to print these
parts and save the government and the taxpayer a lot of money
and get good quality parts for our planes and other aircraft
and stuff.
So thank you. Yield back.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Calvert.

EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM

Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Wilson, General Goldfein, thank you for being
here, and thank you for your service to the country.
As the committee knows, I have a particular interest in
space, both in terms of access and maintaining superiority. I
was pleased the Air Force has finally moved toward competition
in space, and we see the costs are coming down. A few questions
on launching capability--I have three--and then if you please
could answer them.
Can you give us an update on the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle program, the Air Force pursuit of two launched systems
that will provide assured access to space while incorporating
competition to keep costs down?

SUPERIORITY IN SPACE

Two, while we build that capability, our adversaries in
space are aggressively pursuing technologies to erode our
superiority in space, as was mentioned. What steps are you
taking to enable the Air Force to move more quickly with
innovators in the private sector to win this contest?
And, finally, considering the Air Force's past resistance
to change in the status quo--I always think of the UAVs and the
Air Force's slow movement into that technology--how are you
pushing your workforce to aggressively pursue disruptive
technologies and incorporate a new way of thinking?
Ms. Wilson. Congressman, a couple of things. One of the
things you may have noted in the press from our space
acquisition arm, which is in Los Angeles, we led a $100 million
contract for innovation in space. It is a consortium. We did it
with other transaction authorities to be able to work with
companies who wouldn't normally work with the Air Force,
because we are often bureaucratic to work with.
We are also moving forward with actually a significant
realignment and reorganization of Space and Missile Systems
Command out of Los Angeles to be able to move faster in order
to innovate, to prototype, and do a variety of things.
I think this budget on--particularly on space, there are so
many different things that are over the 5-year period on space
in this budget, but let me highlight a couple of them.
Space situational awareness: We are accelerating our
ground-based optical sensor system, our deep-space advanced
radar system, and our next generation space surveillance
satellite.
With respect to missile warning, we chose to cancel space-
based infrared 7 and 8, which were large and largely
undefendable, and to accelerate to next generation missile
warning with smaller sensors on a large bus so that they can
have extra fuel, and what we might generally call chaff and
flares, to be able to defend missile warning on orbit.
We have a number of areas, what we would call, space
control, and be happy to come back. And I know the chairwoman
has talked about showing you one of our space exercises in
classified session so that you can see what you are seeing,
what we project, and then what we have done about it in our
budget to be able to defend in space.
Chief, do you want to talk about the ELV and some other
things.
General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am.
So, sir, you know, the direction we were given by Congress
was really to accomplish three things during a transition
period to do the following: First, to ensure that we had
assured access to all the orbitology for any platform that we
had to pick up into low or high or geosynchronous orbit; and
while we did this transition, that we would come out the back
end with two domestic competitors that would be able to provide
launch services; and on the third was, as quickly as possible,
get off of the Russian RD-180 engine. That was the direction we
were given. And, right now, we are on track with all three of
those to be able to complete the transition period, come out
the back end with two domestic launch service providers.
We have four other transaction agreements right now. We are
working with four companies who are looking at propulsion
systems, because as you know, when we started down this path,
we were not actually looking to build a new engine. We were
looking to contract a launch service.
And I will just share that, you know, on the most recent
launch of the SpaceX, the Delta Heavy, we were side by side
with SpaceX with which--with a whole team of airmen during that
launch. And that is just an example of how we have done this,
you know, public/private, work together to ensure that we come
out the back end and achieve what Congress told us to do.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
I would just point out that nowadays, it seems the private
sector is, almost in every instance, is moving faster than
government in innovation and new technologies. And I think
today we just have to keep up with what they are doing and try
to incorporate that into new weapons systems as we move forward
and do a better job of accepting those technologies and dealing
with it.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar.

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS

Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Sutherland Springs, as you know, it is in my district, and
I know that you all have been working on improving the
reporting. Can you tell us where we are on that particular
situation and what you understand the Department is doing
across the board also, besides the Air Force?
Ms. Wilson. Congressman, we stood up two task forces to
scrub all of the Air Force records back to 2002, two task
forces of 30 airmen. They have been full time on scrubbing
those records since the incident in Texas.
It is actually taking longer than we expected to do--than
we expected it to do. We have over 100,000 records that we have
already reviewed back to 2002. As we identify those that should
have been reported, we are working with the FBI to report them.
At the same time, we are working with the other services so
that we are sharing our lessons learned with the other
services. And we are trying to fix processes and training going
forward.
So we are--in addition to doing that, fixes and processes
and training, we sent the auditors out to each of our MAJCOMS
and took no-notice inspections after the training was over for
two bases in each MAJCOM to see, all right, is the training
sticking, and if not, what is our next step to do additional
training to make sure that, going forward, we don't have a
reporting problem?
I will say that it is taking us longer--initially, we
thought we could get through all the records by May. It is
actually taking us longer to get through all of those records
looking backwards. So it is probably going to take us another 4
or 5 months to get through everything and try to close out
every case.

PILOT SHORTAGE

Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Appreciate it if you all just keep me in
the loop as to where we are.
Let me see. Let me just ask you a little bit, the same
question, I think, everybody has been asking about pilots, the
shortage. I think we are, what, 1 out of 10 short. What
specifically did you ask in your budget to address this issue?
Because if you look at it, we are short, and Border
Patrol--I think we are losing more Border Patrol than hiring
Border Patrol. We are short in Secret Service. I mean,
everybody is having a hard time because we know the
demographics, a certain population is getting older and
retiring.
But what specifically--I know we have all been talking, but
I want to know specifically, what are you asking that will be
different from what other predecessors have done?
Ms. Wilson. Sir, there is a couple of things: One is, we
are increasing the number of people who are going through
initial pilot training, so bring in more people. We actually
don't have a shortage of people who want to come into the
service to be Air Force pilots.
We then have to absorb them and train them up in the
squadrons. That is actually one of the limiting factors. You
know, we are particularly short fighter pilots. We only have 56
fighter squadrons. You can imagine that if a fighter squadron
has half of its people who are brandnew pilots, it is hard to
season them. It is hard to train them and absorb them. So that
is a limiting factor.
And then it is retention, and retention really is an
everyday thing. It is not just at the 10-year point when they
are wondering whether they are going to stay or leave. And the
chief talked about some of our initiatives. There really are
over 60 of them, everything from, you know, do we allow more
flexibility and more control of schedules and lives so that you
can choose to stay at your same base or you will take a remote
and come back.
We have reduced the number of pilot requirements that are
forward, scrubbed every requirement that said we need a rated
officer on a staff at Central Command, for example. Do we
really need a rated officer for that? We have taken some of our
365-day tours and said, can they be 180-day tours?
So there is a variety of things that we have done. And
then, of course, there are pilot bonuses that try to narrow
some of the gap between what the airlines can offer and what a
pilot makes for pay, but we also have to recognize: It is not
about the pay; it is about the quality of service, the quality
of life.
Mr. Cuellar. All right.
General Goldfein. Sir, if I could----
Mr. Cuellar. And I will--well, go ahead, and then I want to
give my extra time to Mario. No. I am just kidding.
Yes.
General Goldfein. Sir, just to add to the Secretary's
point, you know, part of what Congress can do as well is the
recognition that this is a national level challenge. The
problem that we are finding ourselves in is that we, as a
Nation, don't produce the number of pilots to adequately
service at the same time commercial, business, and military
aviation.
And so, in each of your States, there are colleges and
universities that are actually in the business of producing
pilots. Any incentives that this committee or Members of
Congress can put in place that could increase the numbers, that
is going to help the overall challenge we have.
Mr. Cuellar. Well, if you can give us some ideas, because--
I know my time is over. But even in Homeland, Air Marine is
short, Chairman Carter. So, I mean, we are just short on
pilots. So, if you have any specific ideas to work on this
pipeline because it is a recruitment and then the retention,
but any specific ideas, let us know.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.

LIGHT ATTACK AIRCRAFT

Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chair, thank you very much.
And, Henry, thanks for remembering that.
General, thanks for a lifetime of service to our country.
And those of us who have had the privilege of working with
and knowing Secretary Wilson know that there is nobody who is
tougher, who is more thoughtful, who is more honorable, who is
more straight than this Secretary. So I think all of us were
very pleased that the President made a great, great choice.
Ms. Wilson. I bought your coffee this morning.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I want to go a little bit about--talk a
little bit about the light attack aircraft. And so, in the
final report on the experimental phase, my understanding is,
last month, that it went really smoothly and that things went
well.
But I understand that the light attack procurement is not
funded in fiscal year 2019, and so, even though the experiment
is set to take place in 2018, so I think it would be helpful,
and I think the committee would like to have an idea as to, you
know, schedules and funding plan for this new mission and how
it will potentially drive down flying hours and cost and
potentially even pilot retention.
So can you talk a little about the next phase of the
experiment and what that will look like?
Ms. Wilson. Yes, sir, I can.
First of all, you know, kudos to the chief. Before I
arrived, he signed out a memo that said we want to do an
experiment, signed it out on the 5th of March. It was one-page
long. We added four pages of explanation. So that was the
length of this request for proposal, five pages, and said we
want to look at light attack aircraft. That was in March.
By August of last year--so 5 months?-- 5 months we had a--
four aircraft on the ramp at Holloman Air Force Base in New
Mexico to test. This is the way the Air Force should be doing
things, and we were able to do that because you gave us the
authority to experiment. Just try it. We don't have a program
of record.
We got the first report. We are now taking two aircraft,
the AT-6 and the A-29, and we are going to do some additional
experimentation this year. We put a wedge in our budget of $2.4
billion for the United States to buy light attack aircraft and
create some squadrons.
I have to tell you, depending on how this experiment goes,
we may want to work with you on moving that money around in the
5-year defense plan, but we put a wedge in there to do that.
If we decide to move forward, I think we should move
forward quickly, and we will work together with Congress to get
the necessary authorizations and the plan that makes sense to
do the acquisition.
We believe that this needs to be coalition at the core. By
that, I mean we are already reaching out to allies and partners
who may want to purchase their own light attack aircraft and be
interoperable with the United States of America. This is all
part of a strategy to deal with the prospect of continued
violent extremism at lower levels of U.S. effort with cost-
effective aircraft but also doing it with allies and partners.
So it is aligned with the National Defense Strategy, and it is
one other way in which our fiscal year 2019 budget and plan is
well aligned with the National Defense Strategy.
Now, I have to say: I got the short straw. The chief got to
fly one of them when we were out in New Mexico, so you want to
add anything, sir?
General Goldfein. Ma'am, I think you hit it exactly right.
The big idea here--because we often will get a question, is
this replacing this, is this replacing that--this is directly
tied to building competitive space in a new era of air
competition to allow us to build the partners and the--allies
and partners in their capacity to be able to drive this
violence down to a point where it can be managed in individual
countries.
And so, when you think light attack--the Secretary said it
exactly right--think allies and partners, because that is the
big idea.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Actually, I see my time is winding up, so
maybe in a second round. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. First, Secretary Wilson, welcome back.
We worked together in Intel on a lot of these issues, and I
will take a dinner instead of coffee----
Ms. Wilson. Deal.

JSTARS

Mr. Ruppersberger. The fiscal year 2019 budget submission
funding about JSTARS, that you are going to eliminate that
program, I understand at least part of the plan that the Air
Force is discussing to replace JSTARS is the use of smaller
network systems of sensors.
However, as you know, there has already been significant
Federal investment in the JSTARS recap program, especially in
terms of the ground-moving target indicators, which is called
GMTI--and I think, General Goldfein, you probably would answer
this--system, which is a radar system.
And, additionally, General Holmes of Air Combat Command
recently stated that the GMTI radar was modular and had uses in
the future. I have two questions: First, what is the Air Force
plan for continuing to leverage the significant investment
already made in the development of the GMTI radar system that
the Air Force selected for the JSTARS recap program? And, two,
given this modularity and open architecture, can you share your
thoughts on how the previous investment made to this radar
could be used in the new JSTARS plan?
General Goldfein. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question.
You know, I think it is important for the--to set the
foundation, first, on the platform we are talking about, the
Joint STARS aircraft, it was actually a test aircraft that was
brought into being during Desert Shield to give a sense of what
the ground maneuver was as Saddam Hussein was maneuvering his
forces.
And at the time, Captain Dave Goldfein was deployed to the
Middle East for Desert Shield and then Desert Storm. And
recently--and Dr. Wilson at the time was a recently graduated
Rhodes Scholar who was working on President Bush's national
security team.
When we brought that weapons system on in 1990 to perform
in 1991, you know, if you just think about it, we were still
years away from even cellphone technology, let alone what we
know today in terms of the internet and everything else we
have. It has performed brilliantly over the years.
And I will tell you: In 2011 to 2013, I employed Joint
STARS in the surge in Afghanistan and in the withdrawal in
Iraq. And once again, we needed to know what was going on on
the ground and how do we manage the battle.
The challenge is, if we had taken that same scenario and
put it into a European scenario, any soldier, sailor, airmen,
and marines who were actually on the ground wanting to know
enemy activity in a contested environment would have been blind
to enemy movement. Because we were part of the build of the
National Defense Strategy, Secretary Wilson and I had the
ability to continue to look at our budget throughout the
building of that strategy to see where we were aligned and
where we were possibly not aligned.
As the strategy came together on focusing on peer
competition, it became very clear to us that the
recapitalization plan and the investment that we were making in
a platform-to-platform solution would not survive in a
contested environment. So we are choosing a different pathway.
One of the most important things that allowed us to change
this is our ability to fly the current Joint STARS longer than
we thought we could because we did a deep dive. That gives us
the time to actually look at an alternative approach to the
future.
Specific to your question, how do we leverage the
investment that we have already made, we are going to use that
investment and look at that technology growth across the system
of sensors that we now have available to us that are coming
from all domains and looking how we fuse that so we won't lose
that investment.

SPACE

Mr. Ruppersberger. Real quick, because I am going to have
to leave, but on space. You know, we are having some issues
with Russia and China, and it is getting more dangerous, and we
used to dominate. Now it is a lot different.
Two questions: Have you looked to ensure the American space
assets are still resilient and reliable? What do you believe
are our greatest vulnerabilities? And, two, if there were any
additional resources available, how would you prioritize the
allocation to deal with these vulnerabilities?
Ms. Wilson. Congressman, with respect to the threat that we
face, I think--without going into too much detail, I think it
is everything from jamming from the surface or a cyber attack
to direct-ascent satellite weapons, either from Russia. And as
you well know, when we were on the committee together, in 2007,
they tested--the Chinese tested an antisatellite weapon and
spread debris all over orbit.
So I think the challenges and risks are those. I think this
budget that we have proposed in front of you today does a whole
variety of things, but one of them is moving faster towards the
jam-proof GPS. So we are moving to the next generation of GPS.
And if you think about it, GPS--the Air Force operates 30
satellites in orbit just for GPS. We have about 76 satellites
total, about three of them are GPS. And since 1992, the Air
Force has been supplying GPS, paid for by the taxpayers, but to
the users for free.
So, if you, you know, got here to this hearing today by
Uber or if you looked on Yelp last night for the restaurant
nearby you, or if you just take out your phone and look at that
blue dot, or if you got money from an ATM machine, all of the
services, all of those services are provided by a squadron of
less than 40 airmen in Colorado Springs, Colorado. We provide
GPS to the world, to about a billion people every day. It is a
pretty amazing capability. And we are going to keep it
resilient for the long term.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Cole.

SUSTAINMENT SYSTEM

Mr. Cole. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And let me echo everybody's pleasure, Madam Secretary, at
seeing you in your spot. I mean, none of us, on either side of
the aisle, could have been more pleased. And certainly all of
us that had the privilege of serving with you are delighted
with the President's choice.
I want to focus a little bit on an area that we don't spend
enough time on although, my friend, Mr. Ryan, actually touched
on some of this a moment ago. We spend a lot of time talking
about a procurement and not a lot of time talking about
sustainment, and the cost balance there is pretty great.
So I would like to pick your brain a little bit and see
what you are thinking about how we will keep the, frankly,
excellent sustainment system we have and some things we can do
to improve on it.
I mean, you look at that workforce. It is an old workforce.
A lot of them are like my dad, did 20 years in the Air Force
and then 20 years at Tinker Air Force Base, so you always have
a lot of pretty senior people that are within a few years of
retirement.
And every time we get a hiring freeze, I know what that
does at Tinker Air Force Base to General Levy and just trying
to maintain the workforce that he does to turn around these
aircraft. So please give us some of your thoughts on what we
can do to keep sustainment costs low and keep that workforce,
which does such great things for us, intact.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman.
One of the things to start out with is this budget fund
sustainment to 90 percent, and that means about $15.1 billion
in this fiscal year alone. You are also correct that one of the
things that helps most with our civilian workforce is certainty
on the budget.
When the Air Force went through sequester several years
ago, we lost 30,000 people in the wake of sequester and the
reduction of the size of the force, but we also had a lot of
civilians who were told not to come to work next week. And that
furlough of civilians had a terrible effect on morale and the
feeling of being part of the team. And I think you probably saw
that pretty clearly at Tinker.
I do think that there is a huge amount of cost in
sustainment, and we probably haven't looked enough--and
Congressman Ryan mentioned it--as a priority on, how do we
drive down the cost of sustainment by taking advantage of new
technologies and, particularly, advanced manufacturing? And I
think there is a tremendous opportunity there, and it is going
to be a real priority for us going forward.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Mr. Cole. Well, I do too. And I agree very much with what
my friend from Ohio had to say on that point.
I would also ask you to pick up on the point he also made
about the intellectual property as we are negotiating to
procure it because getting the right to that is such a critical
factor in keeping down the cost. And, you know, we are
retaining airplanes that, as you pointed out in your own
testimony, look, we don't even have the original contractors
anymore. I mean, we are still running KC-135s, 400 of them
plus, through Tinker.
We are happy to do the work, but it is not predictable work
anymore, and they literally have to--it is almost like artisan
work. They have to literally strip it down and see, because
they don't have any studies that tell you how long the metal is
going to last and everything.
So, if we don't own the ability, the right, if you will,
when we procure that to reproduce that product at a reasonable
cost, it is just going to drive the cost through the roof.
So I would ask you, as you negotiate for a new weapons
system, that we keep that in mind that you are negotiating for
the intellectual property as well and you put that in our
hands, since we are paying a lot of money for it, so that we
can sustain those airplanes.
General Goldfein. Sir, can I just add too that I give
Secretary Wilson a lot of credit for--especially coming out of
being president of a major STEM university to look at our labs
and our science and technology and our research. And one of the
things that you are going to see in our budget is a significant
increase in what we are doing in the business of science and
technology, how do we get things faster from the lab bench to
the flight line?

PARTNERSHIPS WITH CAREER TECH INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Cole. The other thing I would ask you to look at--and,
actually, Tinker is an excellent example. Again, they have
built partnerships with our career tech institutions and with
our higher ed institutions to try and let them know years ahead
of time, okay, these are the kind of skills we need, these are
the sorts of people that we want, so that there is tremendous
opportunity there, and, frankly, increasing competition. When I
was--20, 30 years ago, we didn't have anywhere near the number
of contractors in the immediate vicinity of Tinker Air Force
Base that we have today. And they are in competition with that
base, obviously appropriately, for very skilled people. I mean,
I think Tinker alone can hire almost every software engineer
the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State produce right
now, and they are competing with really good competitors at
Boeing and at Northrop Grumman and what have you. So that--
thinking ahead, we are thinking a lot about pilots; we need to
think about a lot about engineers and a lot about maintainers
as well.
Ms. Wilson. Congressman, though, let me just add a couple
of things. With respect to maintainers, we are actually doing
much better. We were really short of them 3 years ago, and now
we are not quite so short although they are now apprentices and
we have got to get them to be craftsmen and to be masters.
With respect to engineers--hiring engineers and scientists
and cooperation with universities, one of the things we also
lost in the wake of sequester was the summer intern program,
which is really the only way you are going to get an engineer
or scientist right out of school is through internships,
because they are in such demand.
This summer, for the first time in many years, the Air
Force has restarted its internship program. We now have 431
summer interns so far that have signed up to be with the Air
Force, three quarters of them engineers and scientists.
We are working--and it is more of a localized issue--on,
how do we get the tradesmen who are the craftsmen who are
machinists and tool people? And we are working that issue as
well, trying to partner with more local higher ed institutions.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt.

DIRECTED ENERGY AND LASERS

Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Secretary Wilson, for being here.
Good to have you back here on the House side, as has already
been mentioned, and thanks for your recent visit to the office.
We enjoyed our visit.
General, good to have you here as well.
We have been very interested in laser work in the U.S.
military, and I just wanted to ask your opinion about whether
you think that the budget meets that challenge that we have
with the work that we are looking at.
Ms. Wilson. Let me make sure I heard the word right.
Directed energy, lasers?
Mr. Aderholt. Lasers, yes.
Ms. Wilson. Yes, sir.
First of all, there is money in the budget for lasers,
particularly several different tests that we are doing with
lasers, and directed energy generally. And I will ask maybe the
chief to elaborate a little bit.
But we are also doing a--we launched a year-long review of
the science and technology strategy for the Air Force to
identify areas of high priority for the Air Force to do
research in and also look at the way in which we conduct our
research, as a lot of it had moved to be internal and not in
partnership with industry or higher education.
I would also say that the three service secretaries, we get
together every other week for breakfast now, and----
Mr. Aderholt. Which you mentioned was a new thing, that----
Ms. Wilson. It is. It is. It is terrifying the staff. But
one of the first issues we focused on was our research and
development portfolios: What are the other services doing? What
are we doing?
One of the areas that we identified where we want to look
at what each other are doing and how we can leverage each
other's success or fill in gaps was directed energy.
Mr. Aderholt. General, if you could continue.
General Goldfein. Yes, sir. I will just add that, in
parallel to the service secretaries meeting, we are at this
point in our history where every one of the Joint Chiefs, you
know, we fought together, and we all grew up under this guy
named General Mattis. So the camaraderie and the dialogues that
are happening at both the service secretary level and at both
the Joint Chief level, and I give General Dunford a lot of
credit for how he has pulled this team together.
We are looking at our levels in investment in places like
directed energy, hypersonics, quantum computing, all those game
changers, and looking for ways to ensure that we can put the
most resources against the problem so we can swarm against the
problem with the resources available and get the best possible
end state coming out of that.
I think Dr. Griffin met with him this week. This was a part
of our discussion. He grew up in the labs. He understands how
they work. I think he is going to be very helpful in this
dialogue, so I think the conversations we are having are very
helpful.

ELV LAUNCH SERVICE AGREEMENT

Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Let me jump off to my next question
since time is limited. We talked a little bit about the ELV
launch service agreement, and thank you for giving us an update
about the status of that. Just--the bottom line is just, is
there sufficient funding to keep up with the schedule that you
are on now?
Ms. Wilson. Yes, sir, we think there is.
Mr. Aderholt. And, I guess, one of the--another question I
have, if one of the providers decides for some reason that it
decides to get out of the launch business after fulfilling the
contract, what rights are secured for the government to
continue using that launch vehicle?
General Goldfein. It is actually written into the contract
that there is a fee associated with not competing for launch,
so we have thought through that in terms of how we constructed
the contract.
And we have written into the contracts as well ownership of
data rights to ensure that we have more control over the actual
data and the IP, the intellectual property, as we go forward,
so we did think through that.
Ms. Wilson. Sir, if I could just add one thing. You know,
back in the 1990s and 2000s, we were thinking, what the heck
are we going to do? We have got to keep national access to
space, and the launch industry had collapsed, and how are we
going to recover.
I have to give credit to predecessors and their ability to
work with industry to develop and support a competitive launch
industry. And it is now not just dependent on the U.S.
Government. And the cost of launch is plummeting. You have
multiple choices. And the size of payloads is also going down.
So we are getting to a point where the cost of launch is
enabling business plans to close in space that never were
possible before. The result is we are getting more and more
launches because--and that keeps the price going down.
This next year--last year, I think, we had 29 space
launches that we did out of the Cape. It is an Air Force-
operated facility. We were driving to 48 launches a year, and
the Air Force is changing the way in which we partner with
industry to enable American leadership in space launch. And it
is really kind of an exciting time.
Mr. Aderholt. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Carter.

A-10 AIRCRAFT AND CLOSE GROUND SUPPORT

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you both for being here.
Secretary Wilson, really pleased to see you. You were a
source of information for me when we were Members of Congress
together. I learned a lot from you, and I want to thank you for
that, back when I was young and stupid. Still may be.
Okay. I got Fort Hood in my district. I am about ground
forces. And two sergeant majors that have served in my office
have told me that the most welcoming sight to any soldier in a
really bad fight is an A-10 on the horizon, that close air
support is--it puts a smile on every soldier's face and every
marine's face.
That being said, let's look at the future of close air
support. What does it look like in this more contested
environment we are in? We are now in a global war on terror,
and in addition, we are pivoting over to great power
competition.
What is the future of aircraft use for close ground
support? Can you talk about the efficiencies of how we match
our close air support capabilities to the enemy we face, both
now and the one we are thinking about?
Ms. Wilson. Sir, let me start out and then I will let the
chief fill in. But with respect to the A-10, the fiscal year
2018 budget, which I think you all are trying to wrap up, would
restart the line for redoing the wings of the A-10 and would
buy probably the first four sets of wings for re-winging, in
addition to the 174 or so that are already done.
And then the fiscal year 2019 budget has $80 million in it
for more wings. Now, well, that gets you somewhere between 8
and 12 probably. So the A-10 is expected to stay in the
inventory through 2030.
In addition to that, and it is really--you know, this is
one of the things that has really changed since I was a young
officer in the Air Force in the 1980s, is that we can do close
air support off of a variety of platforms. So it could be off
of an unmanned platform. It could be off of a--you know, we are
doing close air support off of aircraft that were never
intended to be anything other than strategic aircraft.
But I would absolutely agree with you, the sound of those
whining engines on the A-10 is welcome to those on the ground,
and it is one of the things we take seriously. The last time an
American soldier or Marine was killed on the ground by enemy
aircraft, the last time was April 15, 1953. That was a long
time ago. And so, as the chief likes to say, whenever an
American soldier or Marine hears jet noise, we want them to not
even look up because they know it is us.
General Goldfein. Sir, it'd be helpful if those sergeant
majors know that this chief has been fighting side by side with
the Army my entire career, and this is nothing short of a moral
obligation.
Let me just give you a vignette to put in perspective
perhaps what the Secretary talked about in terms of how we mask
different kinds of capabilities to ensure that we have the
right attributes over the battle space to be able to support
the ground force commander.
So, as the air component commander during the surge in
Afghanistan, we divided Afghanistan into regional commands. And
in each of the commands, there was a different terrain and
there was a different scheme of maneuver that required
different attributes that then I would place overhead to
support the ground force commander.
In RC South, Regional Command South, there was really flat
terrain, and so I needed something that had persistence over
the battle space that--and so, you know, I would really heavily
push, you know, MQ-9 Reapers over the top of that battle space.
And RCEs in the north, very heavily mountainous terrain,
optimized for being able to get into those valleys, and so an
A-10 was absolutely spectacular. At an RC West, because of the
distances that were involved and because of the range of
weapons I needed, a B-1 was perfect for RC West. And then I
would have F-15Es that I would place in RC South.
If I had gone to those ground force commanders and said,
``Hey, listen, I am going to pull the A-10s out of here and
place them over here,'' they would tell me the attributes are
misaligned. So part of what an airmen does is we understand the
ground force scheme of maneuver and what we are trying to
accomplish and then we place the right asset or family of
systems overhead to be able to provide the fires, because when
you are on the ground and you require the air components, every
second counts. And I want to make sure that when that call
comes, that we are there and that they hear jet noise; they
know it is the sound of freedom coming to help them.
Mr. Carter. And thank you very much for that description of
how you map out what you have to do. That is very helpful. And
I hope we can keep that date you have given us into the great
and future battles, all the battles we have.
And you do a wonderful job of air support for our ground
forces, and they really do appreciate it. They are very proud
of the fact that the Air Force is up there for them, believe
me, and they tell me that all the time.
So thank you for what you do on behalf of Fort Hood.
Ms. Granger. Mrs. Roby.

PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION

Mrs. Roby. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
And, Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein, thank you so
much for your leadership, for being here with us today.
Let me start by just saying that the men and women of the
187th in Montgomery, Alabama, could not be more thrilled for
the extraordinary opportunity that you have given them to host
the F-35 mission in a few short years from now. But thank you
for recognizing their professionalism and their capability. And
the River Region in the State of Alabama is very, very excited
about this opportunity. So thank you for that.
Let me also say, Secretary Wilson, thank you so much for
the time that you spent in my office yesterday. We covered a
lot of ground, and I appreciate your taking the time to speak
to George, my son. So thank you for that. You were big, big
hits on Instagram yesterday--you were a big hit on Instagram
yesterday.
So, look, I just want to bring a few things up and then I
will let both of you respond. I mean, of course, our State and
particularly Alabama's Second District shares a very close
relationship with the United States Air Force. We have a large
footprint, as you know.
And things that are important to me that I would like for
you to touch on as far as the budget is concerned, a couple of
things: rotary wing training, of course, at Rucker. We talked
about this a little bit yesterday. Just want to let you know
that it is on our radar, and we are watching it, and we would
love to have any additional information. I know you are in the
initial stages of taking a look at that, but just want to stay
informed about any decisions or information that pertains to
that moving forward.
Professional military education, we talk about a lot of
shiny objects in this room, and PME often gets left out of the
discussion. I am going to take this opportunity every time to
bring it up. It is very important to what our military looks
like in the many years to come.
And so I don't ever want it to get glossed over that
professional military education is such an important component
of what we do. And so many of you in this room have come
through Maxwell and Air University and the War College and all
of the other educational components that exist there.

STAR-BASED PROGRAM

I do want to touch on one thing in light of a question
about STEM education. The STAR-based program at Maxwell is so
great. It is a coordination with the public school system in
the River Region to bring elementary school-age children to
Maxwell for a course to expose them at an early age. This is
something that the Department of Defense is doing across all--
Fort Rucker has a similar program in the summertime for
underserved communities.
So I just want--I want to just bring that up because I know
it is something that is dear to you, and we appreciate the
partnership at home. So professional military education, the
rotary wing component at Fort Rucker, and then also the
information technology at the Gunter Annex.
We have talked about in this room as well the fact that IT
and cyber moves at such a fast pace; sometimes the
appropriations process doesn't keep up with the changes in
technology. And so I would love for you to talk about those
things for the committee.
But, again, let me just say this and then I will be quiet:
Thank you to you and your families for your service and
sacrifice. It certainly means a lot, your dedication to our
country and to the Air Force. We really just appreciate it. So
thank you all, both, for being here today.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I will start out on a couple of things. First, with respect
to professional military education, of course, and everything
that we do in Montgomery and beyond, one of our obligations and
major goals is to develop exceptional leaders to lead the
world's most powerful teams. And a lot of that is done through
professional military education, and we are deeply committed to
it.
With respect to Fort Rucker and training, we have sent out
a request for information. It has to do with how do we train
helicopter pilots, and it gets back to, you know, the pilot
shortage. All right, if we are going to train 1,400 fixed-wing
pilots, do we somehow separate out how we start out helicopter
pilots so they don't start out in the same flow so that we can
use that to expand the pipeline even further. So we are just at
the information-gathering stage with respect to that.
I will let the chief expand on some of the others. But I
will just say that, while we make decisions based on basing,
based on the criteria that we set, and we try to be very open
with everyone and just, you know, note them on the scales, just
make the best decision we can for the Air Force and for the
mission, it was a great pleasure to make sure that the 187th,
the famed red tails of the Tuskegee Airmen will have some F-35s
to put some red tails on. Thanks.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
We will now go--it will be Graves, Frelinghuysen, then
Visclosky.

JSTARS RECAP PROGRAM

Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks again for
being here with us today, for your clear and direct responses
to a lot of questions. I know--I appreciate you touching on the
JSTARS recap program.
We have had robust discussions about that here many, many
times, and so I have one quick just sort of followup on that.
And it is really on behalf of one of my colleagues, Austin
Scott, who has just been a phenomenal champion for the Robins
Air Force Base in Warner Robins, Georgia, which JSTARS are
hosted now.
And but there has been some, I don't know, discussions, we
understand, within the Pentagon that there are still openness
or combatant commanders still want this type of platform
manned. Can you confirm whether or not there is still open
discussions about this? Or is it truly closed out and moving
onto the additional options that you spoke of earlier?
General Goldfein. Sir, I will just tell you that, as we go
down this path, the opening conversations I had was, first of
all, with my fellow Joint Chiefs, specifically Chief of Staff
of the Army Mark Milley and Commandant of the Marine Corps Bob
Neller to make sure that they understand because they are going
to have to explain it to their force, right, that this is not
in any way, shape, or form the United States backing an inch
off of supporting them.
The challenge we have with the current recap is that, if
their marines and soldiers and our airmen, who are often
embedded with them, are in any kind of a contested environment,
they will be blind to enemy activity with what the previous
plan was, and we can't go there.
So the dialogues we are having--and I had conversations
this week with General Scaparrotti, General Votel, General
Waldhauser--I am having with each of the combatant commanders,
and everyone I talk to, as I explain it and lay it out for
them, they see the value of the new approach we are taking
because it is going to help them in all of the potential
conflicts and the operational plans they are responsible for.
Ms. Wilson. Sir, I would just add to that: What a combatant
commander wants is eyes on. They don't care where it comes
from. So it doesn't really--I think it is not about the
platform that it is on or where it comes from.
In fact, you know, when you are listening to the radio--the
chief and I were forward in the Central Command area authority;
we were in Iraq on the morning that the Tal Afar battle kicked
off, and we were in the tactical operations center. People
talking on the radios, you have no idea whether whoever is
talking to you on the radio is in AWACS or JSTARS or on the
ground. You have no clue. So what they need is the information
and the site picture about what is going on on the ground so
that they can win. They don't really care what platform it came
off of.
Mr. Graves. Right. And I don't disagree. You are absolutely
right.
One quick additional question, and maybe you could, before
you answer the additional question, just describe the
difference between contested and noncontested, and will the new
platform you are discussing or options take care of the
noncontested arenas as well?
The subcommittee has been very supportive of Compass Call,
the crossdeck program. And, yet, the current plan that you
proposed in 2019 shows a replacement rate of one airframe per
year.
Can you help us understand, would there be additional
savings to this subcommittee and your efforts if we did two
airframes per year? And if you could just give a little
description. Should we be doing more, or is one sufficient?
Ms. Wilson. Sir, if I could take that one for the record, I
will go back and look at what the schedule is and so forth.
Mr. Graves. Okay.
Ms. Wilson. Unless, Chief, you know and can bail me out?
[Clerk's note.--The Air Force is working directly with Mr.
Grave's office to address this question on the topic of Compass
Call.]
General Goldfein. No, because the one-per-year is actually
not tracking. So I just want to make sure we have--if we can
take that one for the record to make sure that we have exactly
what the schedule is, we will come back to you.
Very quickly, contested versus uncontested: Uncontested
would be very much like the Middle East, where I can actually
place any aircraft I have in the inventory anywhere I want and
fly it for as long as I want because there is nothing that can
actually take it out or threaten it. That is the uncontested
environment that we have enjoyed for the most part in the
Middle East now. A contested environment would be a scenario
that the National Defense Strategy tells us to focus on, which
would be a China or a Russia, where they have a fairly
significant threat array. They have watched over the years how
we fight. They know what our asymmetric advantages are, and
they have invested in capabilities that take those away from
us.
So a contested environment would be those where the threat
is significant. We tend to call it anti-access/area denial is
the terminology we tend to use within the Defense Department.
But it is their ability to hold us off at ranges where we can
either no longer perform our mission or it is more challenging.
One thing I will tell you is that no country on the planet
can actually put a block over its country and deny us access.
The very best they can do is put Swiss cheese over the top
because there are holes there, and my job is to find out how to
exploit them and hold targets at risk for the Commander in
Chief.
Mr. Graves. And so your plan would be to use this new
platform in contested and noncontested areas? That is----
General Goldfein. Actually, no, sir. Thanks for the
question because, actually, we are not looking at a platform.
We are looking from a platform solution, which is where we
were, to an integrated set of platforms and capabilities that
we can now fuse together so I can provide the capability for,
you know, General Votel in an uncontested environment, what he
needs, while at the same time, on day 1, I can give General
Scaparrotti and his folks what he needs because I have got to
do both. I don't have the luxury of doing one or the other.
Mr. Graves. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Wilson. If I could just elaborate on that a little,
because it is--and we often think about platforms. And what we
are talking about here is that almost everything that is flying
today and everything in space is a sensor. So you have got
space sensors. You have got manned and unmanned platforms. You
have got things on the ground, things at sea, radars, and, you
know, the F-35 has a radar on it.
We have got unmanned platforms with radars on them or
cameras on them and the same in space. The trick is to fuse all
of that data to give you a much more comprehensive picture on
what is going on on the ground.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Before we--you think I have lost my mind. I have left
Chairman Frelinghuysen and Mr. Visclosky to the last. They
asked for that, the gentlemen that they are, so I will now call
on Chairman Frelinghuysen.

NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Great. Welcome back, Madam Secretary,
General. I note that you were a year apart at the Air Force
Academy. I am not sure whether you knew each other back then,
but we are very proud of both of your accomplishments.
I asked the question of Secretary Spencer of the Navy last
week--I think it maybe ruffled a few feathers. You are going to
have a windfall of money here. At some point in time in the
near future, we are going to get our 2018 bill passed, and then
we are going to move fairly rapidly into 2019. What are you
going to do with all this money, in one case, in a relatively
short period of time and then looking towards 2019?
So I sort of asked sort of a rhetorical question or perhaps
not so rhetorical. What are your priorities? We have--space
dominance is an issue; we have remaking the Air Force; and what
has been touched on very lightly, the huge sustainment costs of
the F-35. I am a supporter of it, but, you know, the tale of
that plane.
And then I read in defense news all the complicated
platforms you are putting in there, all of which tie in through
very sophisticated means. You have had some problems with some
of the less sophisticated means, which is ALIS and ALS. What
are your priorities specifically as they relate to sustaining
this--really the plane that is going to be--is jointly, you
know, run and of such value to us and to our allies?
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, sir.
The overall priority in this budget is really to align with
the National Defense Strategy. We accelerate the move to
defendable space. We also shift to multidomain operations. And
we really focus on continuing the emphasis on readiness.
We are in this budget proposing to purchase the next 48 F-
35 aircraft. So we are continuing with the purchase of the new
aircraft. Of course, the F-35 is now operational. We have 272
of them in the Air Force today, over 100,000 flying hours on
the F-35, and it is performing well.
You point out one of the issues, which is the cost of
sustainment of the aircraft. And the Air Force is--of course,
this is a joint aircraft, so the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment, Ms. Lord, and the Joint Program
Office are the ones that are primarily doing the negotiations
and focusing on this.
But the Air Force, as the biggest customer, has a strong
interest in continuing to drive down the cost of sustainment.
That means negotiating very hard with the suppliers to reduce
costs but also to bring in competition for those parts.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, is there the possibility that the
cost of sustaining this remarkable aircraft could compete with
your other, you know, your other needs here? I mean, this is a
big--and then you are adding, as we should hope you would,
additional assets to these aircraft here.
And I worry, just in the sense of the vulnerabilities of,
let's say, some of the planes we have now. If we can't even get
the system of systems working now, and we add more, you know,
is there a distinct possibility that those who we view as our
adversaries could find some vulnerabilities.
General Goldfein. Sir, I will just tell you, I give
Secretary Mattis a lot of credit for the team he has pulled
together. And so whether you want----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Can you speak up a little bit, General?
General Goldfein. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
General Goldfein. I give Secretary Mattis a lot of credit
for the team he has pulled together. Secretary Lord, who comes
from industry, has taken on sustainment and has put together
teams who are actually wire-brushing and driving down the cost
of sustainment across all of our weapons systems, beyond the
United States Air Force. He has brought in a Deputy Secretary,
who also comes from industry, who understands how to produce
large weapons systems and how to sustain it. So the team he has
brought into place that is helping us as Joint Chiefs to be
able to drive down the cost of sustainment is rather
significant.
And as an international air chief, I look at this through
the lens of not only what we do inside the Air Force, but how
our allies and partners that are a significant part of this
strategy can leverage what we do to drive down sustainment
costs, because if we are paying more, they are paying more.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yeah, just a last comment. I know the
Air Force is in very competent hands. I am just saying: You are
going to get a flush of money here, and you are going to get a
flush of money, you know, representing, you know, what, $716
billion in the Defense Department is--wide. And, you know,
after that, you know, anything goes. I mean, it could be a
relatively dry hole. And I am just hoping--and I am sure that
you are assuring us--that whatever the money is coming down the
pipeline that it is going to be well spent, because in the
future, we may not have the--you know, we may not have a caps
deal that has embraced, I think, rightly our future defense
needs.
Ms. Wilson. Sir, I understand you completely. And our job
is to get $1.10 of value out of every dollar that we spend in
the Air Force, because somebody earned that dollar. So it is
cost-effective modernization. It is driving down the cost of
operations. It is making sure that every person that we put
towards a job is a job best put in that place and not in some
other place. And so I agree with you completely.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky.

NEW NUCLEAR POLICY

Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
I have three questions. The first question--and recognizing
this is an open hearing and just want to broach the issue--is
on the new nuclear policy. There is a discussion about a
variable yield warhead for the cruise, and very concerned, not
being a military or foreign policy expert, about the
uncertainty, issues such as hypersonic weapons, varying yields
create relative to our adversaries, recognizing they are
working along the same lines, but that, as the Secretary
pointed out, we have not had a troop killed from aircraft since
1953. We have not had someone die in a nuclear incident since
1945. I don't want that to happen.
What are the opportunities and challenges because of those
variable warheads? And, again, I have two more questions.
Just--if you just touch on the subject, we can follow up later.
Ms. Wilson. Sir, the variable yield is something more for
the Navy than for the Air Force. Historically, we have had
variable yields on different nuclear weapons for different
kinds of targets, but the specific item I think you are
referring to probably is maybe better addressed by the Navy.

SECURITY CLEARANCES

Mr. Visclosky. Navy.
Second question, following up on Chairman Rogers' question
about the pilots shortage, and Mr. Cole talked about civilian
retention: Secretary, you have talked about the quality-of-
life, quality-of-service pay, and I absolutely agree with you.
Another question, are you finding a problem retaining people
after they get their security clearance? Because as you point
out, the taxpayers are paying for GPS, because the government
can't do anything right, and the government pays for those
security clearances, and then someone comes in, and they are
gone. And I also wonder about morale, that I am an eager, young
person, bright, can't wait to work for the Federal Government.
And my fellow employee says: Just wait until you get your
clearance because you are going to double your money and you
can leave Federal service.
Ms. Wilson. Sir, actually, we don't find a problem
retaining people who have clearances. We have, in some areas--I
mean, pilots is the biggest issue or air crew generally is the
biggest issue. We do have some difficulty because cyber
professionals are also in very high demand.
I would say that our biggest challenge with security
clearances is getting them through the process in the first
place. Our backlog for security clearances over the last 18
months has almost doubled to 79,000 backlog waiting to get
their security clearances.
Mr. Visclosky. Seventy-nine?
Ms. Wilson. 79,000 people in the Air Force waiting to get
their security clearances.
Mr. Visclosky. What do you attribute that to, if I could
ask? Because that is horrific.
Ms. Wilson. Sir, we don't do the security clearance
background checks ourselves. There is a process through the
Office of Personnel Management. And it has gone from--the
backlog has gone up from 48,000 to 79,000 for the Air Force.
We are partnering with them and putting hubs for the
interviews. We have asked them to change their processes to be
able to do interviews over Skype rather than person to person.
But it is a major issue for all of the services.

BUDGET CONTROL ACT

Mr. Visclosky. Last question, following up on Chairman
Frelinghuysen, passing up on 2018 and 2019, Congress in its
infinite wisdom has not dealt with the Budget Control Act for
the last 2 years, 2020 and 2021. What problems does that
present you as far as looking ahead? Because I know you are
working on 2020 and the outyears now.
Ms. Wilson. Sir, budget certainty is one of the most
important things that the Congress can do for us. And nothing
did more damage to the American Air Force in the last decade
than sequester. Sequester did much more damage to the Air Force
than anything our adversaries have done.
General Goldfein. Sir, can I just offer that, in many
areas, we still have not recovered from the last time we went
through the sequester because we made some decisions that were
not--irreversible. And so as we go through and look at this,
when you have got to find an upwards of $10 billion in a single
year, then you make some rather significant decisions and
trades that are then irreversible.
So the last time we went through this, you know, we
grounded, you know, two-thirds of the Air Force that stopped
flying, because if you weren't getting ready to go to the
Middle East or you weren't coming back from the Middle East,
you stopped flying.
And so you don't recover that readiness. It is not linear.
Because not only the air crew lose their readiness but the air
traffic controllers, the munitions builders, all those folks
that are not participating in a flying operation.
And all I will just tell you is that morale and readiness
of the force are inextricably linked. If you walk the line
today at Bagram or Gunsan in Korea, what you will find is
morale is very high because they are manned at 100 percent,
they have the parts on the shelves, they have got the
supervision they need, and they have got a mission, and they
are focused.
The billpayer, to get them to that level of readiness, are
the sourcing wings from back home in the CONUS. And when you
walk those lines and you see less than full number of parts,
less than the number of people, less than the right amount of
supervision, you will find that morale is much lower.
And if we are going to keep this force, our investment that
you are seeing in our budget in improving readiness is perhaps
going to be most of the important work that we do to keep the
force in.
Mr. Visclosky. One of my great regrets, and my wanting
today is not going to change a thing, is that three separate
elected Congresses have set aside 6 of the 8 years of the
Budget Control Act, but we haven't dealt with the last 2. And I
have hit my head with a hammer three times, and I am going to
do it again. And in the meantime, there is lasting damage.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. That concludes today's hearing.
I would like to remind the subcommittee members that our
next hearing is tomorrow at 10 a.m. I will be on time. The
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Clerk's note--Questions submitted by Mr. Rogers and the
answers thereto follow:]

European Deterrence Initiative (EDI)

Question. The Air Force should continue to prioritize its EDI
efforts to promote stability in Europe.
Can you please describe how the Air Force's 2018 EDI requests
assist us in deterring Russian aggression in Europe? And is there more
that the Air Force could be doing?
Answer. The AirForce 2018 EDI request reflects support for the
European Command implementation plan's five elements:
1. Increased Presence--Increased presence efforts include Theater
Security Packages, 5th Generation Fighter Training Deployments and
Periodic Bomber Deployments.
2. Exercises and Training--Air Force participation in NATO Joint
Exercise Program; regular bilateral exercises and training, and EUCOM
sponsored joint exercises.
3. Enhanced Prepositioning--The Air Force's European Contingency
Air Operations Set (ECAOS) program provides for prepositioning of
logistical, communications, and medical support gear required to
operate at remote airfields. ECAOS extends the Air Force's ability to
deploy air power capability to locations throughout the EUCOM AOR where
we have little-to-no historical experience.
4. Improved Infrastructure--The ECAOS program includes over $1B in
infrastructure upgrades to airfields throughout Europe in coordination
with allies and partners--including cost sharing.
5. Build Partnership Capacity--Through EDI, the Air Force assists
allies and partners with technical, material and training assistance
that will allow them to deter and defend themselves more effectively;
and, in the event of conflict, integrate more effectively with U.S.
air, space and cyberspace assets.
As with many of the Air Force's assigned missions, more can be
accomplished if high demand/low density resources were available in
greater numbers. The demand on 5th generation fighters, bombers,
Command and Control systems, and ISR assets often make us unable to
fill the requirements of Combatant Commanders. These air power systems
have proven to be especially critical to effective deterrence in the
European theater.
Question. As part of the ``Building Partnership Capacity'' category
of EDI, the Air Force is requesting $8.4 million for the European
Partner Integration Enterprise. This initiative consists of
collaborative ISR processing, exploitation and dissemination activities
with European allies. Can you provide additional detail about this
initiative?
Answer. The European Partner Integration Enterprise (EPIE)
initiative is hosted on the U.S. Battlefield Information Collection and
Exploitation System (BICES), which connects all NATO and several non-
NATO European partners. EPIE provides a capability to integrate and
exploit multiple U.S. and allied sources of intelligence data and to
provide the exploitation to coalition partners as well as U.S. users.
As of March 2018, there is a permanent long-term presence in Germany at
EPIE-Ramstein by Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France, with
Denmark participating on a rotational basis and Spain expected to
commence a long-term presence later this year. Latvia, Lithuania,
Estonia, Poland, and Romania have participated in orientation sessions.
EPIE enables collaborative ISR processing, exploitation, and
dissemination as well as engagements to expand the number of
participating partner nations.
The FY19 funding requested for the EPIE initiative includes: (1)
$1.8 million in military personnel appropriations to fund air reserve
component personnel to provide partner nations with expertise and
orientation on all aspects of the ISR mission and to conduct forward
deployed activities in Baltic and Eastern European locations using two
deployable processing nodes; and (2) $6.6 million in operations and
maintenance funding to support: (a) hardware lifecycle replacement and
contract support for EPIE system architecture and software, including
connectivity with BICES and other U.S. Classified networks in
accordance with Defense Information Systems Agency standards; (b)
travel for personnel for expertise-sharing with partners as well as
participation in forward deployed activities; (c) deployment of U.S.
Air Force tactical satellite communications capabilities supporting
forward operations; and (d) EPIE project management.

Superiority in Space Operations

Question. Due to advanced threats from China and Russia, the United
States must prioritize efforts to maintain superiority in the space
domain.
Has the Air Force engaged with U.S. launch providers to address
these problems with innovative solutions, post-satellite deployment?
Answer. The Air Force is developing innovative solutions to address
these problems. As an example, the Air Force awarded a $114.6M contract
on 11 December 2017 for an advanced payload adapter, known as the Long-
Duration Propulsive Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload
Adapter (LDPE). The LDPE will maximize rideshare opportunities to space
and improve operational flexibility by adding power and propulsion to
the payload adapter, which would otherwise just be orbiting space junk.
The first LDPE has a planned launch date in June 2019 and we are
exploring options for a second and third unit. The Air Force is also
engaging with DARPA's Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites
and Orbital ATK's Mission Extension Vehicle to provide innovative on-
orbit solutions post-satellite deployment.
Question. There is technology in development that would allow us to
repurpose otherwise useless spent uppers stages in a way that may allow
us to counter Russian and Chinese aggression. Is the Air Force
fostering and developing these technologies and others like them?
Answer. No, the Air Force is not currently developing systems to
repurpose spent upper stages.
On 11 December 2017, the Air Force awarded a $114.6M contract for
an advanced payload adapter, known as the Long-Duration Propulsive
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Secondary Payload Adapter (LDPE). The
LDPE will maximize rideshare opportunities to space and improve
operational flexibility by adding power and propulsion to the payload
adapter, which like the upper stages would otherwise just be orbiting
space junk. LDPEs can host future experimentation payloads to both
mature technology and refine Concept of Operations to counter Russian
and Chinese aggression. The FY19 budget request includes funding for a
family of modular resilience payloads to support threat warning and
protection options for high-value satellites.
Question. In terms of specific investments for FY2019, the Air
Force is prioritizing Next Generation Infrared and GPS 3. Can you
please explain how these, and the other investments you are making,
ensure that the United States can maintain superiority in the space
domain?
Answer. The Air Force is pursuing multiple programs and
capabilities to maintain space superiority, including GPS and missile
warning. The GPS III Follow-on satellites are the next increment of
capability improvement for the GPS system and will include multiple
enhancements such as Regional Military Protection. This will augment
current Military-Code signals with a high-power, regionally-focused
signal to targeted areas, improving our ability to operate through
contested environments. The Next-Generation Overhead Persistent
Infrared program is the successor to Space Based Infrared System and
includes strategically survivable missile warning satellites and a
modernized ground system.

Agile Combat Employment-China

Question. Due to increased ranges of Chinese cruise missiles, the
Air Force has proposed leveraging divert airfields and Agile Combat
Employment in the case of conflict with China.
Can you please provide a bit more detail in how you foresee
implementing this tactic?
Answer. The Air Force operational concept of Agile Combat
Employment uses traditional basing constructs for global and regional
airpower projection and leverages divert/austere airfield use to
increase resiliency and effectiveness in contested environments. This
concept would be implemented by deploying, dispersing, and maneuvering
air forces across a range of bases and locations that are both close
to, and far from, the area of conflict within the contested zone. The
concept is nested under USPACOM's strategy for joint force resiliency
and seeks to dynamically employ airpower from a range of locations--
varying from robust to austere airfields. Logistics, manpower,
infrastructure investmeM and Ally and Partner access are critical
enablers of this concept to ensure survivable joint access and maneuver
in the global commons.
Question. Are you comfortable with the current number of potential
divert locations you can operate from in the Indo-Pacific?
Answer. No. As the Air Force postures to ensure viable military
options in the Indo-Pacific (in-line with National Defense Strategy
guidance on great power competition) the Air Force must expand access
and agreements with Allies and Partners in the region. Expanding the
capability and capacity of U.S. airpower basing, at all levels from
robust to austere airfields, will strengthen our relationships and
coordination with regional Allies and Partners to expand the
competitive space today and better prepare for conflict tomorrow.
Question. And especially when it comes to divert locations in
foreign countries, do you have the tools you need to work with these
countries to reach the kind of agreements you need to use their
airfields? Does the State Department have a role in these processes?
Answer. Current authorities permit authorized Department of Defense
personnel to negotiate and conclude a variety of international
agreements with respect to use of airfields. The nature of the
agreement is specific to each country: some agreements authorize U.S.
forces to use airfields freely, with submission of the flight plan and
advance divert clearance; other agreements are more restrictive and
limited to emergency (force majeure) scenarios. The Department of State
is consulted prior to negotiating and concluding any international
agreement. The Secretary of State determines whether an international
agreement is required to be transmitted to Congress in accordance with
the Case Act.

Contracting Adversary Air Training Support

Question. The Air Force should assess whether it should seek
additional competition as it contracts for adversary air training
support for air operations training.
The FY19 USAF budget request includes $131 million for the Nellis
AFB adversary air training contract. The original adversary air
contract was awarded to a sole source that has been subsequently
renewed on a sole source basis for two successive years. The next phase
of the contract adversary air training will be competitively procured,
but only a single competitor will be selected.
Answer. This is correct. A competitive source selection is under
way to replace the sole source Nellis ADAIR I with Nellis ADAIR II.
This competitive contract is intended to satisfy the Nellis adversary
air requirements until performance start on the Combat Air Force
Contracted Air Support (CAF CAS) strategic multiple award contract
currently in the requirements development stage.
Question. Would the selection of more than one contractor for this
new industry give the Air Force greater assurance that the adversary
aircraft performance requirements are met and that these contract
providers will continue to invest in their aircraft capabilities to
assure that the Air Force pilots training experience near-peer aircraft
performance and tactical challenges over the life of the contract?
Answer. The selection of more than one contractor does give the Air
Force greater assurance that requirements are met and that contractors
will continue to invest in their aircraft capabilities. Industry
indicates they are actively pursuing technological upgrades to meet
advanced adversary air training requirements. The current CAF CAS
program acquisition strategy plans for multiple contract awards across
the 22 locations.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Rogers.
Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the answers thereto
follow:]

EELV Launch Service Agreements

Question. I follow the national security launch business closely
and have not seen that reusability of rockets has resulted in lower
prices for NASA. In fact, cargo launch prices went up. Will the EELV
Launch Service Agreements require a lower launch price when a provider
utilizes a used rocket?
Answer. It is too early to tell if reusability will alter the cost
of future EELV missions. The EELV procurement strategy to follow the
Launch Service Agreements is still in the review and approval process.
The Air Force currently plans to use a dual-source strategy based on
the best value to the Government. Potential vendors will need to make a
business decision to include or not include reusable launch vehicles
and propose a solution that balances price and risk and provides the
best value.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Aderholt.]

Thursday, March 15, 2018.

FISCAL YEAR 2019 UNITED STATES ARMY BUDGET OVERVIEW

WITNESSES

HON. DR. MARK T. ESPER, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
GENERAL MARK A. MILLEY, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY

Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

Ms. Granger. The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning, the subcommittee will continue our series of
open defense posture and budget hearings with our military
services. Today, we will hear from the Army leadership on their
fiscal year 2019 budget request.
Since 2001, the Army has risen to the challenge of fighting
counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even as
such conflicts continue, the Army must also prepare for a very
different kind of fight under the new National Defense
Strategy. The subcommittee is prepared to help the Army
modernize and restore readiness for the full spectrum of
conflict.
Before I introduce our witnesses, I would like to recognize
our ranking member, Mr. Visclosky--I am sorry, I am moving
fast--for any remarks he would like to make.

Opening Remarks of Mr. Visclosky

Mr. Visclosky. Gentlemen, I appreciate your service and
your testimony. I look forward to it.
Chairwoman, thank you very much for holding the hearing.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Allow me to introduce our witnesses: The Honorable Dr. Mark
T. Esper, Secretary of the Army; General Mark Milley, Chief of
Staff of the Army. Secretary Esper is making his first formal
appearance before the subcommittee.
Secretary Esper, welcome.
Secretary Esper is appearing alongside the chief of staff,
General Milley.
General, thank you for being here today and all the work
that you do.
We look forward to hearing your views. Please proceed with
your opening remarks.

Summary Statement of Secretary Esper

Secretary Esper. Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member
Visclosky, distinguished members of the committee, good
morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today.

READINESS

Let me say up front that the Army's readiness across its
formations is improving, and if called upon today, I am
confident we would prevail in any conflict. This is due, in
part, to the increased funding Congress has provided recently.
For this, I would like to say thank you. However, if we are to
continue increasing our readiness to desired levels and
modernize the force, we require predictable, adequate,
sustained, and timely funding.
The Army's mission is to defend the Nation--the Army's
mission to defend the Nation has not changed, but the strategic
environment has. We have returned to an era of great power
competition that makes the world ever more complex and
dangerous.
While the Army must be ready to deploy, fight, and win
anytime, anywhere against any adversary, the National Defense
Strategy has identified China and Russia as the principal
competitors against which we must build sufficient capacity and
capabilities. Both countries are playing a more aggressive role
on the world stage and either possess or are building advanced
capabilities that are specifically designed to reverse the
tactical overmatch we have enjoyed for decades.
The Army has a comprehensive plan, however, to ensure its
long-term dominance. Fiscal uncertainty, though, has done a
great deal to erode our readiness and hamper our modernization
efforts. Late appropriations challenge the Army to execute
funding well, which is why we are seeking increased flexibility
to spend these precious dollars when funding is delayed.
To address the challenges mentioned above, I have
identified three focus priorities for the Army: readiness,
modernization, and reform. Readiness is the top priority
because only a ready total Army--Regular Army, Guard, and
Reserve--can deter conflict, defeat enemies, and enable the
joint force to win decisively. And while the quality, training,
and esprit of our soldiers are what make the U.S. Army the most
ready and lethal ground combat force in history, this
superiority is enabled by the best weapons and equipment we can
provide them.

MODERNIZATION

As such, the second priority is modernization, or future
readiness. To ensure overmatch on future battlefields, the Army
is now increasing its investments in modernizing the force. We
are also laying the groundwork for more increases in the coming
years. The Army's modernization strategy is focused on one
goal: Make soldiers and units far more lethal and effective
than any adversary can imagine.
The establishment of the Army Futures Command this summer
is the best example of our commitment to the future lethality
of the force. Army Futures Command will address the key
shortcomings of the current acquisition system, providing unity
of command, effort, and purpose to the modernization process.
The Army has also identified its top six modernization
priorities for the coming years. Each of these priorities is
detailed in our written statement and is the purview of a newly
established cross-functional team. The purpose of these CFTs is
to determine the requirements of needed capabilities, to ensure
all stakeholders are at the table from day one, and to focus
Army resources on accelerated experimentation, prototyping, and
fielding.

REFORM

My third priority is reform, freeing up time, money, and
manpower to enhance readiness, accelerate modernization, and
ensure the efficient use of the resources provided to us by the
American people. Our reform efforts, particularly with the
acquisition system, are long overdue. While Futures Command is
probably the boldest reform we are pursuing, other Army reform
initiatives owe much to the acquisition authorities delegated
to the services in prior legislation. With these authorities,
we are reinvigorating the Army Requirements Oversight Council,
moving major Defense acquisition programs back to the service,
and using other transactional authorities to accelerate
fielding in limited situations.
Although a ready and modernized Army is critical to defend
the Nation, we must not overlook what makes us remarkable. For
this, I have outlined three enduring priorities. First, taking
care of our soldiers, civilians, and their families; second, a
servicewide recommitment to the Army's values, especially
treating everyone with dignity and respect; and finally,
strengthening our allies and partners by building stronger
ties. I look forward to discussing these with you as time
permits.
With that, let me thank you again for this committee's
continued support of the Army and specifically the funding
increases requested in fiscal year 2018 and the fiscal year
2019 budgets. I look forward to your questions and appreciate
the opportunity to discuss these important matters with you
today. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
General Milley.

Summary Statement of General Milley

General Milley. Chairwoman Granger, I want to thank both
you and Ranking Member Visclosky and all the distinguished
members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today.
And although he is not here right this minute, I do want to
acknowledge and recognize former Chairman Frelinghuysen for his
great support to the United States Army over the last couple of
years since I have been the chief and for many, many years of
dedicated service to our Nation.

COMBAT-READY

As you all know, for the past 17 years, the U.S. Army has
continuously provided trained and ready forces to both Iraq and
Afghanistan and elsewhere as we simultaneously meet the needs
of the combatant commanders around the globe. And today, as it
was throughout the year and last year, we have approximately
about 180,000 soldiers serving in 140 countries around the
world. And that represents, broadly speaking, about 50 to 60
percent of combatant command demand comes to the Army to
support.
Congress' support has allowed the Army to become
significantly more combat-ready today than we were 2\1/2\ years
ago when I became the chief of staff of the Army. We have
increased the number of combat training center rotations. We
have improved equipment readiness rates. The spare parts, we
have replenished our Army preposition stocks. We have increased
our personnel end strength and started to fill some of the
holes in our operating units. And significantly, we have
improved both our munitions shortfalls along with some of our
critical infrastructure.
We must be ready, though, not only now, but in the future.
And we have to maintain a decisive overmatch to achieve
victory, as the Secretary said, against any adversary, anytime,
anywhere. The tyranny of the present has consumed us for the
past 16 years, while our competitive advantage against peer
threats has eroded.
And advances by our adversaries are very real. This is not
a classified hearing, but I will be happy to illuminate those
advances in a classified hearing, specifically with respect to
Russia and China as they continue to assert regional influence
in their development of advanced weapons and technology.
Likewise, Iran is attempting to expand its regional influence.
And as we all saw last week in the recent positive turn of
events regarding North Korea, it is very welcome and I remain
cautiously optimistic, as Secretary of Defense Mattis said.
But we, the Army, we must remain ready. We must remain
ready to present options to the President for his
consideration, if required, and we will do that.
The current battlefield is already lethal, and the future
battlefield is likely to prove more lethal than anything we
have ever recently experienced. So the time is now for the Army
to modernize, to both stay ready today and to build the future
force of our Nation. That is going to require a modern Army.
The Army needs predictable, adequate, sustained and timely
funding, and you know that and you all agree with that.
The Army's fiscal year 2019 budget request reflects our
priorities: to grow and maintain a highly capable force today;
to modernize and build the future force; to take proper care of
our soldiers, family members, and civilians; and all the while
being good stewards of the generous money of taxpayer money
that the Congress has given us. We recognize the American
taxpayer entrusts us with a significant amount of money to meet
these demands, and we will be diligent stewards of our
resources and we will enforce accountability to make effective
use of every single dollar.
Your support for the fiscal year 2019 budget will ensure
the soldiers of the United States Army remain ready to fight
tonight as we prepare for any unforeseen conflicts of tomorrow.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The written statement of Secretary Esper and General
Milley follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Granger. Thank you so much.
Before we begin our questions, in the interest of time and
fairness for our witnesses and all the members, we limit the
question, including the response, to 5 minutes per round,
trying to have--I think we should be able to this morning--have
two rounds. But if you would watch, there are green, yellow,
and red lights, and red means you are over. So I am a former
teacher; I watch them, and I hope all of you will, because we
really want to hear from you. This is a very important hearing.
We are going to have questions. I am going to call on Mr.
Visclosky first.
Mr. Visclosky. Madam Chair, I will defer at this point.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert.

READINESS

Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary Esper, General Milley, thank you for being here
today and thank you for your service to our country.
Over 16 years of combat and contingency operations have
compromised the military's readiness to conduct high-end
warfighting missions. The new National Defense Strategy focuses
on nation-state conflict with a peer adversary, which is the
Army's domain.
All of us here have heard about the readiness shortfalls in
the United States Army. Only 5 of 58 brigades are combat-ready
to fight. The Army's operational tempo has not slowed down, and
additional units, equipment, and military personnel have been
deployed to eastern Europe to deter and defend against Russian
aggression. The fiscal year 2019 request seeks to restore
training and maintenance shortfalls by requesting additional
funds to prioritize readiness across the Army.
Can you please detail the Army's primary readiness efforts
that we will execute as a result of the fiscal year 2019
President's budget? Specifically, how many combat teams are
currently rated ready for combat and how many do you expect
will be rated ready for combat after executing the fiscal year
2019 budget? Do you expect to increase training rotations at
the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, and the
Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana? And
how do you intend to integrate simulation and next-generation
augmented reality into your traditional deployment readiness
exercise in the coming years?
General Milley. Thanks, Congressman, for the question. What
I can do is provide a very detailed classified briefing on the
complete readiness. In this session, let me say this: When I
became chief 2\1/2\ years ago, there were two brigades combat-
ready. Today, we are significantly more combat-ready, and I
need to provide you an update on the actual numbers, because
the numbers that you mentioned have been improved since those
numbers were given to you.
And I can assure you that the United States Army has
sufficient readiness to take on whatever adversary that the
United States meets today or tomorrow. And I am very confident
of that. I wasn't confident of that 2\1/2\ years ago. I am very
confident of that today.
That is not to say we are where we need to be. The
objectives we set out, the unclassified objectives for
readiness, is we want to attain 66 percent, two-thirds,
roughly, of all of our brigade combat teams in the Regular
Army, in the active Army, at the highest level of readiness.
And for the Reserve component and the National Guard, we want
to attain a readiness level of 33 percent. That is what this
budget, fiscal year 2019, is built around, is those two metrics
of success. And we are not at those numbers today, but we are
on a glide path to achieve them.
A couple of challenges. First challenge is time. Units
aren't built just overnight and their readiness is not built
overnight, as you well know. So it takes time and it takes
repetition. It takes a lot of reps on a sled to get units to a
level in order to fight the high-end fight against near-peer
threats or regional threats.
The second thing, as you mentioned, the demand. There is a
global demand. It is significant, and a lot of that demand is
met by the United States Army. Right now, for example, we have
got several brigades involved in train, advise, assist missions
inside the Middle East, and we need to recoup those brigades
and get them trained for what their organizational design is to
do. So demand plays a big role in that. I expect that demand
will, hopefully, stay steady or come down slightly, and we will
recoup some of that.
And the last and most important thing, in terms of
readiness, and you have been more than generous in your giving
it to us, is a budget, and that is really significant. So time,
demand, and money are what is key to readiness.
You asked for when we think we would achieve the readiness
levels. What we are saying in our analysis, if the
international environment stays the way it is right this
minute, we think, on the glide path we are on, we will achieve
the readiness objectives complete by somewhere around the 2021-
2022 timeframe.
Secretary Esper. And if I can, I will answer two of the
specific questions you raised, Mr. Calvert. The fiscal year
2019 budget allows us to maximize throughput through the three
training centers at NTC, JRMC in Europe, and the JRTC, and we
will be doing that with a combination of Active and Guard. So
16 Active units will go through and then four Guard. So it is
exceptional training. I have been to two of those training
sites in the 3-plus months I have been on the job, and they are
doing high-end training against likely threats we would
anticipate, consistent with the National Defense Strategy.
On your question with regard to synthetic training, virtual
training, it is an initiative that is captured under one of our
soldier lethality cross-functional teams. It is an important
endeavor because it promises to give soldiers many, many
repetitions at home station before they actually go on a
deployment. So they are not engaging the enemy for the first
time, if you will, on a real deployment, but actually can
rehearse over and over again at home station. So it is a very
important initiative to us, and we are putting money into that
cross-functional team, as provided in the fiscal year 2019
funding.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you for being here. So far, I
think you have done an outstanding job in your leadership of
the Army.

FUTURES COMMAND AND ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY

Secretary Esper. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I am fortunate enough to have Aberdeen
Proving Ground in my district and, by extension, the impressive
capabilities of the Army Research Laboratory. As you know, the
Army Research Laboratory is our Nation's premier laboratory for
land forces. The Army relies on the Army Research Laboratory to
provide the critical link between science and warfighter. And
today, the Army Research Laboratory helps the Army to
understand the implications of technology on doctrine and
future capabilities and translates these applicable science and
technologies in ways to ensure Army dominance.
That being said, I have been following the Army's intent to
stand up Futures Command with great interest, and I am very
interested in how its creation will impact the Army Research
Laboratory.
And I guess, Secretary, or either one, how do you envision
the Army Research Laboratory contributing to this new
modernization initiative?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. Well, thank you for that
question. First of all, our science and technology base is
absolutely critical to the modernization of the force. And so
in the last several months, what we have done is aligned 80
percent of our S&T funding actually toward the six priorities
that have been outlined. So that is everything from long-range
precision fires through next-generation combat vehicle all the
way through soldier lethality. We are looking to move over a
billion dollars as well over the fit-up to do the same. And so
clearly, the S&T, the Army research labs that are part and
parcel of that are critical to the future.
Now, the other piece of that with regard to Army Futures
Command that will continue the transformation, if you will, of
the acquisition process, what we envision is that we would
achieve what we call unity of effort and unity of command by
having a single senior officer, a general officer in charge of
the entire acquisition, big A acquisition process, all the way
from concept through requirements through the acquisition and
testing process.
What that would mean for the labs is that we would most
likely just rewire the boxes differently so that they are
reporting into the Army Futures Command. We don't anticipate
any changes in locations or changes of jobs at this point, but,
really, how do we rewire the boxes--because currently they are
all over the Army--so we achieve that unity of command, unity
of effort that promises us to be able to deliver to soldiers
the tools, weapons, and equipment they need, when they need
them, and at the best price for the taxpayer.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Madam Chairman, schoolteacher, I yield
back.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Diaz-Balart.

NEXT-GENERATION VERTICAL LIFT PROGRAM

Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much.
Gentlemen, a privilege to have you here.
First, let me applaud the Army on the plan to acquire the
ground mobility vehicles. I am actually really happy to hear
that you are leveraging the experience of the SOCOM vehicles to
get this critical equipment out to the force as soon as
possible.
Madam Chairwoman, I was lucky enough in Florida to drive
one of these vehicles, which were incredibly versatile and,
actually, I kind of want one after I drove it, I will tell you.
So, again, I want to commend the Army for setting an example
for a smart and fast acquisition decision and saving taxpayers
money. And so, again, I saw that firsthand.
Let me talk to you a little bit about the next-generation
vertical lift. So I have read some conflicting reports on the
status of this program. The Defense News suggests that the
Future Vertical Lift program has appeared to, as they said,
slow-rolled. Now, I also know that Under Secretary McCarthy
recently said that the program is on track.
And so I do understand that it is included in your 2019
budget, which is great, but I am hoping to get some
clarification on the Army's intentions and support for the
program since, again, I have read conflicting reports.
General Milley. Thanks, Congressman. I didn't read the
particular article that you are referring to. First of all, it
is a joint program. It is a DOD program, because it is Army and
Marine equities. Army has a heavy equity in it. So the
decisions are actually not Secretary of the Army's or the
Army's. It is actually a DOD thing.
Secondly is the request for proposals and all of that is
going to be decided sometime in the early fall. So it is on
track to meet those timelines.
The third thing is, what do we want out of Future Vertical
Lift? What do we want tactically? You know, what do we want out
of this thing? The helicopters we have today, the Apache, the
UH-60, the 47--the 47 has been around a long, long time, since
Vietnam--they are great helicopters. They are good helicopters.
They are capable. The guts have been all redone, and we are
going to continue to invest in those in the foreseeable future.
But the future operating environment is going to be
significantly different, we think, especially if it is against
a near-peer competitor, than the current operating environment.
So we need an aircraft that can, first, survive. We also need
an aircraft that is dual-purposed that can both be manned and
possibly autonomous and unmanned, a robotic helicopter. We need
an aircraft that can fly faster and further than any existing
rotary wing aircraft today. And we need an aircraft that is
agile, both while in flight to avoid enemy air defense and at
what we call it the X or at the landing zone, in order to evade
and survive any of the intense ground fire that will be coming
on a hot LZ. Those are pretty stiff requirements.
So the discussion with industry is ongoing right now, and
there is a variety of possibilities out there from a
technological standpoint. We will know more throughout the
summer and as we get into the fall to make some hard decisions.
But there is no intent, and the Secretary and I are not going
to stand for delays. This is an urgent need. We need to get it.
It is third in our--we have six priorities in the Army, six
modernization priorities. This is the number three. If you
think about what an Army does, an Army fights and wins in
ground combat. And the first thing you got to do is be able to
shoot long-range precision fires, and then you got to be able
to move, and we move by the ground and we move by the air.
So this is a very important priority for the Army. We are
committed to it, and we are going to try to keep this thing on
track.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, General.
Secretary Esper. And I would just add that, building upon
what the chief just said, what we are doing right now reflects
the different approach to acquisition that we are taking. In
this case, we have two demonstrators. One has flown. I think
one will be flying later. Both are largely funded by industry
as prototypes with some Federal dollars.
And so it just reflects a whole new approach where we
prototype, we test, we fail, we learn, we prototype, and we
repeat until we narrow the requirements and we get on a much
quicker trajectory to get to the end state that we want.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate the very clear answer.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT

Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary and, again, General, thank you for your
service and your time.
Just one question. The Department of Defense is currently
going through this financial statement audit, as you know,
verified count/location/condition of military equipment, real
property, inventory, testing security vulnerabilities, and our
business assistance, validating the accuracy of personnel
records. It is going to take a while to get this hopefully
clean audit.
The financial statement audit will help drive, we hope,
improvements in standardized business and process and basically
know what we have, you know, because, as you know, half of the
discretionary funding goes into the Department of Defense.
Mr. Secretary, and I guess for both of you, but especially
you, Mr. Secretary, tell us your experiences and the views of
this Department of Defense audit and tell us, even though this
is an initial review, if any actions have been taken by the
Department that has helped the Department of the Army.
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. Completion of the audit is a top
priority for me. Having been through audits in the private
sector, I recognize the value of them, in terms of what they
teach you, what you can learn from them, how they can help you
think better in terms of how you employ your resources and
manage your resources to accomplish your mission. In this case,
it is readiness and future readiness.
And so the Army is off to a good start. We are looking at
what needs we need to make. So over the previous few years, we
have made a number of changes to improve our audit ability,
whether it is better documentation control, improving our IT
systems, capturing data better. So we are proceeding along. I
get updated on this monthly. And at every meeting I ask, what
do you need from me, what support do you need from me to make
sure that we complete our audit on time?
And, again, as you rightly said, I don't anticipate we will
get a clean opinion this year. I think it is a process, but I
am confident we will continue to learn. At the end of the day,
we need to be able to account for everything that we have and
what we do, and I am fully committed to that.
Mr. Cuellar. And you said it right. You have been in the
private sector, so this is key and we have got to do the same
thing for government.
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. And part of it is making sure
the attitude is one of--it is a learning event, not a grading
event, per se, because there is a lot that can be learned from
an audit that helps leaders really manage all of your resources
better, whether it is people, equipment, dollars, obviously. It
is important that we complete this.
Mr. Cuellar. Well, following the question you ask your
folks every time you meet with them, anything we can do to help
you?
Secretary Esper. The Congress has been more than generous
with the fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 mark. So I think
we really appreciate the funding at this point. As we go, we
will be sure to keep the Congress apprised if anything comes up
with regard to the audit piece. So thank you, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Granger. Judge Carter.

NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY

Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Esper, General Milley, thank you for being here.
I think you make a great team in taking care of our Army, and I
appreciate you very much.
We are talking about a new National Defense Strategy. It
raises a new whole section of thinking on warfare with the
Army. And we are looking at dealing with near-peer aggression
or potential aggression and how we would face it, while
continuing an insurgency war which we have been fighting now
for 16 or 18 years. It takes a whole new outlook and it takes
evaluation of our near-peer enemies and what we are going to
do.
So my question is, give us an overview, if you could, about
the changes in the Army relative to the near-peer enemies, and
then as we continue, how will we continue to deal with
insurgency and that issue too.
And one of the things I am very interested in is, because
there at Fort Hood, we have a lot of Abrams tanks and a lot of
Bradleys, and they have done a great job for us and been great
for our Army, but they are old. They are old vehicles. And it
is my understanding from some of my reading that our potential
enemies have looked at how we fight and have made improvements.
I would like for you to also talk about equipment
improvements as you look down the road for this dual task we
are going to have. It is kind of a big question. But if you
could outline it quickly, give us some kind of idea of where
you are. I think it is important that everybody understand it.
Secretary Esper. I will take first stab at that, and I am
sure the chief will have a lot to contribute as well. As you
rightly outline, Mr. Carter, with what the NDS presents, we
have to now deal not only with the high-end, very complex
threats, strategic competitors of Russia and China; we still
have to be prepared to deal with the Irans and North Koreas,
and at the same time deal with irregular warfare. So unlike
maybe what had happened in the post-Vietnam era when I entered
the service, we don't have the luxury of just focusing on one
threat. So, instead, we have to now maintain that core
competency.
At the same time, as we open up our aperture to deal with
the high-end threats, there are a number of things that we are
doing to make sure we are ready. So we talked earlier about
fully maximizing the throughput of units to the combat training
centers. That is number one.
Second, relevant to today's discussion about the budget, we
are converting an armored brigade combat team. We are, by the
end of 2019, building another armored brigade combat team,
again, to deal with the high-end threat. We are upgrading our
Strykers, Bradleys, and vehicles, Bradleys and Abrams, making
them more lethal, making them more survivable. We are investing
in our aviation fleet. So all these things we are doing to deal
with the high end.
And then, of course, we have mentioned several times our
six priority areas for modernization. It begins with long-range
precision fires, making sure we have the ability to reach out
and touch the enemy at greater distances so that we can help
the Air Force, for example, with the suppression of enemy air
defenses all the way down through, as you mentioned, building
the next-generation combat vehicles. Because we are reaching
the point in time, certainly with the Bradleys, where we are
out of power, if you will. They are getting too heavy to do
some certain things. So that is why next-generation combat
vehicle is another one of our priorities.
General Milley. Thanks, Congressman. I would just add that,
you know, you rightly point out the National Defense Strategy.
It is a solid document, by the way. You know, I don't know how
many know the background of it, but that is very much Secretary
Mattis' document. His voice is in it. He penned it. He pretty
much singularly authored that document. We, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, have had a lot of input to it. Many other staffers have
had. We think it is a solid document and accurately outlines
the way ahead for not only Department of Defense but to
extrapolate to the Army, specifically, the reintroduction, I
suppose, of great power competition at both levels below
outright war and then potentially in conflict.
So we have got to shift gears as a Department of Defense
and a Department of the Army, and we intend to do that. At the
same time, we have to sustain the levels of effort, fighting a
counterinsurgency and a counterterrorist fight against a very
aggressive nihilistic enemy that wants to destroy Americans and
their interests. So we have to be able to do both
simultaneously, and we think that this budget helps us to do
that.
And in order to do that, we have to improve our readiness
for today's fight and we have to modernize for tomorrow's. And
we think that this strategy is balanced that is in the 2019
proposals, and we think we can get there in pretty good shape,
barring unforeseen events in the international environment.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Ms. McCollum.

ARMY AVIATION MODERNIZATION

Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you,
gentlemen, for being here today and your service to our Nation.
I would like to get your thought on a few things. We have
been talking a lot about the new National Security Strategy,
and that also includes the Guard and the Reserve. And I would
like to dig in a little more about the Army's aviation
modernization program and how that all fits together.
So we know with the increased global requirements and high
operating tempo that it has put a strain on readiness and
modernization efforts, especially with respect to aviation, and
some of the questions have related to that. And part of that
has been past funding by this Congress and timely budgets,
which we are beginning to address.
So I would like to know, as you describe what is in the
fiscal year 2019 budget for the Army aviation modernization,
how the Army plans to go forward in the decade, especially now
that we are going to have the funding, hopefully, at least for
the next 2 years, better in place.
There has been concern from Reserve components that the
Army's direction here may leave them without the funding needed
to complete the modernization efforts for the UH-60 Black
Hawks. And I also, from the Army Times, November 9, 2017, was
concerned when I read that the Army's goal for training flights
per hour per crew is 14.5 hours to reach collective readiness
at the battalion level, but the service's Active component is
only getting 10.8 hours, while the National Guard is getting
6.4, and the Reserve is getting 7.8.
So could you gentlemen tell me, with the increased funding
and how we are moving forward, how the Active component will,
you know, as it continues to rely and rely heavily on the
Reserves and Guards as an operational force, how are you going
to ensure that they also see the full benefits of this
modernization program?
General Milley. Thank you, ma'am, for the question. On
aviation, the last couple of years, Congress has been very
generous to us, and we put a lot of money into aviation, both
in 2017 and 2018. And for 2019, for this request, we are asking
for money to remanufacture another, I think it is 48 Apaches,
to buy 12 additional new Apaches. We are asking for additional
moneys to procure additional UH-60s and to modernize the UH-60
fleet as well as the CH-47 fleet.
Aviation is the biggest and most expensive, outside of
MILPER, outside of the payroll, it is the most expensive part
of the Army budget. And we think that we are putting an
adequate amount of money into aviation for both the Active and
the Reserve and Guard in order to make sure that they are
properly equipped with the best--this is barring Future
Vertical Lift. This is the current systems.
The second piece you mentioned about the training, the
flight hour program, we think, historically, that 15--14, 15
hours is about what is necessary to maintain the highest level
of combat readiness for a rotary wing aviator. That would
apply, those numbers would apply to Active component, because
that is where you want to get them to what we call C-1. So we
want them at the highest level of readiness.
The National Guard and Reserve are not resourced, nor are
they planned, to be at C-1 prior to mobilization day. They are,
by design, planned to be at a lesser level of readiness prior
to mobilization day. And then upon mobilization, there is a
period of time for each unit--and we have it by unit--we have a
period of time for them then to reach C-1 prior to them
deploying into combat.
Ms. McCollum. Madam Chairwoman, because my time is up.
I would like to see that breakdown----
General Milley. I will be happy to.
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. Because I am very concerned
about with the OPTEMPO, sometimes the shortness in deployment.
General Milley. Sure.
Ms. McCollum. And especially with the equipment that they
are operating with. So if you could provide that to our staff,
I would appreciate that.
General Milley. I will be happy to give you all the detail
on it, absolutely.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
General Milley. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
[The information follows:]

IFR #1--Aviation Readiness and Flying Hours by Component

(1) In FY18 the Army programmed $1,579 billion for the Flying Hour
Program in the President's Budget broken out as follows; $1,188 billion
for the Regular Army, $333M for the Army National Guard (ARNG) and
$57.8 million for US Army Reserve (USAR). The preponderance of this
funding goes to Combat Aviation Brigades (11 Active/10 Guard/2 Reserve)
but the Active Component also funds undergraduate and graduate flight
training (flight school) for all three components.
This funding provides for company to battalion level collective
training readiness in the Regular Army and Platoon level collective
training readiness in the Reserve Component prior to mobilization. The
Regular Army builds and sustains their readiness over one year while
the Reserve Component builds their collective training proficiency over
five years due to the number of available training days in each year.
The following chart breaks out the funding and how many hours per crew
per month each component can be expected to fly with their programmed
resources.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARNG Hrs/crew/ USAR Hrs/Crew/
Active Hrs/Crew/Mo. 10.6 hours* Mo. 7 Hrs Mo. 6.5 Hrs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTOE Rotary Wing funded (11 $803,446 10 eCAB......... $308,412 2 eCAB.......... $50,521
CAB).
TDA Rotary Wing, Fixed wing, $385,460 TDA + FW........ $24,749 TDA + FW........ $7,349
UAS.
Total Funding ($000K)... $1,188,906 ................ $333,161 ................ $57,870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTOE: Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (Primary combat units)
TDA: Table of Distribution and Allowances (Staff and support units)
*Note, due to pilot manning shortages in the Regular Army, on-hand air crews are flying 12 hours or more a
month. In FY18, all Aviation units are meeting their readiness objectives.

(2) It takes a Reserve Component unit approximately 30 training
days post-mobilization to achieve Battalion level proficiency and 60
Days to achieve CAB level proficiency.
(3) Aviation modernization is ongoing in every Army component and
across our aviation fleets. Currently, UH-60 Blackhawk A, L and M model
aircraft are operating in both the Regular and Reserve Components. The
Army continues to execute plans to modernize our UH-60 aviation fleet
which includes replacing all UH-60As in COMPO 2 by FY 23 and in COMPO 1
by FY25. This modernization effort includes upgrades, which will result
in a combination of UH-60L, M and V aircraft. The Reserve Component has
received their full authorizations of CH-47F aircraft, the most modern
model in the Army inventory.

Ms. Granger. Chairman Rogers.

KOREA PENINSULA

Mr. Rogers. Korea, we have some 24,000 troops on the
peninsula, including 15,000 Active Army. In view of the unusual
activities in the last few months, i.e., North Korea, what
changes have you made, if any, in preparation for what may
come? Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Esper. I will take first stab at this. The chief
in his joint chief 's role is probably more fluent on this. I
could tell you that with regard to Korea, we hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst.
And so one of my first trips on the job was to Korea, where
I spent about 2 days on the peninsula meeting with our
commanders all the way from Seoul down to the southern end of
the peninsula to get a good feel for our readiness. And I can
tell you that everybody is working hard to ensure that we are
ready, that we are doing what is necessary to strengthen the
hands of our State Department, our diplomats, if you will, and
to make sure that we have all options available for our
decision makers.
Mr. Rogers. General.
General Milley. Congressman, I don't want to do a cop-out,
but I would like to actually come by and brief you in a
classified session on the details of what we are doing. The
headlines, I suppose, or the brief version in unclassified, we
continue to do and we will continue to do a significant amount
of training for contingency operations on the Korean Peninsula,
both on the peninsula itself with the units that are stationed
there, but also the units in the region. We have got, roughly
speaking, 70,000 Army soldiers in the PACOM AOR, and another
30,000, depending on exercise schedule. So training is key.
And then in the continental United States, about, I guess
it was a year, 18 months ago, we gave out guidance to our units
that we would designate selected units to increase their
readiness training, specifically oriented towards high-end
combined arms warfare, not specific necessarily to Korea,
although it would be applicable to Korea. And we have been
running those units pretty hard, getting them to a much higher
level of readiness that I can explain in some detail to you.
In terms of equipment, we have ensured that all of the
prepositioned stocks are full up. We have worked hard at
replenishing munitions. I can give you the details of those in
a classified session as well. And then we have made sure that
we have increased the personnel fill for the units that are
both there and the units that are expected to first respond.
But we, the Army, have done a tremendous amount, in
coordination with the U.S. Army Pacific, with Admiral Harris in
PACOM, and General Brooks, who is the commander on the
peninsula, we have done a tremendous amount over the last 12 to
18 months or so in preparation for any possible contingency so
that the President has the widest latitude for options, if
needed.

MILITARY RELATIONSHIP WITH SOUTH KOREA

Mr. Rogers. How would you rate the current state of our
military relationship with South Korea?
General Milley. It is very good with the ROK Army. Our Mil-
to-Mil relationship with the Republic of Korea is excellent.
And I go over there probably every 4 or 5 months. We have had a
long-term 70-year relationship with the ROK Army, and we are
very, very solid. We are shoulder to shoulder with the Republic
of Korea.
Secretary Esper. And I have had the chance to meet, when I
was there, with the minister of defense and with ROK generals.
My assessment was the same, and it was the assessment also
given to me by our commander there, General Brooks.

155-MILLIMETER ARTILLERY SHELLS

Mr. Rogers. In closing and quickly, I noticed that you are
requesting a huge increase in 155-millimeter artillery shells.
2018 was 16,500. The request now is 148,000. I am an old 155
artillery guy in the Kentucky Guard, so I have got an affinity
for 155 shells, but what is going on here?
General Milley. Well, as I survey as chief of staff, as I
survey the world situation--and there are lead times to
procurements--I want to make sure that the United States Army
has sufficient ammunition stocks, not just 155, but the other
types of preferred munition and Precision-Guided Munition, et
cetera, but 155 in particular because the United States Army
has been and still is a fires-based Army in order to create
opportunities for maneuver and movement.
So artillery is fundamental to our ability to do that. And
in the event of a contingency, artillery munition consumption
rates would be really high. So I want to make sure that the
ammunition stockpiles are significant enough to withstand any
contingency. Hence, the significant amount of 155.
Mr. Rogers. It is 10 times what you did in 2018.
I yield back.
General Milley. That is correct, Congressman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Before we call on Mr. Womack, we will be calling your
office to set up a classified briefing. Everyone on the
subcommittee will be invited, because I know we all have
questions that you, very respectfully, need to be in a
classified briefing, so----
Mr. Womack.

PERSONNEL

Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And my thanks to the Secretary and to the chief, who are
doing remarkable work. And, of course, I am kind of partial to
the Army, so I like what they are doing.
And congratulations, by the way, on bringing the Commander
in Chief 's trophy back to the Army side. I know my Navy
friends are probably, and even my Air Force friends, probably a
little bit chagrinned about that, but it was about time, and I
know it is particularly important to the Secretary.
I want to talk about manning for just a minute. Even though
we have got a lot of technology, a lot of really cool stuff
that we use, that the warfighter is able to take advantage of,
and more on the way, we are still a people business. And my
concerns have always been about the amount of money that we
spend and let's just say invest in our people, from entry level
to some of these mid grades, and then how we lose them in the
retention battle.
And my concern is even enhanced a little more now that we
have got a Tax Cut and Jobs Act bill passed. And there is
clearly a movement in the economy to bring more jobs back home,
and that is going to put pressure on wages. Wages are going to
go higher, I believe strongly, and that is going to be an
incentive for people who might be predisposed to joining our
military to take a job in the civilian sector.
So, Mr. Secretary, if you would, just kind of let me know
what your thoughts are on these issues and if my concerns are
founded.
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. It is a very good question, and
I like your choice of words: ``invest.'' It is how we need to
think about how we access soldiers and officers into our force.
I think on the first part, with regard to our enlisted
ranks, as you know, this bill will help us grow end strength,
which is critical to meet the demands out there. But one of the
challenges we have, which are widely reported, is that we have
anywhere between only 25 to 30 percent of America's youth could
be eligible to serve, and less than 5 percent probably are
eligible and have an inclination, proclivity to serve. And so
that makes things more challengeable, which makes it all the
more important that once we get them into the service, that we
do our darn best to retain them.
And so there are a number of things we need to do. Of
course, is invest in their professional development. We need to
be sure to take care of their families, which is why one of the
priorities we have highlighted is taking care of their
families.
But another part of this, and I think you and I may have
spoken about it previously, is I have stood up what I call a
Talent Management Task Force to really look at how do we manage
people differently in the 21st century. So rather than the
typical up-and-out type of system we have now, how do we manage
people based on their knowledge, skills, and behaviors, marry
it up with their preferences, and make sure we look at them
more as individuals as we manage them through their career so
that we can retain them longer, particularly in that critical
period between the 6- and 8-year mark, where, at least for mid-
career or for officers, they may think about getting out
because they are looking for other opportunities or, like you
said, the job market is better.
So we have to be more flexible on that side as well in
terms of allowing lateral movement in and out of service, maybe
to the Guard and Reserve, and thinking about different career
path options. This is most specifically outlined when we talk
about the cyber force. So a number of things we could do, but
you have hit the nail on the head. We have to think about
people as investments.
Mr. Womack. General Milley, on that same subject, we have
been engaged in a type of conflict that has been driven
primarily by the small unit leader, which has been really good
for the development of our small unit leaders. Now, a lot of
these leaders are matriculating up through their field grade
and on into general officer positions. And I would just kind of
throw the same question out to you. Do you ever get concerned
about losing some of this great talent that has been so vital
in the war fight so far that we could lose them to private
sector opportunities?
General Milley. I am always concerned about that,
Congressman. We want to retain the best and brightest of
talent. And you are correct that there is a tremendous amount
of institutional experience now at the small unit level in
combat fighting. So the short answer is yes, we are always
concerned about it. We monitor it very closely.
So what we have seen so far is we do not in the junior
officer level have a, quote/unquote, brain drain. There is a
normal attrition at about the 4- or 5-year mark where a lot of
officers choose to pursue another form of employment. Many go
into the Guard, many go into the Reserve, and then they seek
civilian employment, and others just get out. But there is not
some dramatic pause from or break from the path in terms of the
normal trend lines.
What is interesting, though, is those officers and
noncommissioned officers and soldiers who actually have the
most deployment time in theatre, in the combat zones of Iraq,
Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere, they tend to reenlist,
actually, at a higher rate. And that is an interesting fact
that has come out in the last 14, 15, 16 years.
So the idea that they are being driven out of the military
for some reason, I don't believe that is the case, based on the
data I have seen, but we are always concerned about it. We want
to retain the best in our formations.
Mr. Womack. I thank the gentlemen for their service.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Graves, and then Mrs. Roby.

SECURITY FORCE ASSISTANCE BRIGADES

Mr. Graves. Thanks, Madam Chair.
And thanks again for joining us and for your responses
today. And I really just want to get your feedback a little bit
on the Security Force Assistance Brigades, one of which, the
1st brigade is housed in Benning, in Georgia. And no doubt that
advising and assisting our allies is a key part of the mission.
Can you just share with us a little bit about what you have
learned and what you expect and what you hope to see in the
future in using these various brigades?
General Milley. Thanks, Congressman, for that. It is our
assessment that we are going to be in the train, advise, assist
of indigenous partner nations' militaries for some time to
come. We have been doing it pretty regularly as a Nation for
well over a century. If you think back at the big ones, the ROK
Army, the Korean, South Korean Army, the Army of South Vietnam,
and many, many other armies around the world have been advised
by the American Army over the years. So it has always been a
fundamental mission of the United States Army.
Many times it is defaulted to the United States Army
Special Forces, because they have excellent expertise in
foreign internal development and advising. But in today's
world, we think that the mission profile of train, advise,
assist exceeds the capacity of Special Forces. They are running
at a very, very high OPTEMPO. So Special Forces is primarily
now, not exclusively, but primarily involved in training and
advising host-nation special forces, and we need to fill the
gap to advise the host nation conventional forces.
And what we determined, what we have been doing for 16
years is ripping apart our Regular Army or National Guard
brigade combat teams that are designed or combined now as
maneuver, we have been ripping them apart to feed an advisory
mission. So, for example, today, we have got five brigades in
the Middle East doing that, we have got five preparing, and you
got five just coming home. So about 15 out of, you know, 30
brigades in the active or 58 in the total are wrapped up in
that mission profile.
We need those brigades to train them on their design
mission. So what we decided to do is we wanted to produce a
better product of adviser rather than just sort of an ad hoc
approach to it by ripping units apart, create a professional
advisory unit, and we are calling it an SFAB. And it is all
about the people. They are individuals who are highly vetted.
They are meeting the same entry requirements that you have to
meet to get into the Ranger Regiment. They are getting full
background checks. And significantly, they have already served
in the duty position they are serving as an adviser. So they
are on their second company command, their second battalion
command, their second brigade command, second time as a first
sergeant and so on. They are not coming--we are not ripping
them out of the units. This is after they have completed their
assignment in a regular unit.
So you are getting a high-quality product, and I think we
will see over time for the indigenous conventional forces a
better adviser capability, and we will recoup the readiness
value of bringing the current brigades back home to get them
trained for their organizational design mission.
And a third big strategic benefit of these Security Force
Assistance Brigades is that they are built upon the inherent
chain of command of an infantry brigade without all of the
soldiers. So they are E-6s and above, they are all NCOs and
officers, and they are designed to look like a chain of command
of a brigade.
So in a national emergency, if the United States needed to
rapidly expand--we are creating five of these in the Regular
Army, one in the Guard. If we needed to rapidly expand by, say,
six brigades, five or six brigades, we would take soldiers
through basic training and AIT, shove them underneath there.
And you will have a brigade in relatively short order, about
one-third of the time it would take to create a normal brigade.
So you get these three big strategic benefits from these
outfits. The first one, as you noted, is stood up at Benning.
It deployed last week or 10 days ago or so. They are in the
midst right now of getting into their battle space. And the
second one is going to stand up at Bragg. We haven't determined
yet the stationing for the third, fourth, and fifth and so on.
But we think it is a good idea. It is a good program. We
think that they are getting good training and proper equipment.
And we think that their concept of employment is sound, and we
think it will reap a significant amount of benefit in the years
to come.
Mr. Graves. Great. Thank you. Thank you for that
explanation.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mrs. Roby.

ARMY AVIATION

Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And to both of you, thank you for your service to our
country. We appreciate it very much. Thank you for your candor
here with us this morning.
As you know, I represent southeast Alabama, and the people
of southeast Alabama are very proud of the home of Army
aviation at Fort Rucker. So a couple questions, and then I will
let you respond.
And I appreciate, Mr. Secretary, the visit by phone the
other day, and I kind of laid this out for you, so, you know,
we can talk further about it. But I am real concerned about why
the President's fiscal year 2019 budget request for aircraft is
$3.8 billion versus the actual spent in fiscal year 2017 of
$4.9 billion.
We continue to also be concerned about retention of Army
aviators, and also want to make sure that the budget is a
reflection of what needs to be done at Rucker to keep up with a
student load that will then help with whatever missions we
have. I mean, clearly, we don't deploy without Army aviation,
so we want to make sure that student load is a reflection of
the needs of the Army.

STRYKERS

And then my second question is, I am concerned about the
funding for the Stryker vehicle in the Army's fiscal year 2019
request. It is my understanding that the Army also has
operational requirements for additional brigades of improved
Strykers. And so a lack of funding for that would certainly put
the industrial base in jeopardy.
And so those are my questions, and I will be quiet and let
you all respond. But, again, thank you so much for your service
to our country and for being here today.
Secretary Esper. Thank you, Mrs. Roby. I will take the
first one, aviation budget. I know the chief can speak to the
retention piece, then we will move to the Stryker.
I did track down the number. So you are right, the fiscal
year 2019 request for aviation is $3.8 billion. The fiscal year
2017 enacted was $4.9 billion, but what we requested in fiscal
year 2017 was $3.6 billion. So the data reflected the
additional generosity of the Congress to put money in. So that
is why it looks like a--so it is not a plan decrease by the
service. What we had planned was a steady increase, if you
will, to continue to invest in aviation assets. That is number
one.
Number two is, we find at this point, because of the
investments we made in previous years, the bump-up in 2017,
that Army aviation across the board is in pretty good shape,
certainly relative to our armor, our Strykers, et cetera, et
cetera. So we find ourselves in good footing. We are getting
very close to meeting our aviation objectives in terms of the
fielding goals.
And then the other thing--I think this is due, again, to
the folks at the Pentagon doing the acquisition--is they made
some good decisions. So, for example, on UH-60, the procurement
is a multiyear procurement of aircraft, which saved us as a
result over a half billion dollars. And so that meant we didn't
have to invest that upfront.
So a number of things are impacting both why you see the
trending line as you read it, but also the solid state of
aviation funding. And then, of course, as we have talked today,
one of the things we are trying to do in the 2019 budget is
really, consistent with the National Defense Strategy, make
sure we are investing in conversion of the Army, of the armored
brigade combat teams. We are looking to create another one. We
are trying to fill our prepositioned stocks of the brigade
combat team. We are doing upgrades to our Bradleys, Abrams, and
other vehicles, because they are just not in as good a shape,
if you will, as the aviation fleet.
General Milley. Congresswoman, for the pilots, what I have
seen is not so much a retention issue as a production issue. We
are short by our pilots, but we are at 94 percent on warrant
officer pilots for rotary wing aircraft. So we are actually not
in that bad a shape. However, that 94 percent means we are
short several hundred pilots. So we are not where we would like
to be, which is 100 percent, but it is not so much a retention
as a production issue.
And you rightly point out the student base down at Fort
Rucker. We are filling all the scheduled seats and we are
monitoring all of that very, very closely. And we are very
sensitive, because of the amount of training that goes in to
train a pilot, and we know that there is a heavy investment in
that and we want to continue to make sure that we don't drop
off on it. I know some of the other services with fixed wing
pilots are challenged on retention, but ours is not so much
retention as it is a production issue.
On the Stryker piece, it is our intent to continue the
Stryker upgrades. However, what you see reflected in the
budget, what we did last year was put money in there for the
Stryker lethality upgrade. And now what we want to do is we
want to get the feedback from the pilot program that we are
running right now over in Europe. We want to get all the
feedback from the testing and the prototyping and so on and so
forth and then adjust based off of that. We expect that
feedback sometime over the summer, and then we will adjust and
determine which way we want to go on the remaining Stryker
brigades.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ranking Member Visclosky.

STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary, first of all, I want to thank you for your
comments on the audit and audibility that Mr. Cuellar brought
up and the fact that you are very serious about it. And as I
have said many times in this room, it is not the audit itself,
it is the ability it gives you to make informed decisions. But
very much appreciate your addressing that.
Secretary Esper. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. I have, if I could just set these out for
the two of you, three questions. And, again, would not want to
take time. Chairman Frelinghuysen is here, Mr. Aderholt.
The first is, we are all very proud of our National Guard
organizations. Indiana has partnerships with two different
countries. Relative to the European Deterrence Initiative, how
do the Guards in the State Partnership Program cooperate, play
into what the Army is doing in Europe?

ASIA

Second, when we look at Asia, I think too often we think of
maritime, Navy, Air Force, but the Army has a clear role.
Setting aside the Korean Peninsula, any particular activities
you would draw our attention to that you are involved in?

DEFENSE STRATEGY

And the last--and, again, if you could just touch on
these--is, with the new defense strategy that I am pleased the
Department has initiated, we talk about Russia and China. We
talk about Iran and we talk about North Korea, and then it is
other very important issues. Has it put stress on the Army in
particular as far as its activities in Afghanistan? Are there
problems that has created as far as a sense of priority? Thank
you.
Secretary Esper. Thank you, sir. If you don't mind, I will
take the first one, and maybe the chief can take the second
two.
So, as you know, my 21 years of service, 10 were on Active
Duty and the remaining 11 were in the Guard and Reserve. So I
have a great affinity for the Guard as a former guardsman
myself.
And I will tell you, when I went to Europe, I think it was
in January, I was able to visit Belgium, Germany, Poland, and
Ukraine. And in Poland, I was very impressed because there was
a Guard unit there from Illinois, of all places, training,
conducting training there, and they were well welcomed and
doing an incredible job. I found the same thing, by the way,
when I went to Ukraine. It was actually the New York National
Guard that was training the Ukrainians on better tactics,
techniques, and procedures, if you will, consistent with what
we do with NATO.
So the Guard is performing a critical role. From the time I
left Active Duty in 1996, they have moved certainly from a
strategic Reserve to an operational Reserve to an operational
force. And everywhere I go--and I am always reminded of my
visit to Afghanistan just before Christmas, where I sat around
with a leadership team of a brigade combat team. And you
wouldn't know it unless you looked at their patches, but they
were from all three components, but seamlessly integrated, each
performing their roles side by side, but there were Active,
there were Regular Army, Guard, and Reserve. And so they are
doing a tremendous job.
And I guess further to your point, what I found is where
States have these particular partnership programs with other
countries, that has been particularly helpful, because there is
a longstanding relationship in many cases where they have been
working together for many years. And so there is a great ease
when they have to deploy and they already have a relationship
built up. And I know I had that conversation with the Poles in
particular where there was just an easy transition as our
guardsmen were working in Poland on our deterrence initiatives
there.
General Milley. I would echo all of that. Congressman, the
State Partnership Program, as you know, has been a long-term
program. It started in the early nineties, and the States have
affiliations with various countries around the world. A very,
very successful program, particularly in Europe, as a subset of
the broader EUCOM command of General Scaparrotti's engagement
strategy in order to build partner capacity.
For the EDI, the European Deterrence Initiative, the Army
plays a significant role in that. Of the $6-plus billion that
it has been increased from last year's budget, I think the Army
has allocated $4 billion, $4\1/2\ billion of that. That is
significant. The purpose of the whole thing is to deter further
Russian territorial aggression in Europe. We saw Georgia. We
saw Crimea. We saw what they are doing in eastern Damas.
So a strategic decision was made to deter any further
territorial aggression. In order to do that, it requires a
joint force. So there is elements of the Navy and the Air Force
and Marines as part of the EDI as well. But the Army has a big
chunk of that, because the best form of deterrence, frankly, is
the deterrence that you can see on the ground. And if you know
you can't achieve your objectives on the ground, then you are
likely not to try to attempt to get those objectives.
Mr. Visclosky. If you could address Asia.
General Milley. I am sorry.
Mr. Visclosky. If you could address Asia.
General Milley. As I understood, the question was, is the
China issue impacting or increasing stress on----
Mr. Visclosky. I wouldn't even say China. It is just we
think of Navy, we think of Air Force, because of the
projection. Setting aside the Korean Peninsula, just to
highlight some of the other activities and important duties
or----
General Milley. Well, in the Pacific, again, we are a
global power and the United States Army is a global Army. So we
are not committed to one theatre versus the other, and we have
to retain capabilities as a Nation as long as our strategies
remain as they are, to be able to engage worldwide.
So in the Pacific, we have got, roughly speaking, as I
mentioned earlier, about 70,000 or so U.S. Army soldiers
forward-stationed in Korea, forward-stationed in Hawaii. We
have soldiers up in Alaska, and then we have a large
significant amount that come out of the operational force in
FORCECOM in the event that we need to surge forces into the
Pacific.
So there is a very significant Army capability in the
Pacific. The purpose of that is stability, building partner
capacity, assuring our allies, and deterring any particular
opponent. The Pacific is heavily weighted towards naval
capabilities and air capabilities, as it rightly should.
However, the Army plays a very, very significant role, as you
know, in the Pacific.
Mr. Visclosky. Well, my sense is the assurance to our
allies is a very key role there so no one gets nervous.
General Milley. It is absolutely critical.
Mr. Visclosky. If I could just turn you to Afghanistan and
with the new defense strategy, if you would, any stress or
pressure as far as what you are doing in Afghanistan,
budgetarily or personnelwise?
General Milley. Well, in Afghanistan, you know, the numbers
that we have in Afghanistan, and we are putting in the 1st
Security Force Assistance Brigade the other day. Our strategy
in Afghanistan is to continue to train, advise, assist, enable
the indigenous military force of the Afghan Government, so the
Afghan National Security Forces. That is important. It is not
in and of itself the only solution, but it is important.
The other parts of this are economic development, rule of
law, good governance. Those are outside the purview per se of
U.S. military forces. Our job is to assist the ANSF in order to
protect and stabilize the internals of the government. It has
been a challenge for a considerable length of time, as you
know. President Trump has recommitted in this strategy to
sustaining the U.S. level of effort.
Key to the overall strategy, of course, is what is going on
on the other side of the border with Pakistan. It is a very
complex situation, but we the military and we specifically the
Army play a very, very heavy role in train, advise, assisting
our Afghan partners. We think we are able to do that now, and
we think we are going to be improving on that here in the
coming year.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt, I apologize, I didn't see you come in.

LONG-RANGE HYPERSONICS WEAPONS

Mr. Aderholt. No problem. Thanks.
Thank you all, as my colleagues have said, for being here.
We appreciate your service.
And when you think back on the days of muskets, it would
have been a surprise, I guess, to a lot of the servicemembers
back years ago to imagine a rifle that is accurate up to 875
yards, as we have today. But in this time of increasing long-
range threats from our adversaries, I don't think any of our
services should be excluded from a mission simply because of
its range.
But the concern that many of us has is about the frequency
of hypersonic testing from Russia and China. Also concerned
about the speed at which North Korea might prepare a missile
for launch. Our own future systems may include weapons in the
Air Force and missiles launched from submarines, but some of
that work might take 20 years to actually field. In the past 2
years, our combatant commanders have confirmed the positive
potential of long-range hypersonics weapons of our own.
General, let me pose this question to you. It is an
operational question. If the Army were provided sufficient
resources and were asked to prepare a long-range hypersonic
weapon launched from U.S. territory, could you build upon our
two successful hypersonic flight tests done through cooperation
between SMDC and the Navy and prepare an early operational
land-based capability by 2022, which is directed in the fiscal
year 2018 NDAA?
General Milley. Thanks for that question. It is an
important area of S&T and R&D that we are pursuing very
quickly. As you rightly point out, two significant adversaries,
China and Russia, are moving out in the development of
hypersonic weapons. We acknowledge that.
We, the Army, have as our number one priority for
modernization long-range precision fires. A subset of that is
the hypersonic piece to it. It is in S&T and R&D. I don't want
to say 2022, because I haven't seen the results of the S&T and
R&D yet.
But I do believe that it is technologically possible, and I
believe we will be able to test and then acquire and procure
long-range precision weapons that go significantly longer in
range than any existing artillery system in the Earth today. We
are pursuing that, and I believe it is possible. I don't want
to confine myself to a date of 2022, though. I haven't seen the
research yet. A hard date.
Secretary Esper. I would add I was at SMDC a few weeks ago.
Very impressed by what they are doing. They are very confident
in the promise of hypersonics. And as I came back, as you may
have heard, I meet frequently with my fellow service
secretaries, and this is one of the technology areas that we
discuss, about how we can collaborate to make sure that we all
have the--we can share that same information to get to the
solution quicker, because there is so much promise in
hypersonics.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Secretary, there have been various
opinions expressed in recent years about what is treaty
compliant and what is not, as well as whether our adversaries
have already broken the treaty, such as the INF.
If I understand correctly, part of the equation is whether
a weapon goes into exoatmospheric. Can you provide to the
committee in the next few weeks a statement at the secret/TS
level on what, if any, changes to U.S. law or treaties are
necessary to field a long-range hypersonic weapon launched from
U.S. territory?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir, I will do that.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Chairman Frelinghuysen.

ARMY FUTURES COMMAND

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Great. Sorry to be a little late, Mr.
Chairman.
Congratulations, Mr. Secretary, on your process through the
Senate.
And, General Milley, I was so late I missed a few nice
comments you said about me. Thanks so much.
Thank you both for, you know, the remarkable things you do
to look after our men and women and all of our military for, as
you may know, I for a number of years, almost my entire time on
the committee, I was sort of the Army guy on the committee.
Everybody had their own people, Marines and the Air Force. I
remember, you know, Jack Murtha and everybody had--but I was
sort of the Army guy. I don't apologize. We were always on the
short end of the stick in terms of money and things of that
nature.
So I have had a chance to sort of take a look at some of
the systems we have invested in, and I think the figure is like
$32 billion we have invested in a variety of things: Comanche,
Crusader, Future Combat Systems. I can remember General Odierno
saying, well, it is only seven more years. And I would say,
yes, I am right behind you.
I know you have got a different sort of mode of operation
you are moving towards, what we call the Futures Command, which
I think conceptually is supposed to sort of get us out of the
bureaucratic restraints. You are going to be--and I have said
this to the other Secretaries, Secretary Spencer, and Heather
Wilson was in yesterday. I don't like the expression that you
are going to be flush with money, but you are going to have a
lot of money. I know you have indicated before I got here you
are appreciative of the flexibility we are giving you to spend
it. But these would perhaps be some of the best times you might
have. How can you assure the committee that these dollars are
going to be spent wisely?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. Thank you. It is a great
question. And we certainly, as you said, appreciate what we are
seeing in the 2018 and 2019 appropriations, and recognize that
this is a moment in time that we have to capture and make very
good use of, not only because it may only be the moment, but we
need to build--we need to build confidence with Congress and
with the American people. At the same time, this is a chance to
also, not only change our processes within the Army, but change
the culture as well as we look at acquisitions.
So, to that end, that is why the Army Futures Command is a
critical component, but we are impatient and speed is critical,
which is why we have these cross-functional teams stood up now
across these six areas, beginning with long-range precision
fires, to include Next-Generation Combat Vehicle, actively
working, either testing prototypes we have right now, such as
Future Vertical Lift, or developing prototypes so we can
quickly get the requirements down.
Part of what we want to do is get requirements down from 5
years to 12 months. And we want to get back to an era where it
didn't take us 10 to 15 years to build a platform, but it takes
us 5 to 8 years. And so this is the time. As you see from our
budget, we contribute--or we invest over 18 percent of our
funding in procurement to get that way, to begin the
prototyping.
At the same time, recognizing the current challenges of
readiness, we are upgrading our armored brigade combat teams,
making them more lethal. Same with the Stryker vehicles. We are
converting an ABCT and we are building another one. So a lot of
investments across the board to deal with the near-term
challenges, but begin now making those downpayments on the
future force, a more modern force, and in a much quicker
timeline.

SPECIAL FORCES

Mr. Frelinghuysen. I don't think there is a great enough
appreciation for the work of our Special Forces. And often we
invoke the Special Forces, and they do remarkable things around
the world. We often invoke them that they are not hindered or
restrained by some of what the big Army is restrained by. I
hear it today even that they are more encumbered than they used
to be.
Would you sort of talk about that dynamic? I mean, is there
anything that they are doing in the way of procurement that
relates to how you are designing the Futures Command?
Obviously, you are impatient. You have got to break the
culture. But is there anything you are building into the
dynamic that relates to their ability to get things off the
shelf and cannibalize systems to get more effective, you know,
weapons and increase lethality?
Secretary Esper. I will just make a quick comment, then I
will defer to the chief, because, having served in Special
Forces, he may have special insights. But I will tell you that
in many ways we are trying to borrow if not mimic some of the
procurement practices that we have seen in SOCOM, for example.
Along the same lines, what we have established in the past
and then last year with either the Rapid Equipping Force or
Rapid Capabilities Office are two other ways that we have tried
to leapfrog a very bureaucratic process to get tools,
equipment, weapon systems to the troops much, much quicker than
we have in the past.
That is why I am encouraged by the CFTs. We have already
prototyped and want to begin buying these next-generation night
vision devices, for example. And we are moving through on a
designated marksman rifle. Things that we can do much more
quickly, mimicking what we have seen in the past from the
Special Operations community.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Chief.
General Milley. Congressman, thanks. You know, 2 years ago
when we first conceived of this Futures Command idea, one of
the things we set out to do was to inform ourselves of what is
out there today. So there were two models that we looked at
intensively. One was the SOCOM model and the other was the
Navy's model under Admiral Rickover, to be candid, going back
in the day. So we looked at those and we drew the best
practices.
In the SOCOM model, one of the things that makes them so
successful--and by the way, they operate under the exact same
laws, exact same rules. So there is nothing special that is
done for SOCOM in terms of law or rules or authorities, but
they do things slightly differently. Number one, they have a
smaller scale. So they are authorized under their title to
develop equipment that is unique to Special Operations, and the
rest of their equipment comes from either the Navy, the Air
Force, or the Army.
But in that bin of special equipment, they link the
operator, the user directly with the combat developer, directly
with the program manager, and they link them all to a
commander, a commander at SOCOM, and his designated
representative, the acquisition executive, and that speeds the
process up.
So we mimicked that in today's, what we have now is six
cross-functional teams. That is exactly what we did. And they
are achieving great success. And the cross-functional teams are
a bridging strategy until we can get Futures Command fully
stood up, and then they will be embedded within Futures
Command. So we are taking the best practices lessons learned
that have been out there in terms of efficiency and
effectiveness.
The key to the whole thing at the end of the day, though,
to ensure that the taxpayer's money is spent properly, in my
view, is accountability. And we must hold ourselves accountable
throughout the entire system. And anyone out there who violates
law, statute, intent, policy, regulations and so on in the
manning, training, or equipping the United States Army's forces
must be held accountable. We can't just turn a blind eye to it.
And that is another beautiful thing about Futures Command
is there will be accountability, because you will have unity of
command and unity of effort under one command that will do all
things modernization for the Army. And that will be important,
because it is such a diffuse effort right now, when something
goes wrong, you say, how did it go wrong, who did this, and you
start getting fingers going all over the place and who is on
first, what is on second. Those days are over.
So by the establishment of Futures Command, there will be
unity of command, unity of effort, and, most importantly, there
will be accountability.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Glad to hear it.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
We have enough time left for another round, and I would
like to do that. Just be aware that you need to keep your
questions succinct. And we will start with--so it would be Mr.
Diaz-Balart.

SOUTHCOM

Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
You know, sometimes the Western Hemisphere is kind of
overlooked until things blow up. The constant bright spot has
always been SOUTHCOM, and it often gets overlooked by,
obviously, more high-profile commands just because of
conflicts, et cetera. But clearly, its hands are always full.
And whether it is counterdrug or transnational threats, they
are always, obviously, incredibly busy.
So can you talk a little bit about how you intend to
support SOUTHCOM's operations in the fiscal year 2019 budget?
General Milley. Well, operationally, SOUTHCOM demand, as
you rightly point out, is significantly lower than other AORs,
or areas of operation, at this time. And that changes from time
to time. Earthquake in Haiti, for example, placed a tremendous
demand on the United States military. Army, Navy, Air Force,
Marines, everyone contributed to that relief effort. So it is
an episodic thing.
As a regional engagement plan, we are supporting Admiral
Tidd's regional engagement plan. We have got Joint Task Force-
Bravo that is currently located in Honduras. Special Forces,
specifically 7th Special Forces group, does a lot of work in
Central and South America in building partner capacity and
assuring our allies.
And then you have got, as you know, a lot of
counternarcotic kind of drug trafficking operations within the
maritime service. A lot of that is done by the Coast Guard. So
there is a significant engagement in the SOUTHCOM AOR. Mexico
is also important, but that comes under NORTHCOM. But we
routinely engage and work very closely with the Mexican Army on
things like border control and border operations, counterdrug
and counternarcotics and so on.
So there is a significant amount of engagement, not only by
the U.S. military, but by the Army throughout the Caribbean,
throughout Central and South America, and also in Mexico. And
we will continue to do that as budgeted, but it is
significantly less than what you would expect from other
COCOMs.

NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Diaz-Balart. I just want to make sure that--and I know
that you are aware of it, but I just want to make sure that
there is enough emphasis there. I don't have to tell you that
tens of thousands of Americans die every year because of
narcotics, and so it is a threat.
And I see I have a little bit more time. Let me just--so
the Army submitted a modernization plan to Congress for its
network communications, but there are very little details about
specific systems in the plan for the 2019 request. So can you
explain a little bit about your timeline for the plan? Does the
Army intend to use streamlined acquisition procedures for this
or is it considering using solutions already in the Army's
inventory? Just, again, some further explanation.
Secretary Esper. And, Congressman, you said with regard to
communications?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes.
Secretary Esper. So where we are going with regard to
communications falls under the network cross-functional team.
It is one of the six that we have described. And what they are
doing is building upon some of the current programs that exist.
So one example is we are moving forward on a variety of
tactical handheld radios, manpack, other radios to make sure at
the cutting edge, at the front edge of the battlefield that our
troops have the type of communications they need for that type
of fight.
At the same time, as you know, the strategy we put forward
is to halt, fix, pivot on WIN-T Increment 2. And what that will
enable us to do is to make sure that we can adapt Increment 2
for the infantry brigade combat teams to make sure they have
sufficient communications for the fight we see ahead.
At the same time, what the cross-functional team for the
network is doing is looking at what is available in the
commercial market, preferably software-based, because what we
need to do as we look ahead in terms of the network, the
tactical network, is make sure that we can keep up with the
pace of commercial technology. This is something we have been
unable to do, and unless we get on that type of wavelength, we
will be forever chasing this.
So what the cross-functional team is looking at, what is
happening out there in the commercial marketplace, how can we
then take it, adapt it to our tactical network, and make sure
that we are in a position where we can continually upgrade. The
network is critical to long-range precision fires, to
everything else we do across our modernization priorities.
General Milley. May I make a comment on that, Congressman,
if I could? We have spent the better part of almost a year and
a half now doing an intensive internal look at the, quote/
unquote, network, of which WIN-T is just one component. And it
was my conclusion, our conclusion, the Army's conclusion that
the network, as designed, works fine for a counterinsurgency,
counterterrorist type fight where you are fighting primarily
from static FOBs and COPs out there in the battle space, and it
more or less works okay at echelons below, say, battalion
company.
However, as the NDS points out, we are in an era of great
power competition. And if you need a system that can operate
against a near-peer competitor, a Russia or a China, or someone
using their equipment, who has significant electronic warfare
capabilities, who has significant cyber capabilities, who have
incredible powers of observation through a variety of means,
who have incredible fire support capabilities that can deliver
fires, it is our estimation that the system that we were buying
would not survive contact with that type of enemy on a mobile,
highly lethal battlefield against those enemies.
So we said, okay, what in the system doesn't work? And
whatever it is we found that didn't work, we halted it. What in
the system doesn't work but can work, we decided we would
identify those subsystems and fix them. And then we needed to
move on to a new procurement strategy.
In the world of information technology, the commercial
world is operating at light speed compared to the way the U.S.
Government can do acquisition and procurement. They are light
years ahead of us.
So the network's design and requirements were written years
and years and years ago. The commercial world has advanced way
beyond anything we wrote years and years and years ago. So that
is the pivot part of it. We need to change our fundamental
procurement strategy of all things information.
So that is what is behind all of this. And I know it is
controversial out there. I know a lot of people are up in arms
about it, so to speak. I got that. But we cannot fund a system
that we know ahead of time is unlikely to work against the type
of threat that we have been charged to plan against in the
National Defense Strategy.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.

RUSSIA

Mr. Ruppersberger. Earlier, we discussed the need for a
modernized Army to deter future adversaries and thoroughly
overmatch them should a fight become necessary. That is
certainly the right call, especially considering the advance of
technology and the Army's need to have a long-term strategy to
maintain a decisive edge in great power competition.
Now, I am very worried about the here and now, the current
and short-term investments the Army is making to maintain
dominance in today's threat environment. Today, Russia is
increasingly belligerent and aggressive and has demonstrated
more of a willingness to use its ground forces to further
Putin's goals. We also have issues involving China.
My question, in the fiscal year 2019 budget, I am happy to
see funding for measures such as European Defense Initiative
have increased from $4.7 billion to 2018, $6.5 billion this
year. In addition to this effort, what other near- and short-
term investments do you see in your budget plan that can deter
Putin from testing our resolve?
Secretary Esper. Mr. Ruppersberger, there are a number of
things we are doing, so I will talk about armored brigade
combat teams. As I said, we are converting a 15th armored
brigade combat team and plan on building a 16th. At the same
time, we are looking to build up our prepositioned stocks in
Europe so that in the case of a contingency, we can quickly fly
in and fall in on those types of stocks, a brigade combat team.
At the same time, we are making sure that in Europe, those
stocks have mobile short-range air defenses that have enhanced
multiple rocket launcher capabilities. We spoke earlier about
the Strykers, because the Strykers are playing a critical role.
When I was in Poland, I actually visited a Stryker unit and
talked with their commanders, and that is why, at their
request, we are up-gunning them with 30-millimeter cannons and
we are looking at increased survivability with the hulls.
At the same time, we are, as you know, doing these heel-to-
toe rotations with an armored brigade combat team going back
and forth every 9 months. That has given us two things. That
has allowed the Army to practice deploying again, and that is a
critical skill in a theatre like that, where you can actually
move your unit from continental United States to Europe and all
the critical tasks it takes to get into your optimal battle
position. So we are rotating, and we are rotating very highly
trained units that are coming right out of the National
Training Center and are prepared. So that gives you a great
deterrence capability as well.
And so that is just kind of a sampling of things that we
are doing to make sure that we maintain the deterrence
initiative.
We are also working very closely with the Poles to make
sure that they improve their training areas, both in the
northeast and the northwest of the country, that will allow us
to maintain our readiness. We see them participating in
exercises with U.S. Forces in Germany. In fact, when I was
there in Germany, I visited the joint maneuver readiness center
at Hohenfels, Germany. And it was a Polish brigade going
through training there with U.S. units, Italian units, U.K.
units, et cetera, reporting up to it, exercising in a
multinational endeavor against a likely threat they might see
from the east.
So all these things, whether it is the training, whether it
is the equipment upgrades, et cetera, all adding, I think,
building to the deterrence that we need in order to keep any--
--
Mr. Ruppersberger. I know there is some unrest with some of
our key allies in that European area around the Russia area.
Are we doing anything to make them feel better and working with
them and helping them?
Secretary Esper. We are training extensively with all of
our NATO allies in Europe. But, like I said, when I was there,
I saw everybody from the Germans, Poles, Estonians. We had
these enhanced force packages running all the way from Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, down to the U.S. presence in Poland, and a
lot of assurance happening there.
And as I mentioned earlier as well, I was in Ukraine where
we have a presence there, training Ukrainians. So I think we
are doing a lot on that front. I don't know if the chief may
have something to add on this issue.
General Milley. Thanks, Congressman. In terms of assurance,
I think the United States does a lot for NATO and our allies,
from a military perspective. And from the Army's perspective,
we are. We are doing a tremendous amount of training. We have
got units cycling through a wide variety of exercises that
General Scaparrotti has planned, and now General Cavoli. So
that is important.
We are increasing our APS-2 stocks in this budget from what
is currently about a brigade set to a division set. That is
important. We are continuing, as the Secretary said, the
rotation of the armored brigade combat team, the combat
aviation brigade, and other enablers, in addition to the forces
that are already there.
I would mention manning that is both in this budget and the
previous budgets. Congress has been very generous, and the
Secretary of Defense and President have allowed us to modestly
increase our end strength. That is important because the
readiness of the force rests upon good people and having enough
people in the right ranks and skill set. So increasing our
readiness by the end strength in the Regular Army, increase of
another 4,000 this year. We increased last year, et cetera.
That will be important in improving the readiness.
So in the here and now, our readiness glide path bottomed
out 2\1/2\ years ago. That is when it hit bottom. And because
of the great effort of Congress, OSD, and many, many others, we
are on an upward trajectory. It is unambiguous, an upward
trajectory of readiness. It needs continued sustained funding,
and that will take care of the here and now.
And simultaneously with that, we want to pivot and ensure
tomorrow's readiness, modernization. And that is what those six
priorities are. That is what Futures Command, CFTs are all
about. Again, maintaining and sustaining and continue to
improve the foxhole of today's readiness, while at the same
time building tomorrow's readiness.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

WIN-T

I hate to go back to a sore subject, but on WIN-T, we have
invested $6 billion in that, and it is what I would have
classified as a failed early project. It didn't do well at all.
It flunked in multiple categories relative to what the chief
just talked about.
Now, as you go forward in this area, I hope you are
impressing upon those that are going forward that we don't need
any more $6 billion early fails in communications. And let's
let the Army lead the whole Federal Government because, in
reality, the environment of the Federal Government is slow and
tedious when it comes to technology.
And I agree with the chief. We have got to get up to light
speed, because I used to try cases where we would have
intellectual property cases, and we would settle them because
by the time we got to court, it had changed. That was 6 months
of time.

IRON DOME

Shifting over to another thing that is out there, we are
looking to build a range-based, ground-based defense system for
projectile threats. The Israelis, we have given them and
assisted them with $1.5 billion to help them in building Iron
Dome. There are those in the Pentagon that have talked about we
should look at off-the-shelf projects of things that are out
there. Iron Dome is battle tested, seems to work. Is there any
reason why we are not looking at Iron Dome rather than spending
$51 million on a slow research and development process that
maybe will put us online by 2022 to have this system, when the
Israelis are using it today and I am sure they would be glad to
sell us one? A question.
General Milley. We are looking at Iron Dome. I think what
you are talking about--I think, Congressman, what you are
talking about is IFPC, which is inside the budget. And you are
looking at a ballistic missile defense capability, but not just
ballistic missiles, short-range missiles in addition to
aircraft.
Iron Dome, however, is designed against a different threat
than IFPC. So we are working with and we are examining multiple
alternatives. It has to be mobile. Iron Dome is not mobile
right now, tactically mobile. But we haven't ruled out or ruled
in anything in the area that you are specifically talking about
right now. And all options are still on the table for that, and
we are exploring all those options.
So Iron Dome is not in or out. We are looking at it. We are
looking at IFPC. We are looking at the requirements. And we
want to make sure, with industry, that we get what we need as
fast as we can get it, because that particular area, you know,
shoot, move, communicate, protect, so it is in our priorities
there as the fourth priority. That has to do with fixed wing
enemy aircraft, rotary wing enemy aircraft, ballistic missile
defense, short-range missile attack. And our Army needs to fill
that gap and do so quickly. So we are looking at all the
options.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Chairman Frelinghuysen.

ENGAGING WITH SOLDIERS AND FAMILIES

Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would just like to note for the record
that General Milley went to a very fine New Jersey institution
for graduate studies. And we note, of course, Secretary Esper
is a graduate of West Point.
This is sort of an odd question, but you are both graduates
of the 1980s, and I was going to ask this of Heather Wilson and
her colleague, the Air Force chief. How do you get input from
the younger generation, you being obviously in positions of
major responsibility? Obviously, no soldier wants to go into
combat with the Army chief one-on-one. How do you actually take
input and ideas from soldiers? How do you make sure that the
chain of command knows sort of the reality of social networking
and the things that sort of tie their incredible missions to
the real world we are in?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. I have two sources, first of
which are my three kids, who range between 18 and 25. And
knowing them and their friends, I got a good feel for what is
happening at that age group, and that is roughly the age group
from which we recruit. And it gives you good insight into what
they do on social media, you know, how they interact socially,
the skills they take to any role.
But more importantly, though, is every time I have
traveled--and I have been in the job now 3\1/2\ months. I have
traveled more than half that time, mostly overseas. I spend
almost every lunch and sometimes a breakfast sitting down with
a group of soldiers: E-2s, E-3s, E-4s.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We do that too and actually, in reality,
sometimes the bigger brass likes to hone in and sit right next
to them.
Secretary Esper. Oh, no, sir. I keep them far away. And so
we just have a very candid discussion about what is on their
mind. And I typically come back with notes as soon as I get
back that I divvy out to the staff. And it is any range of
issue, whether pay issues, or if you are in the Guard, it is
how soon or how late you were notified on an issue. It could be
what does the next Army PT test look like? So I get a full
range of questions out there with regard.
I have also been privileged to have my wife join me on
these trips, and she meets with their wives, the spouses, the
husbands, on these trips as well. And so I have, I guess, a
third source of input there as well with regard to what is
happening with regard to the schools, the daycare facilities,
the clinics, et cetera, et cetera. So I try and draw from
multiple sources as I head out on the road.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is interesting, and this is not to
drive the point home, the number of people that have a Fitbit,
and then we get a report in The New York Times that maybe in
some forward operating base somebody is lifting weights or they
are doing something, and we identify where the hell they are,
to the very aggressive, you know, enemies that are in that COM.
It is a concern, and you are assuring us that there is an
opportunity for input.
General Milley. Very similar in many ways. You know, we
call it battlefield circulation or going around and engaging
with soldiers and families and civilians around the Army. Do
that all the time. Constantly on the road doing it. Been doing
it for 40 years. So you get a lot of feedback that way.
In addition to that, though, formally, we do a lot of
surveys, we do a lot of scientifically based analyses of
various people's opinions.
Thirdly, we run a thing called a Captain Solarium, where I
go out, we assemble a representative group of captains. It is
run by Fort Leavenworth annually, and they go out and they do a
whole seminar the last couple weeks. And then I go out and meet
with them, and they give me back briefs on a wide variety of
topics that we think are of interest to them.
The sergeant major is important in this regard too. We
have, I personally think--and I have known a lot of sergeant
majors and I love them and respect them all, but I personally
think Dan Daly is one of the finest noncommissioned officers
the Army has ever produced, and I think he is the best sergeant
major in the Army the Army has ever had. This is a man who has
massive amounts of energy. He has a natural connective tissue
sort of with the younger generation and the troops out there,
and he gets out there. So I talk to him frequently, get a lot
of unvarnished sort of opinions.
The other thing too that is key for both the Secretary and
I and anybody operating at these levels is to remain open-
minded, accept bad news, don't go ballistic if it happens to be
bad news at a moment in time, but remain open-minded and fresh
to new ideas.
This is a different generation. It is a remarkably talented
generation of young people that are out there in our military.
They communicate in different ways. Staying active on Facebook
and Twitter, we get all kinds of ideas and feedback from those
lanes as well. But I think being open to fresh new ideas.
We know in the world of science, the most brilliant
mathematicians, they were most brilliant in their twenties.
Einstein and many, many others, the passing of Stephen Hawking,
they did some of their most brilliant work in physics and
mathematics early in their life. And that is true, I think, of
the military or any other area that requires innovation.
The innovation is with the youth, and that is important,
that we at the top who work with Congress on the resources and
the budget, we remain open-minded to fresh new ideas to solve
age-old problems.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you both.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Visclosky.

Remarks of Mr. Visclosky

Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
You have already addressed the issue with Chairman
Frelinghuysen, so I don't need a response. I just feel
compelled to emphasize again--and I appreciate your positive
response--that the additional moneys the Department is going to
receive in 2018 are significant. It is Congress' fault that we
have shaved 5 months off of your year, but the fact is the
increase the Department is going to have is greater than the
total spending of five different subcommittees on this
committee. So I appreciate the care.
Second thing that the chairman brought up about younger
people, and one of my faults on this subcommittee is I do not
travel enough, I do not visit enough bases, do not talk to
enough enlisted people and appreciate the efforts you have gone
to. I still remember, and it was very moving, we cleared out
all the adults, talked to the children at the school at Fort
Campbell. And it was moving. After about 15 minutes, then you
realize you actually want to listen to them. And so I
appreciate that.
I would suggest, and don't need a response, trust you are
also with the women enlisted, clearing all the men out of the
room and having a conversation with them as well. So, again,
appreciate your service.
And thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Closing Remarks of Chairman Granger

Ms. Granger. Thank you.
I have just one last thing. Along with that significant
amount of money goes a significant amount of confidence in the
abilities of the U.S. Army. We never forget that.
Also, I had a wonderful conversation yesterday in my
office. And I want to tell you one of the things that will
always stay with me, and I wish I had said this at the
beginning because it is for the whole subcommittee. You are
very clear about what 16 years of war did to our Army, and that
is something that we need to always keep in mind. So you are
catching up in a different way than others that we work with.
Also, the SFAB program is a fascinating program. Be sure
and keep us up to speed on that, because I see that it has
great possibilities.
Thank you both for all your service, and we are adjourned.
I think I was supposed to say something about that. Hold on.
That concludes today's hearing. The subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Rogers and the
answers thereto follow:]

Army Efforts To Deter Russian Aggression in Europe Through the European
Deterrence Initiative (EDI)

Question. The Army should continue to prioritize its EDI efforts to
promote stability in Europe. Can you please describe how the Army's
FY2019 EDI requests assist us in deterring Russian aggression in
Europe?
Answer. The FY2019 European Defense Initiative (EDI) provides the
necessary resources for the U.S. to demonstrate its combat power in
Europe, improves interoperability with NATO allies, integrates the
Total Army, and allows for the rehearsal of relevant war plans. The
Army continues to collect and develop requirements for Europe in
coordination with U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) and has submitted proposed
enhancements in OSD's FY19-23 Program Budget Review for improvements
with Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) Battalions (FY20), Combat Service
Support Brigade Headquarters (FY19), and Corps Headquarters (FY TBD).
Additionally, EDI enables the Army's efforts to build partner capacity
for newer NATO members and increases the capability of USAREUR through
the provision of more than 1,000 man-years of mobilized Reserve
Component Soldiers (10 USC 12304b authority).
There have been significant changes in Europe over the past three
years as a result of EDI investment. The Army is using this money to
fund the full time rotation of an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT)
with enablers, a Division Mission Command Element (MCE), combat
aviation assets to augment theater aviation providing a full Combat
Aviation Brigade capability, and fulfill our responsibilities as the
framework for NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) Battle Group in
Poland. This funding is also being used to enhance and modernize
prepositioned equipment, including ABCTs, critical air defense
launchers, and long range fires artillery. When combined with the
rotational ABCT, the 2 x ABCTs in the European Set of Army
Prepositioned Stocks, provide USAREUR the armored division capability
necessary to deter Russian aggression in Europe.
Question. One of U.S. EUCOM Commander General Scaparrotti's biggest
EDI-related priorities is increasing C4ISR capability. Though the other
services contribute as well, can you please discuss the ISR-related
Army EDI investments?
Answer.
______

Question. The debate between rotational units and permanently-based
units in Europe continues. While cost is obviously a factor, can you
both please discuss your thoughts on this issue?
Answer. Rotating forces from the U.S. to Europe versus forward
stationing these forces allows the Army to build capability in two
ways. First, it provides greater flexibility to shift forces to meet
the greatest need. Under the current National Defense Strategy, the
Secretary of Defense requires an increasingly flexible force that can
be employed proactively, while deterring aggression in multiple
theaters. Rotational forces enable the Army to dynamically surge forces
wherever the threat emerges and provide proactive, scalable options.
Second, it increases our institutional agility by exercising the
systems involved in the mobilization and deployment process. While
forward stationing increases assurance to our allies, the institutional
agility that the Army demonstrates by rotating units builds combat
credible deterrence and offers strategic flexibility.
When deciding whether to forward station or rotate units, the Army
carefully measures cost factors and operational impacts. For example,
transportation and operational costs are significant for rotational
units while soldier travel, family housing, schools, and cost-of-living
allowances are considerable cost factors for forward-stationed units,
an impact magnified by expensive land, facilities, and construction
costs. While the Army's analysis has often supported rotating major
force elements over forward stationing, the Army has sought forward
stationing in specific situations. Forces are considered for forward
stationing if there is an enduring requirement and a limited pool of
available forces with that specific capability. Additionally, units
must be stationed in areas that allow them to build and maintain their
readiness and provide the flexibility necessary for global employment.
In this case, forward stationing allows the Army to free up units for
global assignment rather than rotating to Europe.

National Guard State Partnership Program

Question. The National Guard State Partnership Program continues to
provide great value in U.S. efforts to build partner military capacity
with allied countries.
Can you please discuss the role that the National Guard State
Partnership program provides to our country's national security?
Answer. The State Partnership Program (SPP) is a DoD security
cooperation tool used by the geographic combatant commanders to advance
their security cooperation goals and support national security
interests in 80 countries, covering all six geographic combatant
commands around the globe. This is accomplished by conducting over
1,000 SPP events each year. These events leverage two distinct
advantages the National Guard offers: the ability to foster enduring
relationships due to the connection of many Guardsmen to their
respective states for the lengths of their careers and the ability to
leverage the civilian skill sets of our citizen-Soldiers and Airmen.
Moreover, while SPP partner nations are paired with one state or
territory, they have access to all 54 and their respective National
Guard capabilities, a feature which affords the United States a better
understanding of partner nation capabilities. No other program can
offer these advantages to the DoD or the United States.
Question. For FY17 and FY18, Congress has added additional funding
for SPP--about $8 million per year. If Congress did so again for FY19,
can you please discuss the value this would provide?
Answer. The State Partnership Program (SPP) received $8M in
Congressional Adds in FY17 and FY18. However, for FY17 and FY18, four
total new partnerships were added to SPP, and for FY19 several
geographic combatant command countries have been nominated for new
partnerships. Any additional money in FY19 will be used to address the
continued growth of the program in both the number of SPP engagements
per year and the number of new partnerships.
Question. The Army may not be conducting the most efficient process
for the procurement of its Soldier Borne System nano-UAV program.
On 19 January 2017 the Army Requirements Oversight Council validate
a requirement for the Soldier Borne Sensor program and recommended a
multi-year minimum procurement of 2423 systems while approving a
program cost of approximately $56 million. Based on information
provided by the Department of the Army to the Subcommittee on 15 August
2017, the Army plans to do a one-year acquisition (Tranche 1) followed
by a multi-year procurement of SBS.
Given that the Army's initial procurement plan includes a one-year
acquisition, has the Army re-baselined this program? And if so, please
provide the committee with the total projected program cost to achieve
equivalent volumes.
Answer. Yes, the Army is updating the Acquisition Program Baseline
for the Soldier Borne Sensor (SBS).
On 19 January 2017, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (VCSA)
approved the SBS Capability Production Document (CPD), which specified
the procurement of a total of 7,175 SBS systems over a ten year period
from Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-2028, for a total program cost of $141.5M.
Concurrently, the VCSA approved the procurement and fielding of the
first tranche of 2,423 SBS systems by FY2021 at a total cost of $47M.
Currently, the Army estimates that it will cost $48.5M to procure and
field the first tranche of 2,423 systems based on actual price quotes
received in response to the FY2018 Defense Logistics Agency Request for
Quotes. The estimated unit cost per SBS is $15,923.
Question. The FY18 Army budget documents project acquisition of 200
systems at approximately $10,260 per unit cost. The FY19 budget
documents project acquisition of 1,084 systems at $15,923 per unit.
Please explain the rationale for significantly different per unit costs
with a higher volume.
Answer. The FY2018 P-40 exhibit for the Soldier Borne Sensors was
based on initial market research from FY17 that identified a unit cost
of $10,260 for a maximum possible quantity of 200 systems.
When Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) submitted the Request for
Quotes (RFQs) for FY2018, the Army learned that the unit costs had
increased from the initial market survey information from FY17.
In FY2018, the Army shifted its contracting strategy from a Lowest
Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) to a Best Value competition (with
performance as the most important criteria). That, coupled with DoD's
discovery of vulnerabilities in the Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(SUAS) supply chain (which eliminated some of the lower cost vendors),
drove the cost increase seen in the industry response to the FY2018 DLA
RFQ.
The FY2019 budget documents incorporate the additional information
received from industry's responses to the DLA RFQ. The Army estimates
that FY2019 funding ($21.68M) will procure approximately 1,084 systems
at a unit cost of $15,923. However, pending the outcome of the full and
open, best value competition scheduled for a third quarter FY2019, we
anticipate that competition could drive down the prices.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Rogers.
Questions submitted by Mr. Calvert and the answers thereto
follow:]

Training

Question. The FY19 budget request funds additional rotations at the
Combat Training Centers (CTCs) and plans the introduction of Synthetic
training at all locations starting in late FY20 or FY21. Given the
technology challenges to achieve accurate simulation of small arms
weapons and augmented reality to deliver a virtual fighting enemy, it
could take several years to achieve the full vision of Synthetic
Training Environment.
What is the Army planning to do in the meanwhile to rapidly
increase the quality, availability, and utilization of live
instrumented training at Home Stations and Deployed Forces to build
readiness before reaching the CTCs?
Answer. The Synthetic Training Environment (STE) Cross Functional
Team (CFT) has identified many promising technologies that are already
demonstrating the ability to accelerate the timeline to deliver
capability to the force. For example, the Squad and Soldier Virtual
Training is very close to being realized and the Army plans to expand
delivery of the first increment of this capability as early as FY19.
This capability has already proved very valuable by U.S. Army Europe to
enhance small arms marksmanship skills, as well as train small unit
(Squad/Team) collective maneuver.
The maneuver combat training centers have set the precedent and
standard for the use of instrumentation to provide objective data on
unit performance during force-on-force maneuver training. Based on that
precedent, the Army has fielded instrumentation systems to enable
force-on-force training at home stations with common components and
capabilities. They use Instrumentable-Multiple Integrated Laser
Engagement System (I-MILES) coupled with player units to track Soldiers
and vehicles. Systems can monitor voice and digital communications and
record live audio and video of the training event. This data is
consolidated through a computerized Tactical Analysis Facility, where
the unit's performance can be assessed and feedback provided via After-
Action Reviews.
The Army Home Station Instrumentation Training System (HITS) is
designed to enhance training by instrumenting force-on-force live
training exercises for battalion level and below. Thirteen HITS suites
have been fielded to Active Army unit locations and two suites have
been allocated to U.S. Army Reserve locations.
To support Army National Guard (ARNG) training, the ARNG fielded
FlexTrain, a rapidly deployable, global positioning system (GPS)-based
instrumentation system that interfaces with Army MILES. FlexTrain
supports live force-on-force training and live fire training at the
brigade level and below through the ARNG's eXportable Combat Training
Capability (XCTC) program. The XCTC is a programmed home station,
commander-driven event that cycles all 27 ARNG Brigade Combat Teams
(BCT) through scheduled training. ARNG BCTs receive external
evaluations from First Army and Regular Army Division partners at
echelons from platoon to brigade.
To support units deployed or stationed in Europe, the Army fielded
the Deployable Instrumentation System Europe (DISE) which is a Soldier,
vehicle and building GPS and radio tracking system combined with an
exercise control cell and can be located with the supported unit within
training areas. The DISE system is located at Grafenwoehr Training
Area, Germany and is deployed to locations across Europe to support
unit collective training with Multi-National partners.
To support units stationed or deployed in the Pacific, the Army
fielded Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Capability
Instrumentation System (JPMRC-IS). The JPMRC-IS system is an enhanced
HITS capability located at Scofield Barracks, HI and deployed to
locations across the Pacific to support unit collective training.
The Army recognizes the benefit of synthetic training environment
and will look to leverage and improve the capabilities discussed.
Question. The Army's emphasis is on Training & Readiness across the
total training continuum from individual training to large unit
collective training, at home station, CTC and while deployed. ``Ready
for Combat Training'' must be a continuous cycle that avoids readiness
degradation following training events.
Has the U.S. Army conducted a holistic capability needs assessment
to evaluate existing training capabilities that are linked to
requirements across the training continuum that inform training gaps
and address the sustainable readiness model?
What was the conclusion and what are the key enablers to accelerate
learning, increase throughput, improve learning retention, and provide
end-to-end assessment to alleviate the constraints on training that
exist today and improve overall training effectiveness?
How do resource informed requirements (Programs of Record) fit into
the current OTA informed methodology between Milestone A and Milestone
B? Part 2 of this question--As it pertains to training & readiness, it
seems that there would need to be an increase of funding to sustain the
existing Programs of Record while developing and introducing new or
improved alternatives. Does PB 19 account for funding existing programs
in parallel with the OTA efforts?
Answer. The Army recently conducted a holistic capability needs
assessment that identified critical gaps in training capabilities
required to allow the Army to successfully execute cross domain
operations in accordance with the Army Operating Concept. U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) completed an Enhancing Realistic
Training Capabilities Based Assessment, as well as a New Generation
Warfare Study focused on a near-peer threat which identified further
gaps in the Army's ability to generate and sustain training readiness.
The Army also supports the Department of Defense (DoD) Close Combat
Lethality initiative which identified further training readiness gaps
at the small unit and collective training level.
These assessments identified training gaps captured in the Army
Collective Training Environment (ACTE) Initial Capabilities Document
(ICD) approved by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (VCSA) on 8 March
2018. The ACTE ICD lays the foundation for the Synthetic Training
Environment (STE) and the Soldier and Squad Virtual Collective Trainer
(SSVT) as potential solutions and identified other science and
technology initiatives needed to close training readiness gaps in our
ability to replicate the operational environment for multi-domain
operations in the strategic environment for 2020 and beyond.
The Army currently has capabilities being developed under the Other
Transaction Authority (OTA). These are the Army Training Information
System (ATIS), which is a defense business system program of record,
and the Synthetic Training Environment (STE), which is currently being
developed through a Cross Functional Team (CFT) approach. Both ATIS and
STE are resourced with Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
(RDTE) funds to develop a materiel solution through prototyping. The
current PORs that both ATIS and STE replace do require sustainment
while ATIS and STE are under development; however, the Army is assuming
an acceptable level of risk by reducing these legacy program
improvements as the means of resourcing ATIS and STE.

Home-Station Training

Question. The Army continues to build on a major initiative with
the Non-System Training Device (NSTD) program to introduce realistic
and effective training devices into the individual and unit training
setting. These devices bring into play many aspects of the combat
environment. This effort includes the acquisition of training
capabilities that support force-on-force training, force-on-target
training, engagement simulation, and classroom instruction to allow
soldiers, leaders, and units to train tasks and missions that would be
unsafe or too resource intensive to conduct with actual weapons,
weapons systems, and ammunitions or if done in the actual environment.
The Army procures a variety of NSTD items such as the Home Station
Instrumentation Training System (HITS). In fact, General Milley
recently validated the need and importance for Home-station training.

``While combat training centers are invaluable and remain
important venues for validating home-station training, Milley
said synthetic training environments at home-station can
provide a wider variety of training scenarios than Combat
Training Centers can, and can do so with multiple repetitions
at reduced cost.
--General Mark A. Milley before the Association of the U.S.
Army (January 17, 2018)

With increased investment in the home station training environment
can the Army accelerate expansion, upgrades and enhancements to your
force-on-force training systems to provide more realistic training at
home station?
Readiness has been identified as a priority. Would the Army find
increased funding for home station training capabilities to modernize
instrumentation and simulation be useful in building readiness across
the total force?
Answer. The Army's requirements for home station instrumentation
and simulations are contained in the Army's budget request for FY2019.
Increased investment in the home station training capabilities and
science and technology initiatives, as identified in the Army
Collective Training Environment (ACTE) Initial Capabilities Document
(ICD), would provide solutions to improve the ability to replicate the
operational environment in order to enhance realistic collective
training and conduct combined arms operations in support of multi-
domain operations. In particular, increased investment would enable
Army to accelerate readiness through training across all domains in a
contested complex environment that includes cyber, electronic warfare,
space, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) and dense
urban environments. The Army Synthetic Training Environment (STE) and
the Soldier and Squad Virtual Training (SSVT) will provide capabilities
critical to upgrade and enhance the force-on-force training systems to
provide more realistic training at home station. The STE CFT focus is
primarily on enhancing the virtual force-on-force training capability
while providing limited upgrades to live instrumented training at home
station. Opportunities to accelerate live force-on-force capabilities
are available and can be integrated into our current capabilities
development methodology.

Yakima Training Center

Question. The Army FY18 UFR requested additional funding for a
second brigade of upgunned Stryker's to increase lethality. The FY18
NDAA provided the authorization.
How does the FY19 President's Budget request prioritize Stryker
lethality?
Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) recently completed an
assessment of Stryker program priorities and directed that all six
remaining Flat Bottom Hull Stryker Brigade Combat Teams convert to the
Double V-Hull Al configuration, which prioritizes mobility and
protection over lethality. The Army will make a decision in early 2019
on Stryker lethality materiel solutions based on the results of
training and evaluation of the 30mm Stryker vehicles and CROWS-Javelin
systems being fielded to the 2CR in Germany beginning in FY 2018.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Calvert.
Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the answers thereto
follow:]

Tactical Communications Network Solutions

Question. My question has to do with Tactical Communications
Network solutions. I am thinking specifically of systems which could
support a Brigade Combat Team operating across GPS-denied environments,
including subterranean environments. One solution would be to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars developing such a system. However, I
understand there are existing, commercial technologies, some of which
are currently used by the FBI and U.S. Special Forces. This may require
an independent written assessment, but I am wondering if you could
provide this Committee in a few weeks some feedback on the possibility
of testing existing, commercial systems to determine their possible,
broader use for Brigade Combat Teams?
Answer. The Army's Network Modernization strategy is focused on
employing commercial solutions as well as those systems already in use
by other services, agencies, and special operations forces (SOF) to
meet Army communication requirements in a congested or contested
environment. As part of this strategy, we will leverage the Network
Cross Functional Team rapid prototyping, experimentation and
demonstration efforts. The Army plans experimentation in Infantry,
Stryker, Armor, and Security Force Assistance Brigade formations to
assess suitability, security, and scalability of systems to determine
their possible, broader use in a variety of tactical environments The
Army plans to evaluate a vast array of technologies to include: Mobile
Adhoc Networks (MANET) incorporating advanced multi-input, multi-output
(MIMO) solutions for operations in dense urban terrain and subterranean
environments.

RDT&E Funding

Question. Given the Administration's requested budgets of $169
Billion and $182 Billion for FY18 and FY19, as well as the
Administration's focus on modernization, I would think that we would
have seen a more significant investment in the RDT&E account for FY19.
Will the requested level of funding in FY19 be able to address all of
the efforts as described in the Army's Modernization Strategy?
Additionally, what percentage or dollar amount of the FY19 RDT&E Budget
Request is allocated to create the new Modernization Command?
Answer. No, because the Fiscal Year 2019 (FY19) request was
completed only a few weeks after the Cross Functional Team (CFT)
charters and scopes of work were approved. While the Army was able to
quickly realign some of the FY19 request to meet the Army's Six
Modernization Priorities, there is still work to be done. As the Army
continues to refine requirements under the Modernization Strategy, we
look forward to working with Congress to realign any necessary
resources.
In regard to your second question, and for the same reason outlined
above, there are no Research, Development, Test and Evaluation monies
in the FY19 budget request specifically aligned for the Army Futures
Command.

High Energy Lasers

Question. A recent article suggested that the Army could have an
objective solution to the SHORAD capability gap within the next 5
years. Can you discuss the progress that has been made with regards to
high energy lasers? What are the timelines for IOC and what are the
limiting factors in providing this capability to the warfighters
earlier than the current timelines?
Answer. There are currently two efforts ongoing with regard to High
Energy Lasers (HEL). The Army is developing a pre-prototype 100
kilowatt-class laser system on a Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles
(FMTV) to meet the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-
Intercept (IFPC Inc. 2-1) program of record requirements to defeat
rockets, artillery and mortar (RAM) threats at fixed and semi fixed
site. This effort, the High Energy Laser Tactical Vehicle Demonstrator
(HEL TVD) effort began in FY2016 is scheduled to culminate in FY2022
with a Technology Readiness Level 6 (TRL6) demonstration against a RAM
target set. In 2017, Lockheed Martin built a 60 kilowatt-spectrally
combined fiber laser which has been integrated into the High Energy
Laser Test Truck in preparation for a 50 kilowatt-class demonstration
against RAM and UAS threats in late FY2018. This risk reduction
demonstration will provide key knowledge points for HEL TVD.
In FY2018, the Army began a 6.4 Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E) Technology Maturation Initiative (TMI) project to
demonstrate a Multi-Mission High Energy Laser (MMHEL) using current HEL
sub-system technology. Through the MMHEL project, the Army will
integrate and conduct an FY2021 demonstration of a prototype 50
kilowatt-class HEL weapon system integrated on a Stryker platform that
is able to maneuver with operational forces and counter Maneuver Short
Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) threats such as UAS, RAM as well as Rotary
and Fixed-Wing aircraft. In addition to the air defense capability, the
MMHEL will provide the Brigade Combat Team organic intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance as well as precision targeting
capabilities. The MMHEL operational demonstration (TRL 7) will inform
requirements and reduce risk for M-SHORAD.
Limiting factors are industrial base to mass produce laser and beam
control subsystem components and a full understanding of the laser
vulnerability modules for M-SHORAD threats. Army S&T continues
collecting, investigating, and developing laser vulnerability modules
for those targets.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Aderholt.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Wednesday, April 11, 2018.

U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND (USSTRATCOM)

WITNESS

GENERAL JOHN E. HYTEN, COMMANDER, U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND

Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

Ms. Granger. The subcommittee will come to order. Now that
the committee has wrapped up its work on the fiscal year 2018
budget, we can turn our full attention to the President's
fiscal year 2019 budget request. To that end, this morning, the
subcommittee will continue its series of Defense Posture and
Budget hearing. Today we will hear from General John E. Hyten,
Commander of United States Strategic Command.
Before we proceed, I would like to recognize the ranking
member, Mr. Visclosky, for a motion.
Mr. Visclosky. Madam Chair, I have a motion pursuant to the
provisions of clause D of section IV of the rules of the
committee. I move that today's hearing be held in executive
session because of the classification of the material to be
discussed.
Ms. Granger. So ordered, thank you.
United States Strategic Command employs nuclear, space,
global strike, joint electronic warfare and missile defense
capabilities that deter aggression, and decisively respond to--
if deterrents fail. In particular, the President has forecasted
the need to significantly increase spending on our nuclear
capabilities as reported in the recently released 2018 Nuclear
Posture Review. We thank General Hyten for joining us this
morning to discuss this in further detail.
Before I recognize our witnesses, I would like to recognize
our ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for any remarks he would
like to make.
Mr. Visclosky. Madam chair, I just appreciate you holding
the hearing today. General, I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
Before we begin, I would like to remind those in attendance
that this is a classified hearing at the top secret level. You
may not discuss the topics covered during this session beyond
this room, even though you may see some addressed in the media.
Now allow me to introduce our witness, General John E.
Hyten, the Commander of the United States Strategic Command.
General Hyten making his first official appearance before the
subcommittee. Welcome, please take 10 minutes to set the stage
with some opening remarks and then we will proceed to
questions, thank you.
[The written statement of General Hyten follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
be printed due to the classification of the material
discussed.]

Thursday, April 12, 2018.

FISCAL YEAR 2019 NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

WITNESS

GENERAL JOSEPH L. LENGYEL, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GRANGER

Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to
order. This morning, the subcommittee will hold a hearing on
the National Guard and Reserve Components. Today's hearing will
consist of two panels. During panel 1, we will discuss topics
related to the Army and Air National Guard and Guard joint
initiatives.
Our witness for panel 1 is General Joe Lengyel, the Chief
of the National Guard Bureau and member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Welcome to the subcommittee. We appreciate your being here
today to share the status of the Army and Air Guard and to
allow members to gain knowledge from your expertise about this
area.
I continue to reiterate as chairwoman of the subcommittee
that it is vital to the members of the committee that we hear
from our military leadership in order to make decisions
regarding funding and the future direction for our national
defense.
Additionally, General Lengyel, the committee wishes to
recognize the sacrifice of two officers and two enlisted air
guardsmen who died on March 15 when their helicopter crashed in
western Iraq. Also, a regular Air Force officer and two Air
Force reservists died in that crash. Our deepest sympathies to
the families of the victims.
There is a lot to cover today with two panels, but I wish
to highlight that the Guard continues to be deployed around the
world. And the most recent national news related to Guard
deployment is the President's recent announcement to use Guard
troops to defend the border between the United States and
Mexico. The committee has many questions, and I hope we are
able to address all of those today.
But, first, I would like to call on the ranking member.

Opening Remarks of Mr. Ruppersberger

Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, first thing, thank you for being
here. I have been taught years ago that if you are ahead, be
quiet and move on, so I will defer back to the chairwoman. And
by the way, I will be leaving here soon because we have--the
last 2 days we have been having our defense hearings three in a
row, so after my question I will probably be moving on. So I
hope there is some Democrat that shows up.
Ms. Granger. The slight attendance has nothing to with your
appearance and the importance of the issues. The people on this
subcommittee are on usually three other--three subcommittees
total, and they are very experienced, and so they will try to
be here, and then their appointments and their questions are
important in another committee too.
So, General Lengyel, would you like to make opening
remarks? And then we will move on to questions. If so, please
proceed.

Summary Statement of General Lengyel

General Lengyel. Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member,
thank you very much for having me here today. Distinguished
members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure for me to be here
today. And at this time, I would submit my full written
statement for the record.
The National Guard consists of 343,000 citizen soldiers in
the Army National Guard and 106,000 airmen of the Air National
Guard. They represent the finest National Guard in our 381-year
history. And I am honored to represent them, along with the
families, communities, and employers who support them.
In the National Defense Strategy, the Secretary outlined
the priorities for our military to deter war and protect the
security of our Nation. In supporting the National Defense
Strategy, my focus remains on our three primary mission sets:
the warfight, defending and securing the homeland, and building
enduring partnerships.
The Guard is tremendously appreciative for this committee's
support in enabling us to accomplish these missions. On any
given day, approximately 20,000 men and women of the Army and
Air National Guard work seamlessly as part of the joint force
in protecting our Nation's interest on every continent.
With approximately 850,000 deployments since 9/11, Guard
soldiers and airmen conduct complex operations around the globe
supporting commanders in every geographic combatant command.
Your continued support allows us to leverage our years of
combat experience to help confront current and future security
challenges. In the homeland, your investment supports on
average about 8,000 Guard soldiers and airmen everyday
conducting domestic and homeland security and defense
operations.
As you know, the Department of Defense is assigning our
guardsmen, under the command authority of their State
Governors, the mission of supporting the Department of Homeland
Security with its border security mission. Your Air National
Guard fighter wings are protecting our Nation's skies in 15 of
16 aerospace control alert sites, including the skies over the
Capitol today.
The Guard has over 60 percent of the Department of Defense
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear response forces
that are strategically positioned throughout the United States.
Our cyber force will grow to 59 units across 38 States by
fiscal year 2019 in addition to the existing 54 Army National
Guard defensive cyber operations elements.
Soldiers and airmen in our Counterdrug Program in
coordination with law enforcement agencies and other partners
detect, interdict, disrupt, and curtail drug trafficking across
our Nation, and Army National Guard ballistic missile defense
battalions defend the Nation against intercontinental ballistic
missiles as we speak.
On top of all this, the National Guard stands ready to
respond to emergencies, such as hurricanes, wildfires,
flooding, as well as assist law enforcement during times of
civil unrest, missions the National Guard performs with little
or no notice. This past year, over 45,000 men and women of the
National Guard responded to Hurricanes Irma, Harvey, and Maria,
while simultaneously supporting wild land fire fights across
the numerous States.
The National Guard was called 255 times and served more
than 1.8 million man days, responding to the homeland
emergencies in fiscal year 2017. Our presence in our
communities around the Nation uniquely postures us to respond
when our communities need us. The same investment that enables
the National Guard's success in the warfight and homeland
operations also helps build enduring partnerships with
international, Federal, State, and local partners.
The National Guard, through the State Partnership Program,
currently partners with 79 nations. This low-cost, high-return
program builds enduring partnerships based on mutual trust and
generates contributions to coalition efforts around the world.
On the Federal, State, and local level, our deep partnerships
with the National Guard unique authorities ensure a speedy
response with unity of effort during times of domestic crisis.
Our Nation is currently facing ever-evolving security
challenges. I am thankful for this committee's recognition and
support of your National Guard's role, both in the homeland and
abroad. For instance, this committee's support of the National
Guard and Reserve equipment account allows our force to improve
its ability to perform across the broad spectrum of
contingencies here at home and overseas.
Today's operational National Guard requires concurrent and
balanced modernization and recapitalization with our Active
Components. This committee's commitment to modernization and
recapitalization on platforms such as F-35s, and KC-46s, and C-
130Js, Black Hawks, and Humvees, ensures that the National
Guard is a seamless, interoperable total force partner
supporting the National Defense Strategy.
Finally, programs such as the State Partnership Program and
Counterdrug Program allow National Guard to leverage its unique
attributes to strengthen relationships overseas and aid
domestic law enforcement and counter illegal drugs.
Again, I am honored to be here representing the men and
women of the National Guard and the families who support them.
Thank you very much for the continued support, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The written statemernt of General Lengyel follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

BORDER SECURITY MISSION

Ms. Granger. Thank you so much. I want to make members
aware, of course, that we will be using a timer and each member
will have--we are going to start off with 5 minutes and we may
have to go down to a smaller number because we have two panels.
It sort of depends on how many people come in. You will have a
yellow light on the timer, for the witnesses, and when it shows
that you have 1 minute remaining, it will be yellow, and it
will turn to red.
General Lengyel, thank you for your opening remarks and
reminding all of us about the unique duties and
responsibilities of the Guard. We visited yesterday, you were
kind enough to come to my office and talk about some of this.
And they have--because they are people who are working in other
jobs most often during the time, so it takes a great deal of
commitment from those in the Guard, but also from their
employers. So it is unique, and I know that we all appreciate
them so much because, in our own communities, we have seen what
they have done so many times.
I would like to start with a question that is probably most
on people's mind right now having to do with the Guard. So I
would like you to give us an update on the recent announcement
the National Guard will be support at the border. And if you
know this, how many forces are we talking about, where would
they be deployed, what kind of role they would play, and would
this role comply with our applicable laws? And, finally, what
is the Pentagon's plan to pay for these forces?
I know that you can't, or I would be surprised if you could
answer all of those because you don't have all of that
information, but if you could, answer what you can, and let us
know how to prepare for the future.
General Lengyel. Yes. Chairwoman, thank you for the
question. It is important and it does convey kind of a unique
capability that the National Guard has in the homeland. Last
week, on the 4th of April, the President had a proclamation
suggesting that the National Guard would be used in a title 32
status to help the Department of Defense assist the Department
of Homeland Security in the border security mission.
The border security mission effectively is a national
security issue, and the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, are working together
to increase the security on the southwest border using the
National Guards of the States. And right now, it is only the
States along the southwest border--Texas, New Mexico, Arizona,
and perhaps soon to be California--to deploy their National
Guard in a title 32 status under the commanding control of the
Governors to assist the Customs and Border Protection Agency
with security at the border.
As of right now, the way it is working is CBP is providing
requirements through DHS to the Department of Defense. The
Secretary of Defense has created a border security support cell
in the OSD staff that is validating those requirements. Once
those requirements are validated by the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Security--Homeland Defense and Global
Security, which chairs this border security cell, they are
relayed to the National Guard in the States to be filled with
National Guard soldiers and airmen who can assist CBP in
accomplishment of the security.
The missions and roles that they are playing on the border
security are things that assist and free up the Customs and
Border Protection agents to actually go to the border and do
law enforcement. The National Guard is doing things such as
surveillance, such as maintenance, such as engineering
activities, such as transportation and aviation alike, to free
up the badges, if you will, to put them on the border.
Things the National Guard is not doing: The National Guard
is currently not doing direct law enforcement themselves. They
are not doing hands-on work with migrant issues as they come
across the border and are apprehended--but not by the National
Guard. The National Guard is not doing any of that.
As I speak to you today, there are 782 National Guard
soldiers identified that are actually on the border assisting
CBP in their border security role, and the preponderance of the
those are in Texas and Arizona. It is unknown what the total
number will grow to be. They are capped by the Secretary of
Defense action memo to a level no higher than 4,000 total
soldiers in support of the mission.
With regards to funding. The funding of this is it is
unknown exactly how long it is going to last, how big it is
going to be, and what the total funding operations required to
support it will be. In the Secretary of Defense action memo on
the 6th of April, he tasked the comptroller of the Department
of Defense to ascertain sources of funding to support this
effort, to make him aware of issues with respect to funding
that may impact the mission sets, and, if required, to notify
him of any reprogramming actions that may be necessary to allot
proper funding into the right places so that we can conduct the
mission and maintain the readiness of the force.
And, you know, I would ask that this committee look
favorably on any reprogramming actions that would come this
direction to use the funds that the National Guard has
appropriated for the readiness of the force, such that we can
use them to make the force ready for the longer term.
Ms. Granger. Thank you so much. There might be others that
will have questions about that. We will now go to Mr.
Ruppersberger.

TASK FORCE ECHO

Mr. Ruppersberger. Usually I try not to knock our
President; I don't think you get anywhere with it. But when I
totally disagree, I do want to make a statement, and then I am
going to get into what my real question will be, if I have
time. I really think this is really a waste of time for our
National Guard to be there.
Unfortunately, our President seems to rule more on his
instincts than he does on planning. And I would hope that the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security
will be able to persuade him where the role is. If you look at
the numbers as far as immigration, those numbers are really
down. What the real issues are on the border, in my opinion,
are drugs and fentanyl, and these are the issues we have to
deal with. And I would rather see him take more DEA agents and
put them there than National Guard. I think there are other
things that you could do than just being there in support. With
that said, I just thought I had to say that.
I am going to talk about the issue of Task Force Echo. And
this is a groundbreaking Army National Guard task force
supporting U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade, which Chairman
Frelinghuysen will tell you is in my district. At least he
reminds me of that.
Task Force Echo has proven very successful, and it is my
understanding that this mobilization will be continued by a new
iteration of Guard members. I applaud the decision to extend
this mobilization to conduct critical national cyber missions.
This is the first of its kind. Mobilization has brought
soldiers from seven different States to conduct missions for
U.S. CYBERCOM. Not only does the continuation of Task Force
Echo make our Nation more secure, it enhances partnerships
between our Guard and Active Components, and, in addition,
benefits States and industry as well.
The Task Force Echo initiative has certainly benefited from
the inclusion of experienced Guard soldiers with diverse
technical cyber backgrounds. My questions are, first: Using
Task Force Echo as an example, are there other similar
initiatives that you are considering in that field? And what
are the challenges you face of supporting such critical
national needs?
General Lengyel. Thank you, sir, for that question. I mean,
across a cyber enterprise, I think the National Guard is able
to be a force provider and contribute greatly to the cyber
defense of the Nation. Task Force Echo is a great example, sir,
of what is going on in Maryland National Guard. I think that
the contribution that this task force will make and has made at
U.S. Cyber Command is recognized----

STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Ruppersberger. And I point it out because it is very
important to move forward and having National Guard involved.
The other question I have, General, as you know, the National
Guard plays a critical role in deterring Russian aggression.
Now, Maryland's State Partnership Program, for example, has
created a top-notch cyber capability in Estonia. I have visited
them in Estonia. In August of 2017, the Estonian defense forces
and the Maryland Army National Guard conducted a joint cyber
defense exercise entitled Baltic Jungle. I believe these
operations are critical to showcase to Russia that our National
Guard cyber units are just as effective as those in the--as the
Active Component of our military.
My question, in your opinion, what is Russia's assessment
of our National Guard's cyber units? What challenges do you
have in recruiting soldiers to fill these roles? I will say I
believe you have 500 people in Estonia right now dealing on
this cyber issue, and it is very successful.
General Lengyel. Sir, I think the Russians look at the
National Guard in cyber as they do across every other piece of
military operation that we do. They see us as part of the
United States Army and part of the United States Air Force with
similar capabilities. And I think that the National Guard cyber
capability--to bring special cyber relationships that they have
and in the State Partnership Program with Estonia is hugely
successful.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back. Thank you. Oh, do you have
more to say?
General Lengyel. No. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Good. I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Chairman Frelinghuysen.

COSTS OF DEPLOYMENT TO THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Certainly,
on behalf of the committee, thank you for the remarkable things
the National Guard does around the world. I know that there is
bipartisan support for what we call the NGREA accounts. And I
think over the last 2 or 3 years and certainly under the
chairwoman's leadership those accounts have been robust, and
hopefully the equipment that you have requested is--we are
meeting some of your needs. We are also meeting just the issues
of readiness that affect obviously the regular force as well as
the National Guard.
I, too, have some questions on the deployment. The
Secretary of Defense was specifically authorized under title--
under title 32, section 502(f), is it authorization for 4,000?
General Lengyel. It is up to 4,000 yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is a little unclear to me, maybe
because this is a recent announcement, who is paying for what.
You are making a plea for reprogramming, which--who is actually
paying for what?
General Lengyel. Chairman, to be clear, as I haven't made a
plea for reprogramming yet because, as I said in my remarks, I
hope to make it clear that we don't know yet what the total
financial cost of this operation is going to be.
So, under 502(f)-502(f) authority, title 32, is federally
funded and temporarily using the accounts of the National
Guard, O&M and personnel accounts, to fund this operation on
the border. And that is money that I have. So the National
Guard will use those funds to fund the validated requirements,
it is validated by OSD, and authorized to the States to put on
the border, and so that is who is paying for this.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So, actually, what people are doing--so
is there the width and breadth of what people are allowed to do
now?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Are there limitations? I know there are
limitations that your personnel cannot conduct civilian law
enforcement activities. Is that right?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. In 502(f) status, the actual
action memo says specifically that, without explicit consent
from the Department of Defense from Secretary Mattis, that they
will not do law enforcement activity on the border.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. There is that term that the National
Guard--and this is actually not just in this instance, but in
the past, correct me if I am wrong, that the National Guard has
performed what are often referred to as other duties in support
of Department of Defense missions. Is that--do you anticipate
other duties being given to you? And have they been given to
the Guard in the past?
General Lengyel. We have performed duties in 502(f) before.
If you use as an example, after 9/11, when they put National
Guard soldiers into the airports to do security, they were
federally funded but yet managed and under the control of the
Governors in the States with which they perform that duty. It
is a similar situation here with which they are being provided
Federal resources, again, in support of the Department of
Homeland Security and CBP, in areas that CBP realizes that they
need assistance, such that their agents can be freed up to do
more direct law enforcement-type operations.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So is the border control, is the
Department of Homeland Security likely to reimburse you for
that, or is that something you are going to be carrying as an
ongoing cost?
General Lengyel. I believe this is--reimbursement is not
mandated from the Department of Homeland Security for this
particular act. But I would--I would get back--request to get
back with you if that is it, but I do not anticipate any
reimbursement from the Department of Homeland----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Obviously, this is a policy that they
laid down. I think more information rather than less
information as it comes to you would be extremely beneficial to
all of us here. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Ms. Kaptur.

STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, madam chair. Welcome, General, and
all your colleagues. I am a big supporter of the Guard, and I
represent many of those soldiers that fight for us at home and
abroad. Thank you for your work. I am going to focus just on
two areas initially, one is the State Partnership Program,
which for Ohio means Hungary and Serbia, but I am quite
interested in California's partnership with Ukraine.
And my question really attends really to the funding levels
in that program. If you could focus on that. What you have
requested compared to the current fiscal year. And also a
suggestion, because I have just returned from Ukraine, and if
we are going to win that battle and somehow blunt Russia's
propaganda, which is 40 times what the West pumps in there, we
are going to have to deal with the soldiers in the field in a
more effective way.
One of the things I discovered is that many of Ukraine
soldiers have PTSD, those who are currently serving, younger
soldiers, and also soldiers who fought under Soviet mandate in
Afghanistan from years ago. My question really is, how could
you, in your leadership role, provide apps and devices where
soldiers who have these illnesses could literally self-treat as
opposed to having nothing in the field?
Do you have the capability using the defense health
capabilities that exist within DOD and the Guard to use
California or other States who have Ukrainian-language-speaking
health professionals to try to get apps down into people who
literally are facing a third deployment to the front, and they
have PTS with no help? How do we deal with that issue?
General Lengyel. So, Congresswoman, thank you for that
question. So the State Partnership Program, as you know, in
California is very engaged in Ukraine. And they have, you know,
a wide range of opportunities to help integrate and assist the
Ukraine military forces in a wide number of ways, all through
the combatant command. So I think that should they decide that
the combatant commander decides that that is a good opportunity
and good use of State Partnership Program, then those
activities could be proposed and part of State Partnership
activities.
Ms. Kaptur. Could you get somebody back to me on that,
please?
General Lengyel. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. I would greatly appreciate that. And I would
like to know if there is funding to do that, if you are asking
for sufficient funding to accommodate something like that if it
proves beneficial.
General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am, I will get back to you. I do
not have funding that I am aware of to develop apps and use
them in the Ukrainian system. That would probably require some
additional funding levels. In general, with regard to the State
Partnership Program funding, we get about $16 million a year
for State Partnership funding. We get about 8 of that through
the Army and the Air Force, and the rest is a congressional add
that we get.
Sometimes it is hard for us to use all of the congressional
add because of the timing of the actual budget when we get the
appropriation. We feel like we need about twice that total
amount, about $29 million totally, to get all of the State
Partnership activities. The State Partnership has grown now
since Ukraine was one of the original 13 members, and now it
has grown to 80 partners and funding commensurately has not
grown. So I would make a pitch to say that----
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for pointing that out, General. Thank
you. I also wanted to add----
Mr. Visclosky. Would the gentlewoman yield for a second? I
just want to make sure--you would yield?
Ms. Kaptur. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. Visclosky. If I understand correctly, just so we are
clear, you are at $16 million in that account today, General?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. And under optimum circumstances, given the
demand in increase requests for partnerships, you would need
$29 million?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.

NATIONAL GUARD COUNTERDRUG PROGRAM

Ms. Kaptur. I thank the gentleman for clarifying that. I
also wanted to move to the National Guard Counterdrug Program.
Obviously, Ohio is heroin alley and fentanyl alley in my
district, right near where I live actually. About a week ago,
enough fentanyl was discovered to kill everyone in my district
five times over, and it is just staggering.
So my question really is, what are you doing on this front
in cooperation with localities or at our ports of entry in
order to try to stem the flow and deal with the crime
associated with this? I sort of mimic Mr. Ruppersberger's
comments, if we are going to send anybody to the border--the
three buzzards who did this in our district came from Houston,
and they drove up. And it was just--I can't tell you what an
impact it has had across our community, just the worrisome
nature of all of this.
General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am. The Counterdrug Program
throughout the National Guard provides a lot of great
assistance to the local, State, Federal, Tribal law enforcement
agencies that try to deal with this issue across the Nation.
Every State has a different problem set in their individual
States, as determined whether it is--where the crime comes
from, what the specific problems is, the origination of what it
is. But what has grown across the Nation is the opioid crisis.
Ms. Kaptur. General, could I ask you somehow to have--
provide me a summary of the funding that you are asking for in
this account, what currently exists, what could exist, your
best practices across the country. I am specifically interested
in Ohio, selfishly, but it is connected to points of entry in
Texas and California and so forth.
So I would like to know your broader perspective? Who is in
charge of the program? I really would like to meet with those
people.
General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am. Well, I can come to your
office and make sure that you get the right people. But the
money that we need----
Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
General Lengyel. The total program to run the Counterdrug
Program as we do right now is $200 million, plus $20 million
for the five schools, and that is the total number that we need
to----
Ms. Kaptur. $220 million.
General Lengyel. $220 million.
Ms. Kaptur. And that is at current levels?
General Lengyel. Current levels. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Rogers.

RECRUITING REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Let me follow up with Ms. Kaptur's line of questioning on
counterdrug activities. This is an epidemic we have not seen
the likes of before, as you well know. We are losing around
60,000 Americans a year on prescription pill and heroin
overdoses. Now we have the sinister new twist to that: As we
have begun to successfully crack down on pills, heroin becomes
cheaper and more available, and now it is being laced with this
God-awful sedative, fentanyl.
At least with pills you knew the dosage, but with the
heroin-laced fentanyl, you have no idea what the power of a
dosage is. And I am sure it is having an effect on your
recruiting, is it not? The use of drugs?
General Lengyel. Sir, recruiting is becoming more of a
challenge for us, and people are excluded from joining military
because of previous drug convictions and the like. It is having
an impact. I can't tell you how much, but it is having an
impact.
Mr. Rogers. Well, to follow up on Ms. Kaptur's questions
about your counterdrug budget items, you mentioned the five
regional centers. Some are criticizing those centers that the
instructors are retired law enforcement people instead of
National Guardsmen. What do you say to that?
General Lengyel. Well, sir, I think we run the schools. It
is a combination of people who understand how to blend the
military and the law enforcement capacity together. I think our
goal is to provide the best instructors, regardless of what
their background is and where they come. Some are National
Guard soldiers and airmen, and others are contractors. And I
think that is what we try to do is keep them filled with the
best possible instructors to get the best instruction to the
field that we can get.
Mr. Rogers. Tell us what those centers are for and what
they do and who runs them and why?
General Lengyel. So there are five separate centers and
their job--they exist to use our expertise in law enforcement,
and many of our Guard members are, in their civilian lives, law
enforcement officers and the like and professionals, and they
provide specific up-to-date current instruction on tactics,
techniques, procedures, operational issues related to opioids,
related to fentanyl, opioid trafficking and the like, so that
we can better detect, interdict, stop the flow of narcotics and
illegal drugs across the Nation.
Mr. Rogers. Are the centers aiming at stopping the use of
drugs by National Guardsmen, or is it a local law enforcement
effort that----
General Lengyel. It is a law enforcement effort, sir. They
don't focus specifically on preventative issues. That is not
the role of the National Guard or the counterdrug program. It
is to facilitate the law enforcement activities to actually
stop, find, interdict illicit drugs and trafficking.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I mean, we have DEA. We have got local
State Police. We have got local police. We have got all sorts
of people who are devoting themselves entirely to the
counterdrug operation. Why do we need these schools that
apparently are trying to do the same thing as we have forces
already there for it?
General Lengyel. Sir, I am told these schools are extremely
capable and have valuable instructors. I haven't been to one
myself, but if you would like, I will go to one and come to
your office and give you a more indepth report on the specifics
of these schools.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we are spending a good deal of money on
these five different regional centers, whose purpose I have no
idea what it is, and why the National Guard is running these
training centers, supposedly. Why is that so?
General Lengyel. Sir, I think that the individual States
that run these, you know, as I said again, the law enforcement
agencies that attend them say that the product is a useful
product, and it is a valuable school for the law enforcement
agencies that go. And I really don't have a better answer for
you than that.
Mr. Rogers. Well, could you get me something about it?
General Lengyel. I will, yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. There is no one--all of us are deeply concerned
about this horrendous epidemic that is sweeping the country
unabated, and we have got to marshal our forces to tackle every
element. And these training schools may be very critical. I
don't know. I hope they are, but we need to know whether or not
they are doing their job, and why they are there, and is it a
wise investment of our dollars?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Visclosky.

READINESS

Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
General, we continually talk about readiness in the
subcommittee, and it means something to the Guard as well.
Could you, given the approximately 344,000 soldiers in the
Guard, 60,000 of which are Active Guard and Reserve, tell us
what readiness means to you? And relative to making sure you
are in top form, is there a need to change that ratio, if you
would, to more full time so you are prepared? What does
readiness mean to you in that regard?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. I think that for us to quantify
the readiness of our units and our formations to do our wartime
mission is the most important thing that we do. So do we have
the right people? Do we have the right equipment? Have we got
the right training and to do our military job so that we are
assessed as capable to bring what the Army and the Air Force
need for us to bring?
I would tell you that, from a readiness perspective in the
National Guard, if we are to make our readiness better and
higher, some of the things we have already done to make this
operational force more ready are to add additional training
devices. Like the Army has added from two combat training
center rotations a year to four combat training center
rotations a year. That will help grow more ready brigade combat
teams for the United States Army.
But more fundamentally, the force that generates that
readiness so that, when they go to the combat training center,
they can actually do the training at this high level of
collective training that they are doing, it requires full-time
support inside the Army National Guard to build the
foundational levels of readiness that we do--that we need.
So, right now, that full-time number, that is close to what
we have--about a little less than 60,000 is what is inside the
Army National Guard--that is about, of the total force, it is
about 16.5 percent of 343,000 people. I would offer to you that
I think that to increase our readiness, we need to raise the
level of full-time support inside the Army National Guard.
Mr. Visclosky. Have you made a specific request in your
budget submission to us as to what that number should be and
what the additional cost would be?
General Lengyel. So what we have asked for this year is a
relatively small number; it is 440 additional recruiters, such
that we can go recruit more people in.
Mr. Visclosky. Let me ask you this, because I have a couple
other things, and we have some other members. Over and above
those recruiters, if you had the resources for more Active
Guard and Reserve for that readiness, could you effectively and
efficiently use it, and, if so, could you provide the
subcommittee with that number?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.

NEW POLICY FOR USE OF NATIONAL GUARD ON THE BORDER

Mr. Visclosky. The next question I have, and I would ask it
for the record, could you tell us what day you were informed of
the new policy relative to the use of the National Guard on the
border?
General Lengyel. What day?
Mr. Visclosky. I don't need it now, but when were you told
about this change in your responsibility on the border? Just
what day. And, secondly, were you consulted and asked for your
advice as to the design of this new policy before that day?
General Lengyel. Okay.
Mr. Visclosky. I would be curious, were you?
General Lengyel. I was not.
Mr. Visclosky. I would not ask you to go further. I would
simply say that I respect your service to this country. I
respect the position you have as Chief of the Reserve. And I
speak only for myself, if I am going to make a change of
policy, I would at least talk to you. I have no further
questions.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Graves.

CYBER MISSION TEAMS

Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
General, good to see you again and thanks for taking care
of the good people in Georgia. We have got a great team there
of men and women led by Joe Jarrard, and I know you have been
working hand-in-hand there, and we thank you for that.
My question is more related to the cyber mission teams and
the objectives coming up, and I just want to get your thoughts
and understand a little bit more about the road map and your
plan to reach the full operational capability, which is
scheduled for 2024.
Is the Guard's goal to stand up each of these full
operational capabilities planned at one time simultaneously,
all 11 teams, or is there sort of a plan to stagger that out?
And maybe you could just share with us some of the challenges
that you face and whether or not you are currently on track to
meet some of your objectives for 2024.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. I think that the 11 teams will
stagger over time. We will build them over time. Part of the
reasons for that is the allocations of school slots that we get
in order to get the folks that we need and to train them to
become these cyber warriors. I think we are on track to be--my
latest number is actually 2022 I think is when we thought we
were going to have all 11 teams up and trained and ready to go
for the National Guard.
Great examples of innovation in Georgia is standing up a
cyber cell at Augusta University, and this new Cyber Center of
Excellence standup there paid for by Georgia is giving the
National Guard a piece in there to actually recruit some of the
men and women who are going to school in the cyber field there.
So I think we are on track. I think cyber continues to be a
growing part of everything that we do. And in our full spectrum
competition across the globe, we are under attack every day in
the cyber domain. So I think that is important.

SURGE CAPABILITY

Mr. Graves. Well, that is good news on the progress. And
thank you for your partnership with the State, and I know the
State has committed a lot of dollars to help out there. So
thank you for your work with them.
And then Admiral Rogers recently described the Guard's
cyber contribution as providing a surge capability.
Can you explain the specific missions where the surge
capability would be used? Just give us a little--maybe what
your forecast would be for the future?
General Lengyel. So, I mean, the Army and the Air use their
cyber mission forces differently. The Air Force has always two
cyber mission teams on duty all the time, cyber protection
teams, for a 6-month period, and then they come off and two
more will go on. The Army doesn't do business that way. So the
Army looks for opportunities or requirements to surge the
force. Once they have all 11 cyber protection teams built and
trained, as requirements dictate, they will call those forces
to duty and use them.
Mr. Graves. Great.
General Lengyel. As the situation dictates.
Mr. Graves. And then, lastly, are there any cyber missions
the Guard could contribute to that are more routine and
enduring in nature, as you look ahead? Anything we can help
with and anything you can maybe give us a little direction on.
General Lengyel. So, you know, every State has a cyber
defensive--cyber operation team. It is a small team. Some
States are experimenting with looking at how to use those teams
more broadly as a State Active Duty asset that is under the
command of the Governor. So some States, in preparation for
election cycles, have used their cyber operations elements to
actually check the security of their State dot-gov networks.
I think that there is room to grow there in the unique
space that the National Guard has as a State asset as well, is
to take these trained cyber folks and use them to help the
State in keeping their network secure as well. So there is work
going on there as well, sir.
Mr. Graves. Great. Well, thanks for your service, and
thanks for your commitment and investment in this area, it is a
very new and growing and intense theatre, I am glad you are
getting engaged in it. Thank you very much, General.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Ms. McCollum.

AVIATION MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good to see you here, General. Thank you for all you do. I
am going to go from one extreme to another. I am going to talk
about modernization, and then I am going to talk about
recovery. They both have something in common, and that is
making sure that our servicemen and women have what they need.
So I would like to get your thoughts on the Army's Aviation
Modernization Program. Since the Active Component continues to
lean on the Reserves as an operational force globally, I think
it is important that the Guard benefit from the modernization
and the aviation that is happening.
So I would like to hear your thoughts on the necessity for
our Reserve Components to benefit from modernization. You
talked about readiness and training, but there is also the
hardware that goes with the men and women we call up to serve.
So, in the fiscal year 2019 budget that addresses Army aviation
modernization, I would like to know what the plan going forward
is to ensure that the Guard shares in this Army modernization
plan.

PUERTO RICO

And then, on recovery, as you know, Puerto Rico is still
recovering from the devastation that his from Hurricane Maria
last year. I was just down on the island, Madam Chair and
Ranking Member, looking at recovery work that is being done by
EPA, Fish and Wildlife, our National Park Service, and when
driving to the park assets, I went--I drove by the National
Guard.
I didn't have an opportunity--I didn't have enough time in
my schedule to be in meetings with the Guard, but I did meet
Guard and Reserve members who proudly serve and are very
instrumental in the recovery effort. So I would like you to
tell the committee what critical resources you don't have in
Puerto Rico, still running on generators. Vieques is probably 4
years out from having electricity, and it is not due to the
willpower of the people of Puerto Rico. It just has to do with
years of neglect in working together with our territory in
Puerto Rico to make sure that they had what they needed to be
self-sufficient and resilient.
Puerto Rico's economy was hit really hard by the Great
Recession. They haven't recovered from the hurricane yet. The
next hurricane season is on the way, and they know about it. So
I would like to know how the economic situation is affecting
your servicemembers? Some of them are still without power, and
they still have drills and things to do.
And unemployment is a significant concern. And I am
wondering if you are seeing a drop in recruitment and retention
because of the economy there but also because of the strain
that the hurricane has really put on a lot of the people in
Puerto Rico taking care of their family, their communities, and
then being able to proudly serve in the Reserve and Guard
Components.
General Lengyel. Thank you, ma'am, for those questions.
With respect to modernization, and aviation modernization
specifically, as I said in my opening remarks that the
difference with today's operational National Guard and really
operational Reserve Component is we used to modernize the
Active Component and cascade all the old stuff into the Reserve
Component, and that is the way it worked.
That model, I would advocate, does not exist--does not work
anymore. We are continuously deployed with our Active
Component. We train with our Active Component. When the Active
Component gives all the old stuff to the Reserve Component, it
tends not to be maintained, logistically supported, less
deployable.
So, you know, it is that--as the Army modernizes its fleet
of helicopters and tanks and everything in the Army, I advocate
inside the Pentagon with the Army that they modernize the Army
National Guard in a concurrent and balanced manner. Sometimes
it is hard to do that, I mean, the Army is a big organization
and has modernization priorities and does it, but we are
getting Black Hawks--new Black Hawks, I flew in one just last
weekend that had 120 hours of brand new--or Black Hawk M model.
And they are modernizing some of our older ones into Victor
models, and we are getting some new Chinooks as well.
I think readiness of the force and modernization of the
force is important. You know, the Apaches in the Army National
Guard are not manned at 24 Apaches like the Army should be.
Even some of the Army battalions don't have 24 Apaches. So that
makes it difficult for the Army National Guard to be as ready
in the Apache business as we may need to be. Should they need
to use all of our Apache battalions at once or in short order,
they would not be as ready as we would want them to be because
they simply don't have enough iron to be ready.
So, you know, in general, we are part of the Army's
modernization plan. And when they do--for future vertical lift
analysis and what is that going to look like, we have a member
of the National Guard on that team, and so when they figure out
what that is, we will be part of it, and my advocacy will be to
modernize the National Guard in a concurrent manner with the
Active Component.
With respect to Puerto Rico, I too was down there numerous
times, and Hurricane Maria devastated the place, it just
absolutely devastated the place, and it will be years before
they are completely recovered and have done it. How long it
will be before all of the people have power, I can't tell you,
that is that. And there is MILCON required to repair the
destroyed National Guard facilities and the like. There are
still hundreds of Puerto Rico National Guard soldiers that are
on Active Duty to mitigate the impacts from that disaster.
So I think that it is going to be a long time before they
recover, and you know, we continue to assist them every way we
can to make sure that they recover from that devastation.
Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I think we should
maybe ask if there is anything that this committee should be
doing to support the National Guard down there. They are the
first line of defense. It takes a long time to get down there.
Our Park Service, Fish and Wildlife, EPA, you wouldn't believe
the way that the Federal team stood up down there with doing
things, but they are still running on generators, and we need
to make sure before the next season that they have everything
that they need at the National Guard.
Ms. Granger. Thank you for that. And I completely agree
with you. Thank you for taking the trip to see that. I think we
are sort of out of sight, out of mind on some of that, and when
you hear they are on generators after this period of time, it
is really significant. Mr. Diaz-Balart.

STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
General, again, thanks for your service. Let me focus on
this State Partnership Program, which has been a great tool to
develop relationships with our neighbors, and particular in the
Western Hemisphere, Central America, South America, the Florida
National Guard has partnered with the Virgin Islands, with
Guyana--Guyana and others. And so it is also an important part
of what--frankly, with SOUTHCOM's mission is, right? Is to
develop those relationships, and I think a lot of folks don't
understand your role and the National Guard's role, and it is a
key role.
So just--you know, do you have the adequate funding to
continue that, what I believe is a vital mission? And if you
could just pretty much talk to us a little bit about what you
are doing and what some of your activities are because I don't
think a lot of folks know that it is the direct involvement of
the National Guard. And you go down and see it--you see it. So,
thank you, General.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. An incredibly important program.
The National Guard is growing now to more than 80 partnerships;
soon to be announced, several more will take us over 80. And we
run the gamut from full spectrum combat operations to disaster
response and civil control of the military and everything in
between. Growth of our NCO corps and the NCO development of our
partner nations to peacekeeping operations, humanitarian
assistance operations, all of those things, and we do it all
over the world.
We build what--really the product of this is trust and
relationships between nations, and never more evident than
across Europe as Russian aggression in Crimea and the
partnerships in the Baltics and former Soviet bloc countries
were absolutely instrumental in assuring our partners and
allies that we were there and part of them.
More than 80 times we have had codeployments to the war
where a partner nation will deploy to Afghanistan or Iraq with
a codeployment with our partner nation. So it couldn't be more
cost-effective. It is a very high leverage, low-cost program.
The Department of Defense will spend more than $3 billion in
defense support, security cooperation.
This program right now is funded at a level from all
sources at about $16 million. And earlier I mentioned we need
$29 million to continue the level of activity, to build those
meaningful relationships, and to do meaningful training across
the spectrum in accordance with and under the direction of the
COCOMs where these countries are, the combatant commands.
Amazingly important product. Unique in the Department of
Defense, really it is a thing that brings nations closer
together to do things together. Thanks for the question.

SOUTHCOM

Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, General.
And, Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for--because, you
know, SOUTHCOM, as I always mention, is one of those that,
since there aren't a lot of public issues that come up in the
hemisphere, and we kind of tend to forget about SOUTHCOM until
something happens in the hemisphere. But I want to thank you,
Madam Chairwoman, for always not forgetting SOUTHCOM and for
your leadership there in general.
I agree with you: We may have some--even when we have some
difficult relationships, the military-to-military relationship
is crucial and in some cases even more crucial when we have
some iffy partners, right?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I just wanted to, again, I don't know
if a lot of our colleagues outside of this committee know the
importance not only of these programs--I think they know that--
but that the National Guard is a big part of that.
So, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, General.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much to our first panel. We are going now to
Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Roby, and then we will go to the second
panel.

SECURITY FORCE ASSISTANCE BRIGADES

Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, thank you so much. The European deterrence
initiative is critical, and I think the more we see the level
of threats that are facing our democracy here in the United
States, as well as what is going on in Europe, to continue to
read and dive into some of these issues, it is absolutely
incredible that most Americans don't really understand the
level of threat that we are under right now. So I appreciate
what you are doing and what the Guard is doing.
I have a question. I know the Army plans to stand up six
Security Force Assistance Brigades, the SFABs. Five are going
to be Active Duty. One is going to be National Guard. Can you
give us an update on that and what it is looking like from your
end?

RYAN EDI FUNDING RECRUITING

General Lengyel. Yes, sir. The single Security Force
Assistance Brigade is standing up across five separate States:
Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Florida, and Georgia, I believe, are
the five States. Ohio will get a share of that SFAB. And it is
about 65 people, I believe. And we are, I think, on track for--
I think it is--I have to get back with you on exactly when it
is supposed to be up and running. It is not in my brain here
right now, but I will get back with you on exactly when we
expect to be up and operational, but part of that is coming to
Ohio.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. On the EDI, go over those numbers that
you mentioned again when Mr. Diaz-Balart was talking--asking
you. How much money goes to the Guard for EDI?
General Lengyel. EDI is different than SPP.

EUROPEAN DETERRENCE INITIATIVE (EDI)

Mr. Ryan. I know, I am going backwards.
General Lengyel. Right. I would have to go look. We have
lots of National Guard forces who are mobilizing into Europe
with European----
Mr. Ryan. The EDI?
General Lengyel. Yes. I can't give you that number here, I
would have to go figure it out.

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Mr. Ryan. Okay. I just want to see a comparison of the two,
so we will get that. On the issue of the recruiting and
retention, one of the issues that keeps becoming an issue, has
been an issue, is the issue of fitness and the ability to
recruit.
Can you talk to us a little bit about meeting the standards
and any changes you may have seen over the past few years for
our inability to kind of meet some of these numbers because of
the fitness goals aren't being met?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. I mean, just, in general, across
America, there tends to be a less fit general younger
population than there once was. Fitness standards to be in the
military are, you know, they are what they need to be. So it is
getting harder for not just the Army National Guard or Air
National Guard to find people that meet recruiting standards--
and it is not just fitness; it is across the spectrum of
education and suitability and the like.
So, this year, I would offer that the National Guard, the
Army National Guard, may actually not meet our end strength at
the end of the year that we had at 343,500. We are going to
struggle to meet that total number. For the past 5 years, the
National Guard has failed to meet our recruiting goals of how
many people. We met end strength because we were able to retain
more of the current force.
Mr. Ryan. Right.
General Lengyel. But I think we are going to see that as
more broadly a problem that would require changes to how we
market, changes perhaps even in increased resources, to how we
market more recruiters. Different approaches to try to get
people to fill our ranks.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I just think this is a broader discussion
that we need to have because this is an issue that keeps coming
up, keeps coming up. The demands are greater. And I don't know
if we need to do some kind of national initiative led by the
military about general health, but it is--it has really
diminished our ability to recruit the kind of soldier and
airman and seaman that we need.
And, again, we get locked in these little silos of it is a
defense problem; it is also a societal problem, and the two
interface with each other every single day. So that may be part
of a broader conversation we need to have.
I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
The good news and the bad news, General Lengyel, is there
is lots of the interest in what you are in charge of; the bad
news is you get to come back.
So Mrs. Roby.

F-35S

Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you, General, for being here, and as always, we
appreciate your service to our country and that of your family
as well, and for all of the guardsmen and women that you
represent all across our country.
As you are aware, we discussed this yesterday. We, in
Alabama, are very, very excited about the Air Force's decision
to field the F-35s at Dannelly Field for the men and women of
the 187th. It is a fighter wing. We are very proud of their
capability. We know, at the end of the day, it was those men
and women that contributed to that decision. Of course, the red
tails also have a storied combat record, and the River Region
is extremely proud and supportive of our Air Force and our Air
National Guard.
I just thought this would be a good opportunity for you to
provide us an update as it relates the F-35 rollout, maybe a
more definitive timeline as you see it as it relates to these
Guard units that have just been given the opportunity to field
that mission.
General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am. Well, congratulations to
Alabama. I wish I could take credit for that, but the Air Force
has a very defined process which analyzes basing criteria, and,
you know, Dannelly Field came out in appropriate manner at the
top of that process for Air Force. I believe that, you know,
there is no change from what you have heard before that I am
able to really update you. I think that 2024, is that the
timeframe that----
Mrs. Roby. 2023 is what we were told the aircraft might
arrive.
General Lengyel. To my knowledge, that has not changed for
Alabama. But if it has changed, I will look into it and provide
you an update immediately if anything changes.

PILOT SHORTAGES

Mrs. Roby. Well, we appreciate that. And, again, look
forward to continuing that conversation. But, again, just on
behalf of the men and women of the 187th, we are all very
thrilled.
One of the things that comes up in all of our discussions
across all of our militarywide is the issue of the pilot
shortages. I don't know if you have already addressed this. I
apologize; I came in late. But I just would like for you to
tell us, from your perspective, as it relates to the National
Guard, how you are being affected by pilot shortages. And then
really provide us, if you can, and maybe not at this time, but
any opportunities that you see on the policy side how we can be
helpful on that front?
General Lengyel. Yes, the nationwide issue with regard to
having the number of pilots that our Nation needs both in the
commercial sector and in the military is impacting the National
Guard. It is not impacting us as much as it is impacting the
Active Component. The good news for the Reserve Component is
you can be both an airline pilot and a military pilot.
With respect to how our individual units are done, I would
say that our total pilots we are short about 15 percent of what
we need. In general, and these are broad terms, I can get you
exact terms if you wish, but in broad terms, we are actually
able to maintain and recruit all of our part-time force. We
have a lot of people who are leaving the military, want to stay
involved in military aviation, so, in many cases, not in all,
there are some areas where that is not true, but broadly, we
are able to keep the part-time force.
Where we are having trouble keeping people is qualified
instructor pilots, the full-time force, who actually want to
be--for the full-time people, more specifically, it is the
technician full-time force that is very, very hard to retain.
We simply can't pay them enough. People tend to want--if they
are going to be full time, they want the opportunity to retire
after 20 years of service, and perhaps have a follow-on
military career. So that particular aspect of our full-time
force is harder to keep.
The Active Guard Reserve slots in the full time, there are
many people in the Active Component who decide that they don't
want to move as much anymore, but they don't want to be an
airline pilot, so they will move and live in Montgomery,
Alabama, and be a full-time pilot in the 187th fighter wing,
just like similar status of Active Duty Air Force and retire at
20 years and keep the benefits and the like.
So, if there as policy issue that could help us, it would
be to help us increase the Active Guard Reserve billets versus
the technician billets across the force. In general, I think as
our force is migrating towards this operational force, you will
see a request from us. In fact, we submitted a report through
OSD to Congress on the analysis of our full-time force. You
will see us move more towards a request for an Active Guard
Reserve force, I think, as opposed to a technician full-time
force. We still see that as a valued resource in some ways, but
over time, that will be something we may ask you for.
Mrs. Roby. Well, again, thank you for your service. We
appreciate you being here today.
And I yield back.
General Lengyel. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Womack.

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I apologize for being here late. As I told the
distinguished chair here that chairing the House Budget
Committee is just jerking all my time away from me, and I miss
sitting here on this dais engaging in military discussions. So
I want to associate myself with the remarks of my friend Tim
Ryan over here about medical fitness. I encountered that as a
commander. Medical fitness is a critical problem across the
spectrum of society but certainly with regard to the military
because we have certain standards that we have got to have. And
if they don't have them, we can't take them.
I want to ask you a question about retention--recruiting
and retention. It is my belief that, as our National Guard and
Reserve Components are utilized more and more in our national
defense posture, and I know General Kadavy has talked about the
Guard 4.0 or whatever his term is for it.
General Lengyel. Yes.
Mr. Womack. And the notion that we need to increase the
training days available to a lot of the people, particularly
those going into the box, that sort of thing. I get all of
that. There has got to be a sweet spot in there somewhere
though, with our employer support to the Guard and Reserve,
with our families. We are talking about recruiting problems
right now and not being able to meet mission. I would guess
that improved economic conditions in this country are causing
people to have better jobs, and the need to be in the part-time
military may not be as attractive as it once was.
So do you have those concerns about the other elements of
society that have an impact on our ability to recruit and
retain people into our Guard structure?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. I do have those concerns. You
know, the demand on the part-time force and, you know, that the
Reserve Component brings an immense amount of combat capability
to the Department of Defense at a lower cost because we don't
get paid when we are not being used, and that is value in that.
As long as we keep them ready and then they are properly
equipped, then they can go to war and provide combat capacity
when we need it.
I think that General Kadavy is spot on. The Army National
Guard is different now than when you or I was actually a young
officer in the military. There is more exception to be used. We
have a different force, though, the force that has gotten into
the National Guard expects to be deployed; they want to be
deployed. They are willing to training 45, 50, 60 days a year,
provided it is predictable, provided that when they do train
that, at the end of that, there is a meaningful reason why to
deploy them. So, whether they deploy to the Sinai or whether
they deploy to Bosnia or Kosovo or whether they employ to ERI
in Europe or to Pacific Pathways in the Pacific, there is a
reason for the employer to see that this soldier or airman is
actually contributing to the national defense. There is a sweet
spot in there where we will break it. And if we get past the
point where the employers don't support our members, and right
now--I had met with the president of ESGR 2 weeks ago, and
while there are pockets of people where employers are getting
weary, overall, we still broadly have great support from our
employers.
So it is incumbent on us to be predictable when we can and
let people see the meaningful impact that this work does for
the national defense of the United States.

PILOT SHORTAGE

Mr. Womack. There was some discussion about pilot shortage,
and I want to be careful I don't run out of time here. Have you
considered this title 32, title 5 exchange program--I guess it
is what--I don't know what the percentage is of the mix, but
have you considered using any of the personnel that could be
used in that title 5 force mix as an enhancement to addressing
some of this pilot shortage?
General Lengyel. So, sir, I don't--in the National Guard
case, we don't see the title 5 as a good resource to put as our
aviators, our combat-coded unit type codes that actually deploy
and go to war. We see the best use of title 5 resource in the
National Guard case as those that don't necessarily have
deployed operational requirements to go do. So I don't see the
title 5 resource helping us in that regard with respect to the
title 5 issue.

COMBAT AVIATION

Mr. Womack. And then, finally, a question about combat
aviation. We have had a long discussion about it over the last
several years. So where are we on making sure that we continue
to have at least that force mix in the Reserve Component?
General Lengyel. So, in accordance with the National
Commission on the Future of the Army, we have stationed now at
long last the four Apache battalions that are in the Army
National Guard. They went to North Carolina, South Carolina,
Utah, and then they split between Texas and Mississippi. That
is where they are. The stationing decision has been made.
Also, in that same report, it said: Hey, you are going to
have 18 Apaches in each one of those battalions. And a little
bit later in the report it said: Hey, if there is--an
opportunity presents itself, you should find a way to plus
these up to 24 Apaches per battalion.
And where we are right now is, right now, as we deploy a
battalion, we are scraping from the other three battalions iron
to make sure that they are ready to go and have their full
complement of aircraft. So it is challenging. Should we ever
have to deploy more than one at a time, it could be challenging
to the mission.
Mr. Womack. Before I yield back, were you happy with NGREA
in this last omni?
General Lengyel. Thank you for NGREA. $420 million in each
Army and Air was substantial. Thank you very much to the entire
committee.
Mr. Womack. Thank you for your service.
I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. We will have a closing comment from
Mr. Visclosky, and then panel 2 will prepare to take over.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would ask for the
record, because I know we have to go, in followup to Mr.
Womack's question, and again, this would be for the record. How
many complaints or actions have the employers for Guard and
Reserve dealt with for employers not working with guardsmen and
deployment?
Mr. Visclosky. And the last observation I would make, as a
former seminarian, I would quote one sentence from another
former seminarian, the Governor of California in his letter of
yesterday, where he said: I agree with the Catholic bishops who
have said that the local, State, and Federal officials should
work collaboratively and prudently in the implementation of
this deployment--talking about the border--ensuring that the
presence that the National Guard is measured and not disruptive
to community life.
General, I do have a profound respect for you, and I know
that is how you will conduct yourself, and you will ask the
Guard to conduct themselves, and I thank you for that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. This concludes panel 1.
Thank you, General Lengyel, for your attention here and
what you are doing here.
General Lengyel. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thursday, April 12, 2018.

FY 2019 RESERVE COMPONENTS

WITNESSES

LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES LUCKEY, CHIEF OF ARMY RESERVE
VICE ADMIRAL LUKE MCCOLLUM, CHIEF OF THE NAVY RESERVE
LIEUTENANT GENERAL REX MCMILLIAN, COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE
LIEUTENANT GENERAL MARYANNE MILLER, CHIEF OF THE AIR FORCE RESERVE

Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

Ms. Granger. We will now move to panel 2, and they will be
introduced.
If you will be seated, we will be begin. Our witnesses for
panel 2 are Lieutenant General Charles D. Luckey, Chief Army
Reserve; Vice Admiral Luke M. McCollum, Chief of Navy Reserve;
Lieutenant General Rex C. McMillian, Commander Marine Reserve;
Lieutenant General Maryanne Miller, Chief of Air Force
Reserves.
Welcome to all of you here. We appreciate it very much.
We appreciate your being able to share your information.
General Miller, in panel 1, the committee noted the recent
death of two Air Force reservists who died on March 15th when
their helicopter crashed in western Iraq. The committee
recognizes the sacrifices that these two reservists, the Active
Air Force officer, and four air guardsmen who also perished in
this crash. Please express our deepest sympathy to the
families.
We look forward to your testimony and responses. And
because of our limited time, please make your opening
statements as brief as possible.
And we will ask for the members of the subcommittee, we
will limit your questions and the answer complete to 4 minutes.
And you will see there will be lights. Green means they will
start speaking. When it goes to yellow, it means you have 1
minute left, and then to red.
General Luckey, we will start with you.

Summary Statement of General Luckey

General Luckey. So, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member
Visclosky, it is an honor to be back here with you. It has been
about a year. In the interest of time, I am not going to go
through my prepared remarks. Out of courtesy to the committee,
I would rather answer questions as appropriate for the
committee.
I would just like to say, for all the distinguished members
who are here, how much I appreciate the support of this
committee and the House of Representatives and the Senate as
well, for the support over the last year for America's Army
Reserve. I want to specifically highlight the NGREA funding
that we received last year and give this committee and the
Congress of the United States a high level of assurance that
that money is being put to extraordinarily good use, to include
modernizing some systems. We purchased some JLTVs, which we
will be getting in the fall. And as you well know, that is a
new capability for the Army, and it is a capability that the
Army Reserve needs to start training on. So we have done that.
We are also using that funding and we will continue to look
to use that funding to help us build more resilience. Candidly,
I have learned a lot over the last year, particularly in
response to the situations both in Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands, Florida, and Texas, as it pertains to Harvey, Irma,
and Maria. So, again, we are using that money wisely and
prudently, but also it gives me tremendous flexibility
operationally. I appreciate it very much. I appreciate your
continued support.
Just very quickly, just to update you, our Ready Force X,
RFX constructs, is coming along well. I am happy to answer any
questions the committee has about how that is going, the
balance between readiness and the force, but also stress on the
force. And I would also acknowledge that, as I said last year,
I need the committee's continued support in messaging the
messengers in America, using your voice to influence those
influencers out there, and encouraging them to continue to
remain in a partnership with America's Army Reserve as it
pertains to sharing the best talent in America. So I am talking
to employers, whether it be in academia, private sector, public
sector, employers that are continuing to assure their talent
with us on behalf of the national security of the United States
of America.
And last, but not least, by any means, thanks again for the
committee's support and continued concern about our families,
who, as we all know, support this team day in and day out. In
fact, as soon as I leave here today, I will be going to Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas, this afternoon, to the talk to the pre-
command course and then on to Minneapolis-St. Paul to talk with
the team leaders that support our family support programs and
making sure they are getting support and schooling that they
need. And my wife, Julie, will be joining me on that trip as
well to support them. So, again, I appreciate your support. I
look forward to your questions, and I yield the rest of my
time.
[The written statement of General Luckey follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Granger. Thank you.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL MCCOLLUM

Admiral McCollum. Chairman Granger and Ranking Member
Visclosky, thank you very much. And for the sake of time, I
will also have brevity in my remarks. Just to point out, just
like my colleagues to my right and left, right here as we sit,
we have our men and women serving around the world, and when
they serve around the world, that means they are absent from
their employers, and they are also absent from their families.
And supporting them--the unwavering support we have been given,
we are very grateful for.
They are force multipliers. As we look at how the
contribution of not only from unique skill sets but also
credible combat capability, and your very generous support in
supporting them from programs such as Yellow Ribbon,
redeployment support, family programs, and certainly the
training dollars, the readiness dollars, to allow them to do
that.
Mobilizations continue. And our guidance to our force is to
be ready, and we focus on generating readiness and do that in
various forms, from individual readiness to joint readiness
with groups at the unit level and at the combat level,
integrated force. Just yesterday, the Harry S. Truman Strike
Group departed for deployment, and this afternoon the Carl
Vincent Strike Group returns from a deployment.
So, in that portfolio, it is very symbolic of how the
Reserve Component supports the integrated force. The Navy
Reserve uses discretionary RPN, and that is how we generate our
readiness, individual readiness, and then sets and reps, as we
call it, for integrated readiness. And your continued support
there is very appreciated.
NGREA funding is another tool and lever that we use to have
niche purchase power where we can, in broad scale, support our
sailors broadly. And your continued support there in a flexible
fashion is very much appreciated.
Finally, one last point in a piece of our hardware
portfolio is our Strike Fighter F-A18s. We do operate the
legacy aircraft. We are asked to do integrative ops, adversary
flyings to certify our battle strike groups before they deploy,
and in that regard, interoperability is key. And so we look
forward to future conversations with Congress as we begin to
recapitalize those assets.
And, finally, I would just say, in spite of the many
challenges that we have in managing operations, personnel, and
other things that a commander has to face, one of the greatest
privileges we have is to lead and serve with and serve our men
and women, and to be with them--as a matter of fact, I will be
leaving this afternoon to go and spend time into operations to
witness this. It is our greatest privilege. And with your
support, we will continue to do that. And, again, it is our
honor to be here and look forward to answering any questions.
[The written statement of Admiral McCollum follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Summary Statement of General McMillian

General McMillian. Chairman Granger, Ranking Member
Visclosky, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify
on behalf of the Commandant of the Marine Corps about your
Marine Corps Reserve. I am honored to be here with my fellow
Reserve Component service chiefs, and I will be brief.
I have been at the helm of Marine Forces Reserve for 2\1/2\
years, and I am pleased to inform you that your Marine Corps
Reserve is thriving. Morale remains high, as evident by Reserve
Component end strength climbing to 99 percent of our total
requirement. Our reenlistment rate increasing over 25 percent
during the past 3 years, all while the demand for reserve
support to combatant commanders requirements continues to rise.
The responsibility that we carry in the Marine Forces
Reserve is to be able to respond tonight and on a moment's
notice with fully manned, trained, equipped, and superbly led
compatible units that can instantly and seamlessly plug into
Active Component formations. The critical capabilities provided
by Marine Forces Reserve to the total force increases the
lethality of the Corps and contributes to the competitive
advantage maintained over our adversaries.
At any given time, Marine Forces Reserve stands ready to
provide a brigade-sized element of Reserve marines and sailors
fully trained for combat operations to support the Active
Component in order to form a total force fight-tonight
capability while the remainder of our force remains poised to
augment and reinforce, given amounts of predeployment training
based on their wartime mission assignments.
I would like to leave this distinguished body with two
thoughts on how continued support from Congress can result in a
more lethal Marine Corps Reserve force, number one. Reserve
marines have 38 training days per year, and every scheduled
event is preparation for combat. Missed training opportunities
are often unrecoverable in terms of personnel, material, and
training readiness, while morale and retention of the force
suffers.
During the shutdown on January 20, almost 8,000 personnel
across 62 units had their drill weekend canceled or reduced,
resulting in lost training opportunities. I cannot afford to
lose 1 minute of training for our Nation's most precious
assets, our young volunteer men and women that make up your
Marine Corps Reserve. Therefore, I cannot overemphasize how a
lapse of appropriations negatively impacts readiness across the
Reserve force. And I thank you in advance for your continued
support through timely appropriations.
Number two, the Marine Corps Reserve benefits from the
National Guard and Reserve equipment appropriation. I want to
extend my gratitude for your continued support of NGREA and
would appreciate greater spending flexibility within this
appropriation in order to procure critical shortfall items and
modernized equipment and systems. I appreciate the opportunity
to be here today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The written statement of General McMillian follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Granger. Thank you.

Summary Statement of General Miller

General Miller. Chairwoman Granger, Ranking Member
Visclosky, and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to be
here today to have the opportunity to report on the state of
America's Air Force Reserve. Today I am joined by Command Chief
Master Sergeant Erica Kelly, Command Chief for the Air Force
Reserve.
At any given moment on any day, there are over 6,500 Active
citizen airmen stationed stateside and deployed around the
world, all supporting our Nation's defense. There is no
distinction between our Active Guard and Reserve airmen. We are
lethal, and we are privileged to defend this great Nation. We
are honored to serve alongside our joint partners and our
allies and ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for our
country.
During last year's posture hearing, I spoke about the pilot
and maintenance retention challenge that we faced. During the
fight line--today, the flight line manning for our part-time
force of citizen air remains very strong. It is nearly 100
percent. However, the steady demand on airline pilots and
civilian industry aircraft maintainers continues to impact
retention for our full-time technician force.
In response to these challenges, we continue to pursue the
use of bonuses, incentive pays, and special salary rates for
our pilots and our maintenance force. Though this approach has
positively impacted retention, it may not be sufficient for the
long term--for the long-term solution. We need to continue to
discuss either full-time options with you all and incentives
with your staff, and we need to garner support for these
options to improve our manning over time.
Our Nation's Air Force Reserve is a strong resilient force
of airmen, civilians, and contractors. We are postured to
ensure we preserve our foundational strength, providing that
daily operational capability and strategic depth for which our
Nation demands. We will continue to sharpen our edge for the
fights and improve our readiness to win any time, anywhere.
We are focused to recruit critical talent and retain
critical skills to expand our competitive edge across all
missions. America's Air Force Reserve continues to treasure and
to strengthen the bond between the citizens of our Nation and
the airmen who answer the call to defend our freedoms.
I am honored to represent all of our airmen and their loved
ones today. And I thank this committee for your enduring
support. And I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The written statement of General Miller follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Granger. We will start with Ms. McCollum.

PUERTO RICO

Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I know people will ask about readiness and modernization
and will submit that for the record for all of you, but I want
to follow up on a conversation I just had with the National
Guard in Puerto Rico. And, by the way, when you come to
Minneapolis-St. Paul, the forecast will be 38, but it will be
sunny. We still have snow on the ground.
General Luckey. I heard it is getting colder, too.
Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Yeah. You don't want to come
Sunday. So, General Luckey, if I could just talk to you for a
second about Puerto Rico. I had the opportunity of being with
the Fish and Wildlife and EPA, but I was also with the Park
Service and the Forest Service. And I was with a gentleman from
the Forest Service who is going to be retiring shortly but also
continues to serve in the Army Reserve, and so we had a great
conversation, and I made it about personal struggles that they
are having in Puerto Rico being in the Guard, being in the
Reserve, and at the same time, the Federal responsibilities
that Fish and Wildlife, Park Service, EPA; you wouldn't believe
what our Federal employees were doing down there to help with
the recovery.
Park Service, actually, at one of the forts had people,
supplies, and some of the police from Puerto Rico had their
equipment in there to protect it. So I want to make sure that
you have what you need because we have another hurricane season
coming up. Generators, supplies, equipment, equipment that
might be on a wish list to help with some of the things going
down there.
And so, along with the economy, the stress on the Reserve
Components down there, not only taking care of their family,
their community, and then fulfilling their responsibilities as
they are called up to help their fellow American citizens. Can
you just kind of tell me what we need to be doing down there to
help you be ready? Hurricane season is coming quickly. I think
this needs to be a priority.
General Luckey. So, Congresswoman McCollum, thanks for the
question, and it is great to see you again. So just to sort of
level--I was in Puerto Rico last weekend for a couple reasons,
one of which was to go back--as you know, I was there about 6
weeks after Maria hit, and so I have been keeping a very close
eye on the situation. As you know, we have thousands of Army
Reserve soldiers, family members down there.
Also, one of my installations, as you know, Army Reserve
installations, Fort Buchanan is there and, frankly, played a
key role as a platform to support a lot of activities there
very early on. So let me assure you, first of all, that I am
paying very close attention to this situation both in terms of
how we are recovering from what happened and also preparing for
what is possibly going to happen next.
In fact, the ranking member and I talked about this
yesterday briefly. So, from an investment strategy perspective,
in terms of reconstituting resilience and capability, as I
touched on a minute ago in my opening remarks, looking at
investment strategy to not only reconstitute particularly the
spot power generation and water-purification capabilities--to
some extent, we have stressed mightily, as you well know, over
the last 9 to 10 months--but, in addition, to reconstitute but
actually increasing the capacity of us to be able to reassemble
and surge that capability on even a larger scale than we did
last year.
As you know, in the course of literally weeks following the
storm, the senior leader on the island for the Federal
perspective, the senior military leader on the island, was an
Army Reserve general. I don't know if you met General Dusty
Schultz, when you were down there. She commands the 1st MSC.
We, under my command authorities as the commanding general of
the Army Reserve, placed all forces in both the Virgin Islands
and Puerto Rico under her control so she could retask, organize
as required to get after things, acknowledging that, in some
cases, our soldiers were so--their lives were so disrupted that
they didn't have the ability to help their neighbors because
they had to help themselves. But over half of the force that we
had in Puerto Rico was able to rise to the challenge and help
their partners out.
So, from the financial perspective, I think I am okay,
frankly, thanks to your help. Thanks to this committee's help,
I have been able to reprioritize, within the NGREA funding that
we had, to prioritize some funding to get back at that
resilience, particularly in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
I would acknowledge the Virgin Islands were devastated very
much, as you well know. I am confident that we are paying very
close attention. One more thing, and I don't want to take all
your time, but one other thing I want you to know. I am also
very cognizant of the fact that, as we continue to pursue
Federal missions--so, for instance, the 210th RSG, Regional
Support Group, that is going to be going to Fort Bliss, Texas,
this fall to support an Army mission at Fort Bliss. I am very
cognizant and I talked to a lot of family members who are very
concerned about if another storm hit, would their servicemember
be able to come home? I reassured them that we would manage
every one of these issues one soldier at a time, one family at
a time. But you have my strongest assurance that I am paying
very close attention to the situation. I am very sensitive to
the concerns that you raised.
Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My next stop is the Virgin Islands. I didn't want to--not
focus on each one together, but individually. So thank you, I
will follow up before I go there with you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Diaz-Balart.

READINESS

Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
It is good to see all of you and thank you for your
service.
I want to talk a little bit about--the chairwoman, when she
began, she mentioned the tragedy, right, that took place
recently. And so there have been some reports that potentially
there is a connection between some of the accidents taking
place and, frankly, the inadequate funding that was taking
place.
So I would really kind of like to hear from you about
whether you think that there is a potential connection between
inadequate funding to things like these--some of these tragic
accidents that have taken place, and also your impressions of
where we are now with the 2018 omnibus--and, obviously, we are
already starting the 2019 bill--and where do you see the
potential for readiness, for training, et cetera. So if you
would just--and I don't know who wants to--maybe start with the
Air Force since that is the most recent tragedy.
General Miller. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
I do not think it is related to the budget stress. We--
actually, the Air Force Reserve is going to be the
investigating officer on that accident in Afghanistan.
And, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your response or your
condolences to Bill Posch and to Carl Enis and his family, so
thank you for that.
I don't think it is connected. We are looking in--as an Air
Force and an Air Force Reserve, we are looking at--there has
been a slight increase in category C mishaps, which are the
lesser mishaps due to the cost threshold, and are looking into
that, just digging a little bit deeper as to why.
But I don't think that the crash in Afghanistan is related
to the budget stress that we have had. And I think, you know,
readiness overall, if you look at 2018 compared to 2019, you
know, 2018 was that boost that we needed. And thank you very
much for all of the money that came to us in the 2018, in this
execution year to get after readiness. We are making incredible
strides at the unit level. We have 47,000 folks in the unit,
getting after the mission every day, across every mission set,
and we have used every dollar that we have been given to
actually get up on the plateau as fast as we can. And for the
remainder of 2018 and the increase in funding that we are
getting for 2019, we will continue that climb toward lethality,
which the National Defense Strategy demands from us.
So the airmen are excited about actually being able to do
the job that they signed up for. We have actually told them:
You can stop doing certain--for the next 6 months you can put
these things aside and you can get after readiness.
So thank you for the increase in the 2018. 2019, as I said,
just gets us further down the path of readiness. In the Air
Force Reserve, we have $50 more million dollars for flying
hours, particularly in the C-17 and the C-5, which helps
tremendously for the readiness.
WSS, we are funded at 76 percent baseline; 83 when you add
OCO. So thank you for that OCO boost to get us up there. We
will fully execute that 83 percent. And then we are focusing on
recruiting the critical talent that we need and of course
retaining the critical skills. So it is all about recruiting
retention and the readiness. So thank you for the money.
Our concern is really the next 2 years. We look at it as 2
years of money, and then we are going to do everything we can
full throttle, as our Secretary says, to get after the
readiness now, because in 2 years, we are not sure what that is
going to look like, so we are giving it everything we can right
now. So thank you, Congressman.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Ryan.

C-130JS

Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for your service. We know what an essential part
of the team you all are, and we want to thank you for your
service over the last couple of decades. We know how much
strain has been put on you in sequestration, and we apologize
for that.
General Miller, as my favorite panelist, because you are
from Ohio. I have a couple questions, and I want to first say
thank you for being so engaged with the air base in Youngstown,
Ohio, and our mission there, the aerial spray mission that is
essential for the Reserve.
Can you talk to us a little bit about the--of course, I am
going to ask about the C-130Js, and if you could give us a
little bit of your analysis on where we are and kind of where
we need to be, and maybe what the demands are?
General Miller. Yes. When you look at the overall Air Force
tactical airlift numbers, 300 is what we need. And the H's--
the current structure that we have is 300. We are programmed to
keep 300. And the Air Force right now--we do not have J models
built into the program to recapitalize the H's. We have put
money into increment 1 and 2--amp 1 and 2. And we are
progressing very well with that. Amp 1 is actually completed
funded. Amp 2 is actually funded in the FYDP also.
So we are getting after all the amp 1 adjustments that need
to be completed by 2020, and then, by 2028, all the amp 2 will
be done. So the H's will be fully ready to fly, fully capable
of flying anywhere in the world to do their mission.

PILOT RETENTION

Mr. Ryan. Two quicks question. One for you, General Miller,
and one for Mr. Luckey on retention. I am worried about the
pilot retention issue, and I am worried about the cyber talent
retention and recruitment that we need.
So, General Miller, if you could go first and talk a little
bit about the challenges you may be having with a very
competitive commercial pilot industry competing with the men
and women we are trying to go after.
General Miller. For the Air Force Reserve, our pilot
manning on the part-time force, which is the majority of
airline pilots. I mean, that part-time force, I would say 98
percent of them fly in the airlines. We are manned at 96.5
percent.
So I have the pilots on the part-time force to go do the
mission if we are called. It is the full-time force that we are
stressed. We are manned at 68 percent. I have brought that
manning up to 72 percent on the full-time side. So to get after
the full-time deficit that we have, the gap, I am looking at
putting a different full-time status in many of our mission
sets, and that is called Active Guard and Reserve. So that AGR
status is different than the Air Reserve technician status
because it allows USERRA return rights.
So an airline pilot can go fly with the airlines for a
couple of years, come do us for a couple of years, and then
return back to the airlines. So there is a great opportunity
for them to just continue full time in both and just share time
over a period of a couple of years. So I am making that
adjustment in the full-time support. I think that will bring
the full-time support pilot numbers up into the low 80s, mid
80s, potentially, on the full-time side.
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you.
General Luckey.
General Luckey. Congressman, very quickly, thank you for
the support.
First of all, from a flying perspective, only 94 percent
[inaudible] I am frankly not concerned about that.
On the cyber thing, I will turn it a little. I actually
think that the Army Reserve presents a tremendous opportunity,
and I think I talked about this last year. We are actually
moving forces up to recapture talent, both from the [inaudible]
perspective in force but also to retain those soldiers coming
off Active Duty who typically--as you touched upon--who are
going to find much more financial incentive to go into the
private sector and continue this work. And great opportunity
[inaudible]--we are moving force structure to a different--I
call it the digital [inaudible] Training in America where we
capture and retain that talent and keep it as part of the force
on a part-time basis, and it is very----
Mr. Ryan. Great. I yield back.
Admiral McCollum. Congressman, if I could just add one
other point, if I may. We know that pilots are the happiest
when they having flying hours and platforms to fly in. The Navy
Reserve is very focused on maintaining a viable
recapitalization to allow that so we can capture that return on
investment if an Active pilot leaves to the Reserve, somewhere
$8 million to $9 million at the 8-year point. So we are very
focused, viable platforms recapitalized to give them the
opportunity to continue to serve.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Admiral.
Ms. Granger. Mrs. Roby.

RESPONSE AUTHORITIES TO NATIONAL DISASTERS

Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And to the whole panel. A big thank you to each of you and
your families for your great service to our country. We
appreciate each of you. So thank you for being here this
morning.
General Luckey, clearly as a Nation, I know it has been
touched on a little bit, we have endured major national
disasters since you were here last year. Hurricanes have
ravaged Texas, Louisiana, Florida, the Virgin Islands, Puerto
Rico, and even parts of Alabama. So, in the wake of Katrina,
Congress took action to provide immediate response authority to
response forces.
So I wanted to see if you would be willing to comment on
those authorities, and do we have it right in terms of
providing the Reserve with the necessary authorities to provide
domestic disaster response in a timely basis?
General Luckey. So, Congresswoman, first of all, thanks for
the question. I got my mike on now; I apologize for that.
Absolutely. This has been--I think it has been a game changer,
and one very quick vignette, and I don't want to take all your
time on this. But as Harvey gathered energy in the Gulf, I saw
it literally--my wife Julie saw it on the iPad. She commented.
We were driving across the country, going out to check on my
brother who had been injured, and called the TAG at Texas to
ask them what they needed, and the TAG told me they needed
hoist capable aircraft, which--and I have 38 of them in the
Army Reserve.
So, based on that conversation, I was able to preposition
aircraft in the Fort Worth area out of sort of the path of--the
predicted path of the storm, proximate enough to the disaster
site to immediately mass effects on that target area. So we
moved aircraft--as an emergency deployment readiness operation,
we moved aircraft, hoist aircraft from Colorado, we moved them
out of Olathe, Kansas, CH-47s. We were able to move those
capabilities, have them proximate and immediately be delivering
effects, both in terms of rescuing folks, moving critical
medical supplies, all kinds of commodities around that space.
Similar scenarios, although not so much aviation intensive,
in both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and Florida and
Louisiana, as you touched upon.
It is a tremendous opportunity, frankly, for our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines to be able to respond where they
live and/or move to support people in other places in the
United States. So I think it is a game changer in terms of our
ability to message and achieve effects immediately. So I
appreciate it very much.

OPERATIONAL RESERVE

Mrs. Roby. Thank you. And for the panel, and I don't have a
whole lot of time left, but for the panel, given now that we
have an operational reserve, I want to keep a close eye on the
operations tempo for our Reserve forces.
Can you please comment on your assessment of the mission
requirements for your service versus the size of our forces? Do
we need a bigger Reserve? And what is your philosophy on the
Individual Ready Reserve? Are we providing incentives and
professional opportunities for people to stay? That is for
whoever wants to jump in.
General Miller. So I will start first here at this end. The
operational reserve that we have today is, as you say, we are
deeply in the fight all over the world. So the Reserve is
really a strategic force that we have leveraged for the last 25
years as an operational force. The Reserve Forces Policy Board
has done great strides in putting the right authorities in
place, building the definition of an operational reserve, and
lines of effort that go to identifying what an operational
reserve is.
The piece that I think that I need--that we have yet to
complete, is a little bit of full time on top of the strategic
base that we have, because we are dipping in everyday to that
strategic base and making demands on their time, which is
great, which is what we do. But after 25 years, our folks are
getting stressed.
So I am manned at 17 to 25 percent full time; I need a
little bit more. The Guard is roughly at 32 percent. So, across
my Air Force Reserve, I am putting enablers in the support and
the operations piece to get after that full-time support.
Otherwise, we are in a good position.
General McMillian. Ma'am, if I could weigh in here for just
1 minute. In we are right sized in the Marine Corps Reserve.
The number one question that I get from my Reserves: When do we
get to go to that fight, whatever that fight is? So they are
motivated, and they are ready to be engaged in operations.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur.

F-35 FOR THE RESERVES

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you all for being here today.
I wanted to be begin with General Miller. During the last
round of F-35 fielding, the State of Ohio narrowly missed the
F-35 cut. Is the Air Force intending to begin another round of
F-35 fielding to the Reserves, and if so, when will that occur?
General Miller. Yes. Currently, we have a preferred
alternative of Fort Worth, and then our alternative bases--if
Fort Worth is not selected, it would be either DM Homestead or
Whiteman. So our four bases are firmly in the plan for the F-
35. In 2019, the chief and Secretary will make the decision on
if Fort Worth is that preferred alternative, if that is the
base that we put them.

HEALTH SERVICES AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

Ms. Kaptur. All right. I just wanted to say, across the
spectrum this morning, I have read all of your testimony, and I
believe General McMillian has the most complete section dealing
with health services and behavioral health.
So I wanted to ask you, representing some Reserve
Components myself, the 983rd Army was just deployed to the
Middle East. How does your suicide rate compare to the military
average, up or down, especially over the last year?
General Luckey. So let me jump on that first, if I may,
Congresswoman. The suicide rate in the Army Reserve, frankly,
has just recently ticked up above the Army average. And I will
tell you--so, first of all, I can't prove this, but I will tell
you, one my concerns is that the financial aspect of stress on
families is, in many cases, particularly acute for those
families or soldiers that have had multiple deployments, may
have stressors with their employers, and have come back from
deployments and either be unemployed or under employed. So we
are targeting our private-public partnership program to ensure
that those soldiers who are identified as at-risk financially
get additional support in finding jobs.
I can't prove that there is a nexus between financial
stressors and self-destructive behavior, but I am targeting
that population specifically to get after the challenge.
Ms. Kaptur. One interesting fact I learned this morning, if
you go to many of our large bases, even in this country--and I
am not talking about Reserve Components--but you will see
predatory lenders all wrapped around the bases. And this
financial issue is really a very critical one that I think we
need to--we would welcome your recommendations based on what
you know.
Could I ask, General McMillian, what about the Marine
Reserve?
General McMillian. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
Last year, we had 12 suicides in the Marine Corps Reserves.
This year, we are at five, so not quite at 50 percent, but
trending in that direction. The majority--the vast majority of
our suicides occur in a nondrilling status, in between drill
weekends when we don't have eyes on them, when the Marine
reservist is out in the community with their families and
working in their civilian jobs.
We do an indepth analysis after each suicide, and we have
come to the conclusion that each one of those suicides touches
one of three areas: number one, financial problems in the
civilian sector; number two, relationship problems; and, number
three, legal problems. Some of those all together; some of
those by themselves. But each one ties into that.
So, when we see them on our drill weekends, we have what we
call kneecap-to-kneecap, eyeball-to-eyeball leadership and
mentoring sessions with them, and also we stay in touch with
them in between their drills to see how they are doing. We are
exercising that small unit leadership to Nth degree to try to
keep them on the straight and level, so to speak, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. I appreciate your careful monitoring of who
they are. And I would just suggest, if it--it could help us
help you, in Special Forces with the chair a few months ago, we
saw where Special Forces had embedded behavioral specialists in
each unit, and they had brought their suicide rate down to the
military average.
Reservists are scattered all over the place. They come home
often to no base. Maybe they report into a headquarters, but
then they are off somewhere.
Admiral McCollum, you talk about mobile technologies within
the Navy--Naval Reserve being available for different things. I
really have been wondering about mobile technologies where we
could take the best medicine we have or they could take apps or
we would connect them so they wouldn't be so far away from
care.
I have actually have been present at a Reserve base where
units come home, and I have seen soldiers that are in need of
care immediately. It isn't available. So it is kind of messy
when it gets back to the local level. I would appreciate your
summary for us, or meeting with those of us who care about
this, how we can better bring that care to them and whether we
need to fund additional behavioral specialists within the
Reserve or pay for the medical education, but it is a need
across the military.
I even want to take the technologies, if we have them, to
the Ukraine, because I see what is happening at the front there
with soldiers there. And I don't think we have got this thing
pinned down completely, and we could do much better. But you
have got elements of the solution within your testimonies today
and from your own personal knowledge.
So, Madam Chair, I wanted to highlight this arena of
behavioral health, and in 5 minutes, you can't even touch the
surface. But is there any way that you could summarize what you
know and report back to us on ways in which we could better
help you help the soldier? Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky.

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to talk
for a few minutes about a societal problem that at this late
date remains breathtaking, I think, to all of us. It is also
evident in the military, but I think the military has a special
responsibility, and that is sexual assault and hostile work
environment.
We are all familiar with these statistics, particularly the
one that reporting has increased 240 percent, according to a
fiscal year 2016 report, since 2004, which would indicate
potentially that people are more comfortable coming forward.
The question I have for each of you, though, is, with more
people coming forward--I regret they have to--I am very worried
about retaliation. We talk to people about forms of
retaliation, and sometimes it is very ham-handed, and sometimes
it is very subtle. How do each of you in your commands work
down to that level that, listen, this is not too be tolerated
and if somebody comes forward, they should not be the ones who
are going to be punished here?
General Luckey. So, Ranking Member, if I may take that on.
Just two thoughts. One, from a senior leadership perspective,
obviously, it starts with me. So just be assured that this is--
on multiple occasions, I have made it very clear. I am on
Facebook, although I am not so sure I should be on Facebook
anymore----
Mr. Visclosky. Well----
General Luckey [continuing]. And I am on Twitter, and I am
on all these different social media. They are platforms that I
use to try make sure that this message--so, in addition to the
website for the Army Reserve, constantly messaging. I think it
fairly stridently frankly. My position, our position: not in
our squad, not in this team, not in America's Army Reserve.
I will tell you, from an assessment perspective, I watch
this pretty carefully. This is the month for awareness, both
sexual assault and sexual harassment. I just recently finished
another climate survey for both my headquarters at Fort Bragg
for the Army Reserve Command and also for the Office of the
Chief of the Army Reserve here at Fort Belvoir and the
Pentagon. I don't want to come across as overconfident about
this, but I will tell you, statistically, of the things that I
am concerned about in terms of inappropriate behavior, I would
say the one that I keep a close eye on is nothing as explicit
or as obvious as actual out and out assault or demeaning
behavior; it is sort of more inappropriate language that sort
of opens up the aperture for other sort of more--I don't want
to say predatory, but just more inappropriate behavior, that
somebody thinks it is okay to do this or okay to do that. I am
very cognizant of that. I think we are attacking it fairly
aggressively.
As to your reprisal concern, you know, I am always here to
learn and come up and get better techniques, and I get them
from my colleagues all the time. I will just tell you the most
important thing I think I can do as a senior leader of the Army
Reserve is message every day in every way that anybody who has
anything that concerns them needs to bring this up to somebody
that they trust in the chain of command or, not in the chain of
command, but a sexual assault/sexual harassment adviser.
Admiral McCollum. In the Navy Reserve, it is similar to
General Luckey's comment, every morning, I review any report
where we have knowledge that a sexual assault has occurred. And
in those discussions and in those reports, it is important for
me to know, number one, the victim's situation. Do they have an
advocate assigned?

RETALIATION

Mr. Visclosky. I understand on assault, but just, as the
general said, you know, just language, the--but I am worried
about retaliation. What happens after somebody reports? And are
you worried about somebody--and again sometimes it can be very
subtle. So it is just the retaliation. I----
Admiral McCollum. It is important that we know that--so
retaliation itself is--what mechanism does the victim have,
what tools to be protected against any indication of
retaliation? They have an advocate that is assigned. I look by
name who their advocate is. And then, in that context, is it--
how restrictive, it is the victim's choice. Is it
unrestrictive? It is the victim's choice. And with that
awareness and with those dialogue, we can find out quickly if
there is a profile of retaliatory, and we act on it, including
if they request to be moved to another command.
Mr. Visclosky. So somebody would be assigned to them to be
supportive and helpful----
Admiral McCollum. That is correct.
General McMillian. Sir, in the Marine Corps, it starts with
the Commandant, and we all get underneath the Commandant, and
we are asked to provide--we are asked to provide superb
leadership and morale in all of our units. If we are not doing
that, then we are not doing our job. So everybody that is
underneath me, I task them, their number one priority is to
provide superb leadership and ensure all of our units have
great morale. And if they can't provide that, then I call them
accountability as the Commandant holds me accountable to
provide that. We want to ensure that we have the trust and
confidence of our Nation's most precious assets, which I
mentioned in my verbal testimony, that we are charged with
taking care of.
Now, tied in with that, we have found out through command
climate surveys how our units were doing, and across the board,
I think we are doing very well. It shows that they have trust
and confidence in their leadership, and to tie that into sexual
harassment and sexual assault, our reporting is up, and that is
a good thing. And we see that as having trust in the leadership
to investigate all of those claims and then hold people
accountable. And we are going to do that for you. I am doing it
for the Commandant, and I am sure he will--when he comes in to
testify, he will tell you he is doing the same thing.
Mr. Visclosky. Is there someone that is, if you would,
assigned to that person who comes forward?
General McMillian. Yes, sir. They get a direct assignment
to take care of their issue. Yes, sir.
General Miller. Yeah, very similar to the Marine Corps, you
know, it is about trust. And the victim needs to understand
that we are there to support them and care, take care of them.
If there is an issue or a perceived issue of retaliation,
either one is important, and we need to jump on it and take
care of it and hold the, you know, member accountable for that.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Yes, I just wanted to place a figure on the
record. Though this is the Reserve panel, the prior panel on
the Guard, last year, in the Guard, 132 soldiers committed
suicide. The vast majority were Army Guard. So I would hope we
would have the same figures. And that, by the way, is an
increase. A very important issue. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. We have run out of time. I have an ask of you,
not a question you need to answer today. But, you know, we have
expressed some concern--there is such admiration for our
Reservists and our Guard, and that is in every city that we are
in and across the Nation and to make sure that they are cared
for and that they have the support that they need. But the
other thing we have heard about some employers who won't hire
members of the Guard or Reserves because of the possibility of
missed work due to their deployment. And as I have said early
in the last panel, it has to be a respect and a contribution
from employers and the employees who want to work and also
serve in the Reserve or Guard. And so, if there is something
else that needs to be done to mitigate this to make sure they
are not discriminated in the workforce, would you please let us
know that? And if there is anything else that Congress needs to
do to help support our Guard and Reserves in their quest, it is
very--the work they are doing is keeping us safe, and it is
very important. So if you would get back with us, we would
really appreciate that very much.
That concludes today's hearing. The subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the
answers thereto follow:]

High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles

Question. Currently, more than half of National Guard units' High
Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) are 15 years or older
and beyond their useful life. Since FY2013, the Army National Guard
HMMWV Modernization Program has been a partnership between the Army,
National Guard Bureau, and industry which has delivered more than 2,600
modernized, like-new HMMWVs to National Guard units including 140 to my
home State of Alabama. Does your FY 2019 Budget include funding to
continue this program?
Answer. Yes, the Army National Guard (ARNG) anticipates that the
Army will invest $50M towards our HMMWV Modernization Program in FY
2019.
This funding level will bring the total modernization level to
approximately 56% of the HMMWV fleet by the end of FY 2019 including
100% of both HMMWV Ambulances and TOW/ITAS variants.
The ARNG modernization strategy aligns with the Army's overall
Tactical Wheeled Vehicle (TWV) strategy.

C-130H

Question. It is my understanding that the majority of the DoD's
aging C-130H fleets are being replaced with newer C-130Js. However,
while Air Mobility Command, Air Force Special Operations Command, Air
Combat Command, U.S. Air Force Europe, U.S. Air Forces Pacific, the
U.S. Marine Corp, U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Navy all have plans to
replace their aging legacy C-130 fleets with new C-130Js, the Guard and
Air Force Reserve combat delivery fleet replacements are being deferred
with no plans for replacements until these H models are 60+ years old.
Do you have any concerns about how legacy Air National Guard and Air
Force Reserve H model units will be maintained as the Total Force
transitions towards ensuring interoperability through proportional and
concurrent fielding of the latest equipment?
Answer. Having the Active Component but not the Reserve Component
completely recapitalized in the C-130J creates challenges as logistical
and training needs must still be supported for the Guard and Reserve
fleet. The National Guard Bureau supports full recapitalization of its
C-130H fleet with C-130J's but is aware that, given the significant
cost associated with full recapitalization, that continuing ongoing
modernization of the Air National Guard's legacy C-130H's is necessary
in the interim.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt.
Questions submitted by Mr. Visclosky and the answers thereto
follow:]

Employer Actions

Question. In recent Fiscal Years, how many complaints or actions
have the Guard dealt with for employers not working with Guardsmen and
deployment? Please provide a summary of the final outcomes for any
actions taken against employers in that time frame.
Answer. The National Guard Bureau does not handle complaints
regarding employers. Those are handled either by the Employer Support
of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) Ombudsman Services, the Department of
Labor, or through private legal action.
ESGR is the lead DoD agency handling complaints about those
employing Guard members. ESGR initiates mediation cases at the request
of Service members who are experiencing a uniformed service-related
conflict with their civilian employer. ESGR provides informal, neutral
mediation in an effort to resolve employment-related conflicts before
they escalate to the level of a Department of Labor investigation.
However, ESGR does not have an enforcement role in regards to the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and
therefore does not take any type of action against employers as a
result of informal mediation. As a result, ESGR does not track outcomes
for actions taken against employers. The Department of Labor may track
this information.
The attachment details the number of requests for mediation
services received by the ESGR National Customer Service Center from
National Guard members for FY 2017 and thus far in 2018. These
mediation cases are initiated at Service members' request.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Full Time Support

Question. Please provide the subcommittee with a breakdown of the
manning levels for soldiers and airman on Active Guard and Reserve
Status for the Army and Air Guard. If additional full time support is
required, please provide the subcommittee with a detailed budgetary
proposal.
Answer.
army national guard
Congress authorizes and funds 30,155 ARNG soldiers on Active Guard
and Reserve (AGR) status and 27,107 Military Technicians and Title 5
National Guard Employees to organize, administer, train, maintain,
recruit and instruct Army National Guard units. This is about 64% of
the 89,559 full-time manpower requirement set by the Army for the Army
National Guard.
Additional full-time support is needed to achieve Army readiness
goals. The FY19 President's Budget includes a request for an additional
440 AGRs, which would alleviate recruiting shortfalls. The 440 AGRs
will cost $23,529,000 the first year and $47,059,000 per year in
subsequent years.
Over the long term, growing ARNG full-time support to 80% of the
manpower requirement and focusing that into key units will facilitate
interoperability with the Total Force and build readiness. If such an
increase were spread over ten years, it would require adding
approximately 1,000 AGRs per year at a cost growth of about $120
million per year. The National Guard Bureau continues to work with the
Army to right-size full-time support programs to provide ready units to
support global and domestic requirements.
air national guard
Full-time requirements on ANG Unit Manning Documents are only 87%
funded in the FY19 budget request across the ANG; this results in 6,785
unfunded requirements. An additional $104M per year would raise funding
from 87% to 95% of the requirement and address critical training and
readiness gaps across the ANG.
Additionally, the ANG is reshaping its fulltime mix of AGRs and
Technicians. ANG's budgetary proposal for FY19 converts 3,190 (14%) of
programmed ANG dual status technicians to AGR (272 Officers/2,918
Enlisted). The ANG's submission is a targeted, disciplined approach
aimed at solidifying our competitive advantage (e.g., primary focus:
aircraft maintenance, cyber support, intel and operations), which
aligns with the National Defense Strategy. In addition, the conversions
from technician to AGR make the ANG a more attractive option to cross-
component transfers because former active duty and/or new AGR members
would experience no change in benefits or compensation from active duty
status, thereby benefiting the Total Force's capability and capacity.

National Guard Border Mission

Question. General Lengyel, what day were you informed of the new
policy relative to use of the National Guard on the southwest border?
Answer. Sir, I was notified of the desire to augment Customs and
Border protection with National Guard troops on 4 April 2018.
Immediately after that notification the National Guard Bureau was a
full participant in DoD working groups and meetings to execute the
guidance from the President and meet the needs of the Department of
Homeland Security.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr.
Visclosky. Questions submitted by Mr. Cuellar and the answers
thereto follow:]

Southwest Border Operations

Question. What is the scale and scope of the ``call up'' expected
to meet the presidential mandate of sending troops to the Southwest
Border and what kind of troop activities can be expected for the
National Guard presence on the border?
Answer. Up to 4,000 National Guard personnel have been authorized
to support the Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border
Protection (DHS/CBP) through September 30, 2018. Just over one half of
the total authorized personnel have been approved for deployment in
support of requests for assistance (RFA) from DHS/CBP. The Department
of Defense vets the types of activities performed based on DHS/CBP
RFAs. Approved activities so far include: light helicopter support;
motor transport operations; motor transport maintenance; heavy
equipment operations; vegetation clearing; surveillance support
(Aerostat surveillance system with crew and camera operators);
geospatial and criminal analysis; training administration and
operations planning; administration/clerical; paralegal administration;
radio communications.

Readiness and Training

Question. What kind of Readiness and Training opportunities will
this (Southwest Border Mission) provide for National Guard troops? Will
this fill any critical training requirements not currently being met?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) Southwest Border (SWB) security mission
provides training opportunities at the individual and crew levels.
National Guard volunteers supporting the DHS/CBP SWB security mission
will be afforded additional training and practice in the logistics,
engineering, intelligence, operations/planning, administration,
training, and command and control functions.

Southwest Border Deployment Schedules

Question. General Lengyel, as with most operational support, units
strive for predictability. This allows for a more sound training and
maintenance schedule and has proven to have a positive effect on
morale. What this focus on predictability, are these supporting
Southwest Border Operations units going to follow a deployment cycle?
How long will these units remain in place once deployed to the border?
Answer. Support to the Department of Homeland Security/Customs and
Border Protection Southwest Border (SWB) security mission is being
sourced on a voluntary basis. The Secretary of Defense has authorized
up to 4,000 National Guard personnel through September 30, 2018. The
length of individual SWB support will vary up to 179 days. At this
time, the SWB security support is only authorized through September
30th.

Readiness

Question. It's been said that the Services have been spread pretty
thin when trying to cover too much ground. With the recent Omnibus, the
DoD is able to rebuild the manning levels but this will take time. How
well will the National Guard be able to adapt at supporting Southwest
Border operations, continue to provide combat-ready troops and support
to the Combatant Commanders in the Middle East, and conduct disaster
relief when called upon?
Answer. There are currently over 445,000 members in the National
Guard (NG). The 4,000 National Guard members authorized to support the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) border security mission
represents less than 1% of the NG. Each of the requests for assistance
from DHS are reviewed for their readiness impact to the Department of
Defense global missions. Since NG personnel volunteer for the border
mission with the consent of their respective governors, each state can
retain the personnel necessary to respond to emergencies. Should
States' response capabilities be overwhelmed, they may seek a
presidential emergency or major disaster declaration, and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will coordinate Federal support, to
include DoD support, to the affected State(s).

Southwest Border Inter-Departmental Integration

Question. Does the Guard anticipate issues, like Command and
Control, and mission creep with DHS (for the Southwest Border Mission)?
Does this create a problem with inter-departmental integration?
Answer. The National Guard Bureau has worked closely with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to ensure that Requests for Assistance (RFAs) comply with the
guidelines set by the Secretary of Defense's Border Security Support
Cell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Execution Order. All RFAs for
National Guard (NG) support are approved by the Secretary of Defense.
This will ensure that the NG role in this mission appropriately
fulfills DHS/CBP requirements, thus enhancing inter-department
integration while guarding against mission creep. Local command and
control of participating NG will be accomplished with CBP sectors
through state-controlled NG joint task forces assigned to the sector
concerned.

Army Guard Apaches

Question. Currently, Army National Guard Apache battalions are
operating at 75% of aircraft requirements. It seems as though building
a capable and deployable Guard battalion is done by robbing three
Attack Battalions to create one 100% battalion. Is this an acceptable
readiness shortfall? And if not, what actions are being taken to ensure
units designated to deploy are fully ready and what is the plan to
address this shortfall of the Army Guard Apache Battalion aircraft?
Answer. The ARNG is required to move aircraft among four battalions
in order to support a deploying Apache battalion. A deploying unit
takes a full complement of 24 aircraft and leaves non-deployed units
with less aircraft. Units down the deployment schedule may be left with
only a handful of aircraft for training while the deploying battalion
and the next battalion to deploy are brought to full strength. This
prevents consistent training and makes it impossible to deploy all four
Apache battalions at the same time in the event of an emergency. The
Army is supportive of equipping our battalions to 100%.

Aircraft Engine Maintenance

Question. The National Guard has taken a much larger role in its
aircraft engine maintenance. Will this FY19 budget support this added
workload and allow the Guard to meet the maintenance demand for this
depot-level maintenance?
Answer. The FY19 budget allows the ANG to fund existing
requirements for field level repair and overhaul. Air Force Materiel
Command retains responsibility for all ``depot-level'' maintenance.

Relief in Place/Transfer of Authority

Question. How long is the RIP/TOA (Relief in Place/Transfer of
Authority) expected to last per rotation for the units deploying to the
Southwest Border?
Answer. The NG personnel supporting CBP will go through a Joint
Reception Staging Onward Movement and Integration (JRSOI) process to
integrate into their missions assigned. The average JRSOI time will be
approximately 7 days for most of the personnel and slightly longer for
aviation personnel due to the nature of the certifications required
prior to conducting their missions.

Southwest Border Guard Units

Question. Are the units deploying to the Southwest Border, Guard
units that would otherwise be dormant or that historically function as
in-garrison support units but are now taking on new roles outside of
their traditional scope?
Answer. The National Guard (NG) historically has been called upon
to perform domestic support missions that are not the national defense
missions they are organized for. The NG volunteers supporting the
Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection security
mission on the Southwest Border do not belong to dormant units. They
belong to units that train for national defense missions.

ARNG ARBs

Question. What is the plan and what are you doing to ensure ARNG
ARBs have the ability to train under the same conditions to meet the
same task and standard as their Active Duty counterparts?
Answer. The first step is coordination with U.S. Force Command to
draft a tentative deployment schedule. Then NGB coordinates with the
appropriate U.S. Combatant Commands, First Army and the ARBs to draft a
resource and training plan. ARNG ARBs then undergo training under the
same conditions and to meet the same standards as their Active Duty
counterparts prior to deployment.

End Strength

Question. Texas is currently overdriving to help the National Guard
Bureau meet its overall end strength, and has for more than 10 years.
When will this effort result in additional force structure, along with
the corresponding full-time manning, equipment and support personnel?
Answer.
army national guard
Prior to Congressional action arresting the decline in Total Army
endstrength, the Army National Guard (ARNG) was programmed to decline
to an end strength of 335,000. As part of that decline, the TXARNG was
directed to divest the 72nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, a combat
formation of more than 4,000 Soldiers. After receiving Congressional
support for an ARNG endstrength of 343,500, the Army, working with
National Guard Bureau, retained the 72nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team
(IBCT). Additionally, as the Army grows Security Force Assistance
Brigades (SFAB), the TXARNG received part of the National Guard's SFAB
and was directed to field an additional Field Artillery Battalion
beyond its existing force structure.
The Army National Guard, through its General Office Advisory
Councils made up of state TAGs, is actively developing options for
rebalancing force structure across the country to move missions and
units to available manpower. The Director, ARNG will use the input of
these councils to ensure states, like Texas, that have shown the
ability to field more force structure are first in line when the ARNG
grows or rebalances the force.
NGB has made additional full time manning for the ARNG a priority
and is engaging the Army seeking an increase. The ARNG is at 64% of its
full time support requirement. Increasing this support to closer to 80%
of the requirement, approximately equivalent to 20% of the ARNG end
strength, is seen as crucial to raising readiness and relieving stress
on units, particularly high demand combat formations like the 72nd IBCT
and the 1-149th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion.
air national guard
The Texas Air National Guard has done an outstanding job meeting
recruiting and retention goals. In fact, because TX has such strong
recruiting, to help address the Air Force's pilot shortage, NGB added
six aircraft and increased the fulltime manpower authorizations at the
149th Fighter Wing by 98. The Air Force has stated its desire to grow
end strength over the Future Year Defense Program and began doing so in
fiscal year 2018. The Air National Guard is part of that effort and
expects commensurate growth in coming years. Manpower requests in the
FY19 President's Budget underlie a plan to place five more full-time
authorizations in the Texas Air National Guard.

[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Cuellar.]

Wednesday, April 25, 2018.

FISCAL YEAR 2019 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OVERVIEW BUDGET

WITNESSES

HON. JAMES N. MATTIS, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
GENERAL JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, USMC, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
DAVID NORQUIST, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)

Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to
order.
This morning, the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the
Department's fiscal year 2019 budget request.
Before we proceed, I would like to recognize Ranking Member
Mr. Visclosky for a motion.
Mr. Visclosky. Madam Chair, 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.
Ms. Granger. So ordered. Thank you.
We are delighted to have Secretary James Mattis and General
Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, with us this
afternoon. Alongside the Secretary and the Chairman is Mr.
David Norquist, the Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of
the Department.
Thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Secretary and General Dunford, this subcommittee
appreciates the partnership we share with you. This
relationship is incredibly important. When we received
increased funding for fiscal year 2018, we were able to ensure
that your priorities and those of the service chiefs were all
funded. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for the
open lines of communication. It was extraordinarily helpful.
Mr. Secretary, the subcommittee very much appreciates your
recent briefing to us on the new National Defense Strategy.
This strategic framework you laid out was tremendously
important as we completed work on the Department's fiscal year
2018 appropriations. We were able to make a critically needed
downpayment to begin to rebuild our military in line with the
strategy.
We look forward to hearing from you both today on how the
fiscal year 2019 budget will build upon the progress we have
begun to make and what more needs to be done to ensure we are
prepared for the fights we face today and in the future.
Mr. Secretary, as we have often discussed, you are leading
the Department at one of the most challenging times in recent
history. Our Nation is facing threats from bad actors across
the globe. It is our responsibility to ensure that you have
what you need to do the difficult tasks you have been given.
The subcommittee relies on you, our military experts, to help
guide us in the work that we do. We look forward to hearing
from you both on your needs both now and in the future.
Before we begin your remarks, I yield to the ranking
member, Mr. Peter Visclosky, for his comments.
Mr. Visclosky. Gentlemen, thank you for your attendance
today. I look forward to your testimony.
Madam Chair, thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. I would remind all members that
this briefing is being held at the Top Secret level and none of
the information shared here today should leave the room.
Mr. Secretary and General Dunford, unfortunately, we are
going to be interrupted by a vote series shortly. In the
interest of time, Mr. Secretary, we would appreciate it if you
could both limit your opening statement to brief remarks. This
would allow us to conclude the opening remarks before we recess
for votes and move straight to questions as soon as we return.
Mr. Secretary, please proceed with your remarks. I am sorry
for talking so fast. I am trying to get everything done before
they call us out. Can you tell? It is the same old thing I say
every time, so don't worry about it.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. No opening remarks.
Ms. Granger. Okay.
Mrs. Lowey. We want to get right to it.
Ms. Granger. Right.
Secretary Mattis, thank you so much. And you can proceed.
[The written statements of Secretary Mattis and General
Dunford follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
be printed due to the classification of the material
discussed.]

Wednesday, May 9, 2018.

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Opening Statement of Chairman Granger

Ms. Granger. The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning, the subcommittee will hold an open hearing in
which any Members of the House have been invited to come and
address the subcommittee on matters concerning the men and
women who serve in our military.
This session is to hear from Members about what they think
and what is important to them, in some ways that we can help
them. So we welcome the opportunity to hear from our colleagues
on these matters.
And I want to thank the Members who are appearing today for
taking the time to testify and salute their commitment to our
national security and our national defense. I don't think there
is anything more important than that.
Without objection, all the testimony submitted by Members
will be entered into the record. So ordered.
Before we begin with the testimony, I would like to
recognize our ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for any remarks he
would like to make.

Opening Remarks of Mr. Visclosky

Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I thank you very much for holding the hearing.
I was saying before we got started that this is my favorite
hearing of the year, because I do believe, unfortunately, the
committee has become, in many ways, very insular.
It is important that people understand we are charged with
the constitutional responsibility to fund the day-to-day
operation of the government. We are here, all of us, in a
bipartisan fashion to solve problems. And we are also here in a
bipartisan fashion to help Members.
So appreciate the Members, including Mr. Johnson, who is
going to testify next, for being here. I am delighted to be
here, and appreciate the chairwoman holding the hearing very
much. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Ranking Member Visclosky.
We will now begin with the Members' testimony with
Congressman Mike Johnson of Louisiana.
Congressman Johnson.
Wednesday, May 9, 2018.

WITNESS

HON. MIKE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA

Summary Statement of Congressman Johnson

Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you so much, Chairwoman Granger
and Ranking Member Visclosky and members of the committee. I
appreciate all your time.
I sincerely am grateful for this opportunity to return to
provide input during the committee's member day hearing for the
fiscal year 2019 defense appropriations bill in the budget.
I have the distinct honor of representing a congressional
district that is home to two vital military installations for
our Nation and our national security interests around the
world, and that is Fort Polk and the Barksdale Air Force Base,
and even our smaller National Guard facilities such as Camp
Minden.
As I am sure you know, Fort Polk is home to the Army Joint
Readiness Training Center, and Barksdale Air Force Base is home
to the Air Force Global Strike Command, our four-star command
right there in my hometown.
As is evident with the recent provocations of Syria, North
Korea, Iran, Russia, and others, we live in a highly uncertain
and incredibly complex time, which further highlights the
importance of these two bases and our military readiness to be
fully prepared to combat any threat from overseas.
In keeping to today's time constraints, I will focus
primarily on just two areas I think are essential--in an
essential need of attention by this committee and the Congress,
and that is modernizing our U.S. nuclear enterprise and
ensuring U.S. Army capabilities are fully equipped for
necessary training exercises.
As I begin, I just want to respectfully thank this
committee for working closely with me last year while crafting
the 2018 defense appropriations budget to begin the process of
reengineering and modernizing the B-52 bombers. They are housed
at Barksdale Air Force Base. And that is a much-needed makeover
that will extend the life of the B-52s into the 2050s, which is
kind of an amazing thing to think about, the engineering marvel
that that is. And then, of course, it improves the range and
fuel efficiency of those planes and actually decreases
maintenance cost.
I would also like to relay my thanks for the continued
support of Fort Polk from this committee in recognition of
their vital importance to accomplishing its missions and our
military readiness.
One on the nuclear enterprise. Today, I would just briefly
like to speak to the nuclear weapons as they continue to play
an integral role in the strategies of Russia, North Korea,
Pakistan, India, and China. And, in fact, according to many
reports, as you all know, and as evidenced from the recent
aggressive actions, these countries are increasing their
reliance on and modernizing their capabilities, whether it be
in the land, air, or sea-based nuclear forces.
If this Congress is going to be serious about rebuilding
our nuclear infrastructure, it has to continue to express
support for the long-term commitment of our Barksdale Air Force
Base and our nuclear enterprise. And I applaud the decision by
the Air Force to include the new entrance gate at the
Interstate 20 and I-220 interchange into Barksdale Air Force
Base on its unfunded priority list.
This project has to be completed in sequence because what
this does is it paves the way for the construction of the new
weapons storage area at that base, and that is currently
scheduled to begin construction in fiscal year 2020.
The new weapons storage area is absolutely vital to
America's nuclear enterprise, and it will support the overall
activities of Global Strike Command, everything it oversees,
and its necessary involvement in a wide array of strategic
deterrence.
As members of this committee, you all are well aware, of
course, of how critical the Bomber Command in the 8th Air Force
in charge of our aging fleet, and Missile Command in the 20th
Air Force in charge of the U.S. intercontinental ballistic
missiles, are critical to deterrence and global strategy.
Second issue is ground capability. So in any event that
maintaining a capable and robust nuclear option doesn't suffice
as a deterrent from war, it is obviously imperative we have a
capable and ready ground force. As this committee and Congress
have presented a path forward to rebuilding our force
structure, the need for modernizing our ground capabilities is
certainly prevalent to ensure full mission readiness.
As a proud Member who represents one of the two unit
training centers in the United States, Fort Polk Army Base and
the Joint Readiness Training Center in our district, it is
critical to highlight how the Army has continued to solidify
its footprint with a state-of-the-art JRTC.
As Fort Polk's JRTC provides invaluable training for its
advise and assist roles, it provides soldiers with the training
and flexibility necessary to carry out the demands placed on
them to achieve victory. It also partners with our close allies
in collaborative joint exercises to prepare for the unique
situations and challenges the unit may face while deployed.
As we work to regrow our ground forces and since Fort Polk
remains a vital security asset, we should invest in the JRTC to
ensure full military readiness.
I hope to work with members of this committee to ensure
that the Army uses the right information and the proper
methodology to maximize our resources and facilities to ensure
Fort Polk and the JRTC continue to provide invaluable training
to fully prepare and equip our men and women in uniform for the
many challenges ahead. It is the only combat training center in
the Nation that also trains and deploys combat units.
As I prepare to close, I just want to say the defense
communities that surround both Barksdale and Fort Polk have a
long and proven track record of fully supporting--
enthusiastically so--these two vital military installations.
And all these folks stand ready to help modernize our armed
forces to meet our Nation's mission capabilities and necessary
resources.
And just recently at Fort Polk, the Army completed its
largest land purchase, over 47,000 acres, in an effort to
provide even more robust training capabilities there for their
brigade combat team rotations and all the rest. And we got $90
million on the State level for the interchange at Barksdale,
which shows the investment of that State.
Finally, I just want to thank this committee for continuing
these important priorities for this district and all of ours
around the country. You have such important work and we are so
grateful. I look forward to doing everything I can to support
you and the committee's work to provide our military with the
essential resources it needs. This is a top priority for all of
us, and it should be.
With that, I yield back, and thank you again for your time.
[The written statement of Congressman Johnson follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Granger. Thank you. And thank you for appearing here
today, and congratulations on having two installations that are
so important in your district. I represent Fort Worth, Texas;
it was an Air Force base. And then I had the misfortune to have
that base closed during a BRAC. It is now realigned as a Joint
Reserve Base, but I know what it means. And it is a very
different sort of constituency, because they are coming and
going, but we can be so helpful if we really understand what is
going on at those bases. And so thank you for bringing that to
our attention. We appreciate it very much.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Granger. Anything you would like to say, Mr. Visclosky?
Mr. Visclosky. Just to thank the witness in particular for
your emphasis on readiness. And, again, I appreciate your
thoughtful testimony, and compliment you on your choice of
ties. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Anything else you would like to
leave with us?
Mr. Johnson. No. I just told my colleague here, Mr. Graves,
it is good to be with a committee that has a lot of authority
and power. So that is a nice change for a freshman.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Thank you very much.
We are waiting on Mr. McGovern. We will give some more time
because Congressman Carter, the other Congressman Carter, was
supposed to appear. And he may come in, but I don't think so.
So we will wait a few more minutes.
Next, we will hear from Congressman Jim McGovern of
Massachusetts.
Mr. McGovern, welcome. Sorry we had a little change in
time, so we didn't mean to rush you, but that is the situation
we are in.
Mr. McGovern. No, that is fine. I am happy to be here,
honored to be here with all of you. Thank you so much for
giving me this opportunity.
----------

Wednesday, May 9, 2018.

WITNESS

HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS

Summary Statement of Congressman McGovern

Mr. McGovern. And I want to thank you, Madam Chair and
Ranking Member Visclosky, for allowing me the opportunity to
testify in support of the Wounded Warrior Service Dog Program.
And I want to thank this committee in particular. You, in the
last fiscal year, raised the amount for this program from $5
million to $10 million, and we are here to ask that we continue
the $10 million.
As you know, these service dogs have made an incredible
difference in the life of many of our men and women who have
served overseas in battle and--but it is an expensive
proposition to train these dogs, and sometimes that expense
makes it difficult for our veterans to get access to them. And
this program provides grants so that these dogs can be trained
and our veterans can get what they need. And so I am here to
say thank you for your past support, and thank you, hopefully,
for your continued support.
The other reason why I am here is to ask you to provide
$250,000 for the creation and distribution of the Atomic
Veterans Service Medal. As you may recall, for the last 3
years, we in the House have passed in the national defense
authorization bill a provision creating a service medal for
atomic veterans.
These are people who served our country during a very
difficult time and could never talk about their service because
it was top secret. In fact, many of them couldn't even tell
their doctors that they potentially could have been exposed to
radiation. It wasn't until the first George Bush was President
and then Bill Clinton that they kind of opened things up and
these veterans were able to talk about their service.
They were never recognized at the time for their service to
our country, and many of us thought that they deserve some sort
of recognition. And so for 3 years in a row, we have passed a
provision that would give them that medal. In fact, the last
roll call vote we had, every single Member of the House voted
for it. And, unfortunately, for 3 years in a row, it continues
to get dropped in the--by the Senate during the conference
negotiations.
The Pentagon, I am sad to say, has been reluctant to
support this idea. They have told me they don't believe in
giving medals retroactively, which seems like a strange excuse
not to want to honor these veterans. And then I was even told
that by honoring these atomic veterans, that somehow we would
be diminishing the service of other veterans, which I found,
quite frankly, offensive.
And so, you know, we are going to continue to push the
authorizers to create this program, but in the meantime, you
know, I am coming to you to say, let's begin this. Let's do
what is right. Again, these veterans are aging, many of them
are dying, and I think they deserve to be recognized, and I
think that is the will of the House, and so I hope that you
will look favorably upon that request as well.
So I thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here,
and I thank you for your service on this committee.
[The written statement of Congressman McGovern follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Granger. Thank you for appearing before us today.
This is an opportunity we have--we can just talk frankly
about some things that Members are requesting. And I think that
there is--the service dog program is one, everyone is very
aware of it, because you see them now and see the difference it
makes in the lives of the people, the wounded warriors they are
serving, so that is a wonderful request.
The second one, I am as puzzled as you are about the
response from the Senate, because it was overlooked, and I
think it is a wonderful recognition. So I am certainly very
positive about it.
Mr. Visclosky, do you have anything to say about that one?
Mr. Visclosky. You know, I associate myself with the
chairwoman's remarks. And thank you very much for your concern,
not only for veterans, but those who need that extra care and
recognition.
Do you have any sense at all that someone in the Senate is
going to pick that issue up as far as honoring the atomic
veterans, Mr. McGovern?
Mr. McGovern. We have Senator Markey has introduced the
bill over in the Senate, and we are going to continue to work
with him to try to see if he can move it in a bipartisan way.
But, again, I think there are some Members of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, I think staff members in particular, and
some people over in the Pentagon who have urged them to
basically drop this idea.
Mr. Visclosky. Yes.
Mr. McGovern. And, again, I just--I don't get it. And, you
know, if the policy is that we don't retroactively honor--you
know, create medals for veterans' service, you know, maybe we
ought to take another look at that. But I don't think this
opens up the floodgates.
And, again, I am--I think it is particularly urgent because
this is an aging population, and a lot of these atomic veterans
are no longer with us. And I think they deserve to know that
our country is grateful for their service.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you. And thank you for taking the time
to be here today, and good luck on that initiative.
Mr. McGovern. And I just want to say on the service dog,
the Wounded Warrior Service Dog Program, you know, I want to
thank this committee in particular because this would not be in
existence without Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member
Visclosky and the members of this committee. So, I mean, you
made this happen, and it is benefiting a lot of veterans. So
thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here.
That concludes today's hearing. The subcommittee is
adjourned.
Mr. Carter. Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Granger. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. May I be recognized?
Ms. Granger. You may.
Mr. Carter. These are the people that were out at the
nuclear test sites----
Mr. McGovern. Yes.
Mr. Carter [continuing]. That volunteered to be within the
blast radius?
Mr. McGovern. Right. That is correct.
Mr. Carter. Well, I kind of agree with you. They ought to
get something. Are benefits attached to this medal?
Mr. McGovern. No. All it is is a recognition, a medal or
whatever is deemed appropriate, but something that would honor
their service and recognize their service. That is it.
Mr. Carter. Thank you for bringing that up.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. That is very interesting.
Ms. Granger. Anybody else?
That concludes today's hearing. The subcommittee is
adjourned.

[Clerk's note.--Written testimony submitted for the record
by Congressman Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Congressman Doug
Lamborn, Congressman Beto O'Rourke, Congressman Paul Cook,
Congressman Glenn `GT' Thompson, Congresswoman Barbara
Comstock, and Congressman Alan Lowenthal follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]