[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-23]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET
REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
ARMY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE AIR FORCE
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 2, 2019
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-884 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY,
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island Texas
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee ROB BISHOP, Utah
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN GARAMENDI, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JACKIE SPEIER, California K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland, Vice PAUL COOK, California
Chair BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
RO KHANNA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
FILEMON VELA, Texas SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
ANDY KIM, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr., MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
California MATT GAETZ, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania DON BACON, Nebraska
JASON CROW, Colorado JIM BANKS, Indiana
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
KATIE HILL, California MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia
Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
Katy Quinn, Professional Staff Member
Jesse Tolleson, Professional Staff Member
Justin Lynch, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac,'' a Representative from Texas,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services.................... 3
WITNESSES
Esper, Hon. Mark T., Secretary of the Army, United States Army... 4
Goldfein, Gen David L., USAF, Chief of Staff, United States Air
Force.......................................................... 9
Milley, GEN Mark A., USA, Chief of Staff, United States Army..... 6
Wilson, Hon. Heather, Secretary of the Air Force, United States
Air Force...................................................... 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Esper, Hon. Mark T., joint with GEN Mark A. Milley........... 73
Wilson, Hon. Heather, joint with Gen David L. Goldfein....... 90
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[The document was not available at the time of printing.]....
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Ms. Escobar.................................................. 109
Mr. Gallego.................................................. 109
Ms. Haaland.................................................. 110
Ms. Sherrill................................................. 109
Ms. Stefanik................................................. 109
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Cook..................................................... 118
Mr. Courtney................................................. 114
Ms. Escobar.................................................. 124
Mr. Garamendi................................................ 114
Ms. Haaland.................................................. 125
Ms. Horn..................................................... 120
Ms. Houlahan................................................. 120
Mr. Kim...................................................... 118
Mrs. Luria................................................... 125
Mr. Scott.................................................... 116
Ms. Torres Small............................................. 123
Mr. Turner................................................... 114
Mr. Wilson................................................... 113
THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF ARMY AND THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE AIR FORCE
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, April 2, 2019.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. We will call the committee to order.
Good morning, all. Just process-wise, we don't really have
a hard stop on the hearing today, so we will see how it goes.
Depending on how many members are left sort of in the 12 to
12:30 range, we may take a break at that point.
And I will reiterate and remind everybody that the way it
works is those of you who are here now at the drop of the gavel
are in line, basically. Everyone else who comes in goes to the
back of that line. And then even if any of the people who are
here at the drop of the gavel leave, when they come back, if
they are next, it is their turn. So I will handle that
according to the rules and just hope you all are aware of it.
Well, welcome today. We are pleased to have the posture
hearing for the Army and the Air Force. We do have with us as
witnesses the Honorable Mark Esper, Secretary of the Army;
General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the Army; the Honorable
Heather Wilson, Secretary of the Air Force; and General David
Goldfein, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
I want to congratulate General Milley on his nomination to
be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I very much enjoyed
working with him in his current capacity and look forward to
working with him in that capacity as well.
And thanks, Secretary Wilson, for what will likely be her
last hearing before the House Armed Services Committee.
Appreciate her service both in Congress and in the military and
wish you very, very well. And I don't think you actually left
just because of the space force, but I would be sympathetic if
you did. So we will talk about that more later.
But thank you all for being here. There are a lot of issues
to go over. I will not attempt to cover all of them in my
opening statement. I just want to mention a couple. First of
all, I know the Army has done a very, very aggressive effort to
look at all of their programs and basically modernize what the
Army is purchasing and how they are organizing for the future.
And it is a rapidly changing environment both in terms of the
threats and in terms of the technology that is going to be
necessary to meet those threats. So I look forward to hearing
more about the details of how you arrived at the decisions that
you did and how you think we can support you in that effort
going forward.
And yes, with the Air Force, I know you have done a similar
effort to try to look at how you can maintain the number of
airframes that you need to meet all the needs and requirements
that you have. I am curious. I know the study came back that
there was a substantial need for an increase in the number of
planes in the Air Force. I am curious about exactly which
planes you think are most important and how that is going to
fit into the future budget. And yes, I am interested in getting
your specifics on how we handle the space force.
This is really a simple, straightforward thing, and I want
to compliment Mike Rogers and Jim Cooper, two Members who have
been working on this issue for a number of years on the
Strategic Forces Subcommittee. We need to place a greater
emphasis on space without question. Put simply, our goal there
is to place a greater emphasis on space without wasting money,
without creating more unnecessary bureaucracy, and to figure
out what the best way is to rearrange that within the DOD and
within the Air Force's responsibility. So we will be curious to
hear your comments on how we can proceed on that front.
And then there are two broader issues I just want to touch
on. Number one is something we have said over and over again in
this committee, but the importance of getting an on-time
appropriations process so that on October 1, you have your
budget, you know how much money you are going to have to spend
during the course of that year cannot be overstated.
For fiscal year 2019, that is the first time in a long time
where we had that. I know we cut the deal for fiscal year 2018,
but we didn't cut that deal until about 6 months into the
fiscal year, and that is not the same as having the money at
the start. So whatever our differences on what the budget caps
should be, we need to resolve them and go forward.
I will also say that, you know, whatever led to the budget
caps and the Budget Control Act that was passed in 2011,
thinking that strict adherence to that law that was passed 8
years ago is in any way going to make us fiscally more
responsible I think is folly. In a $4.75 trillion budget,
obsessing over tens of billions of dollars in the discretionary
portion of it, be it defense or non-defense, isn't all that
helpful from a fiscal responsibility standpoint and is
unbelievably damaging in terms of the ability of the government
to function. If you don't know how much money you are going to
have from one month to the next or what programs you can and
can't spend it on, it is very difficult to function.
And I, you know, worked with the Pentagon over the course
of the last 8 years as you have attempted to function in that
environment. It is brutal and difficult, and it is just as
brutal and difficult for the non-defense discretionary budget
to try and do that as well.
And the last issue I will point out is the issue of the
audit, the issue of understanding exactly where DOD spends its
money. I would recommend to everyone here, if you haven't read
it, Rolling Stone did a very interesting article about the
challenges that exist within the Department of Defense figuring
out how and where it spent its money, just simple basic
accounting, and the problem goes back decades. It has been
built in the Department of Defense long before any of you in
front of us showed up at the Pentagon, and now it has reached
the point where there is certain argument that it is so
confusing, so tangled up that there is no way to untangle it.
This committee does not accept that.
And what I would be curious, how can we begin the process?
We are not going to get a full audit next month, next year. It
is unbelievably cumbersome. But there has to be--you know, it
is like when the cords get all bundled up, there has got to be
some place to start to sort of pull it apart and start working.
And that is what I want to see, progress, so that eventually we
can get to the point where we can track the money because right
now, in the Department of Defense, you don't even really know
how much inventory you have. You know, you have to make it up
at a certain point just to put a number out there, but you
don't know. Not on the big stuff. You know how many bombers you
have, but on all of the other things, on the buildings, on the
basic pieces of equipment, we just don't know, and we can't
account for that in a way that gives us any confidence in the
overall efficiency and effectiveness of the budget, so we are
going to need to work on that as well.
As I said, there are a lot of more issues, but that is all
I have for now. With that, I turn it over to the ranking
member, Mr. Thornberry.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me join in
welcoming and thanking our witnesses for being here and for
their service. I would particularly say that I am grateful that
Secretary Wilson allowed herself to be persuaded to return to
government service and would point out that as she leaves
government service at the end of next month, she is choosing to
be a Texan, and all of you could take a hint with that good
judgment when it comes time to do something else.
I want to commend a couple of things at the beginning
because in some ways, I think they are unusual. Number one, I
want to commend what at least has seemed to be, from my vantage
point, a close working relationship between the service
secretaries and their respective service chiefs as well as, I
think, an unprecedented relationship among the service
secretaries. Now, you would think that is the way it always
ought to be, and maybe it should but it is not always the way
it has been. I am sure there are stresses and strains that are
not obvious from the outside, but I think that is important,
and all of--each of you have participated in that.
Secondly, I want to commend the Army for first, taking the
time to go through each of the programs under your jurisdiction
and to make tough decisions. I may or may not agree with all
the decisions you make. That is irrelevant, but the point is
you all have been serious about making the changes internally
to ensure that the Army is prepared for the challenges coming
at us. That includes reorganization, the creation of Army's
Futures Command, and a number of other decisions. I think that
is important, and it is something that not only the services,
but we need to share as well.
I agree completely with comments the chairman has made
about the budget. We have, in my estimation, begun to turn
things around when it comes to readiness and modernization and
the other things this committee has focused on in the previous
few years, but that job is not done, and I know we will talk
more about that.
I also agree with the chairman that we all, and this has to
be a joint effort, the committee and the services need to
continue to work to not only track where the money goes but
improve the way that it is spent. And I think the very first
step was when this committee put into law several years ago a
requirement that the audit take place. We knew it was not going
to have a good outcome, but the point is, you have got to find
the problems before you can start to solve them. And I think
going through program by program as you all have done, that
sort of intense scrutiny is good and important.
The last point I want to make is a few years ago, President
George Bush, in a different context, talked about the soft
bigotry of low expectations. Well, I think that kind of applies
to some of the work we do too because sometimes you hear the
excuse well, that program can't be cut. It has--it is just too
hard, or that is just how long it takes to get a new program
fielded, or Congress will never go for that, or you know, all
sorts of excuses.
With every briefing and hearing we have about the security
environment in which we operate and the adversaries which we
face, I have a greater sense of urgency that the Congress and
the Pentagon need to make the changes necessary so that the
country can be defended today and into the future. And I don't
think any of those excuses, you know, are going to cut it when
at some point in the future, people look back and judge all of
our tenure here.
So as the chairman said, there are lots of issues to talk
about specifically, but I think it is on all of us to push hard
and push fast because that is the way the challenges are coming
at us, and they are not going to slow up and wait for us to
catch up.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. I heartily agree with the ranking
member's statement, and particularly his last point. I think it
was incredibly well put and the most important thing that we
need to work on.
With that, Mr. Esper, you will kick us off. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK T. ESPER, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, UNITED
STATES ARMY
Secretary Esper. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee--of this committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
want to first thank Congress for helping us reverse the
readiness decline that developed following several years of
budget uncertainty. Because of the strong support provided in
the fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 budgets, we have
increased the number of fully ready brigade combat teams by 55
percent over the past 2 years. However, while I am confident we
would prevail against any foe today, our adversaries are
working hard to contest the outcome of future conflicts.
As a result, the Army stands at a strategic inflection
point. If we fail to modernize the Army now, we risk losing the
first battles of the next war. For the past 17 years, the Army
bore the brunt of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For over a
decade, we postponed modernization to procure equipment
tailored to counter insurgency operations. Our legacy combat
systems designed for high-intensity conflict entered service
when I joined the Army in the early 1980s.
While they dominated in past conflicts, incremental
upgrades for many of them are no longer adequate for the
demands of future battlefield as described in the National
Defense Strategy. We must build the next generation of combat
systems now before Russia and China outpace us with their
modernization programs.
Despite Russia's looming economic difficulties, they are
steadily upgrading their military capabilities. In addition to
field testing their next generation T-14 Armada tank, they
continue to advance the development of their air defense and
artillery systems. And when combined with new technology such
as drones, cyber, and electronic warfare, Russia has proven its
battlefield prowess.
We have no reason to believe that Moscow's aggressive
behavior will cease in the short term. Russia's blatant
disregard for their neighbors' sovereignty as demonstrated in
Ukraine and Crimea and Georgia. It is a deliberate strategy
meant to intimidate weaker states and undermine the NATO [North
Atlantic Treaty Organization] alliance.
In the long run, China presents an even greater challenge.
They continue to focus their military investments in cutting-
edge technologies such as artificial intelligence, directed
energy, and hypersonics. Beijing's systematic theft of
intellectual property is also allowing them to develop
capabilities cheaper and faster than ever before.
To deter the growing threat posed by great power
competitors and to defeat them in battle, if necessary, we must
leap ahead to the next generation of combat systems, and we
must do so now. Over the past year, the Army took a major step
forward in reorganizing its entire modernization enterprise
with the establishment of Futures Command. In doing so, we
stripped away layers of bureaucracy and streamlined our
acquisition process while achieving unity of command and
greater accountability. Guided by our six modernization
priorities, Army Futures Command is hard at work developing the
systems needed to maintain battlefield overmatch in future
conflicts.
When we reviewed the budget this time last year, we felt
that it was unreasonable to ask Congress for the additional $4
to $5 billion needed annually to fund our modernization without
first looking internally to find the necessary resources. As a
result, the Army's senior leaders took an unprecedented
initiative to comprehensively review every Army program. Our
goal was simple. Find those programs that least contribute to
the Army's lethality and reallocate those resources into higher
priority activities.
After over 50 hours of painstaking deliberations, we
eliminated, reduced, or delayed nearly 200 programs, freeing up
over $30 billion over the next 5 years. We then reinvested this
money into our top priorities, those systems and initiatives we
need to prevail in future wars. The Army will continue to
ruthlessly prioritize our budgets to provide a clear,
predictable path forward that will achieve our strategic goals.
That process is underway now as we develop next year's budget.
Support for the Army's fiscal year 2020 budget is critical to
building the Army the Nation needs and demands.
Those who are invested in legacy systems will fight to hold
on to the past while ignoring the billions of dollars in
opportunity created by our investments in new technologies and
what it means for the Army's future readiness. While change
will be hard for some, we can no longer afford to delay the
Army's modernization. We believe we are following the sound
guidance conveyed to us by many of you.
In this era of great power competition, we cannot risk
falling behind. If left unchecked, Russia and China will
continue to erode the competitive military advantage we have
held for decades. The Army has a clear vision which I ask be
entered into the record and a sound strategy to maintain
battlefield overmatch. We are making the tough choices. We now
need the support of Congress to modernize the force, and it
starts with the fiscal year 2020 budget.
The bottom line is this. We owe it to our soldiers to
provide them the weapons and equipment they need to win
decisively in future battles. Thank you again for your
continued support. I look forward to your questions and
appreciate the opportunity to discuss these important matters
with you today.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Esper and
General Milley can be found in the Appendix on page 73.]
The Chairman. Thank you. Without objection, the statement
that you asked for will be entered into the record.
General Milley.
STATEMENT OF GEN MARK A. MILLEY, USA, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED
STATES ARMY
General Milley. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry,
and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to join Secretary Esper here today. And I would
like to also acknowledge the great service in uniform, in
Congress, and as the Secretary of the Air Force, with Secretary
Wilson. Her performance and her exceptional service is a
tremendous inspiration to all of us. It is true that the Air
Force got away from us in 1947. We are determined to get them
back, but we are, I can say without equivocation that the
United States Air Force is the Army's absolute best friend in
the field of battle, and they are always the first one we call.
So thank you, Secretary, for your service.
It remains an incredible privilege for me to represent the
almost one million soldiers in the regular Army and National
Guard, the United States Army Reserve. They are arrayed in 18
divisions, 58 brigade combat teams, and deployed to over
180,000 troops today in 140 countries around the world on
freedom's frontier.
While much of our testimony today and your questions are
going to focus on the challenges the Army faces and how to make
us stronger and more lethal, and that is appropriate, it is
also important to note up front for you, the American people,
for this committee, for the entire Congress, our allies, and
most importantly, for our adversaries, that the United States
Army, as part of the joint force, is a highly capable, globally
deployable force today and we can go anywhere any time and beat
anyone on very short notice in the conduct of ground combat. We
have the training, the equipment, the people, the leaders to
prevail today, and no adversary out there should ever doubt
that.
I concur with Secretary Esper's comments on the threats
posed by China and Russia, and they are, in fact, in my view,
rising. The international order, and by extension, the United
States' interests are under increasing and dangerous pressure.
China is a significant threat to the United States and our
allies in the mid and long term. And I would categorize them as
a revisionist power seeking to diminish U.S. influence in the
Pacific and establish themselves as the controlling regional
power in the Western Pacific, and more broadly, in all of Asia,
and they are setting conditions to challenge the United States
on a global scale no later than mid century.
Russia seeks to return to great power status and will
continue to challenge the United States not only in Europe but
also in the Middle East, Asia, the Arctic, Africa, the West
Hemisphere. They continue to undermine NATO as an alliance and
sow dissent throughout the European continent as we know even
in our own homeland through a variety of means. Russia remains
the only current existential threat to the United States that
will become, in my opinion, increasingly opportunistic and
willing to take greater risks in the near term.
So what this budget will do. In the last 17 years, our
strategic competitors have eroded our military advantages as
outlined by Secretary Esper. With your help, starting 2 years
ago, we began to restore our competitive advantage, and our
recent budgets have helped improve our readiness and lay the
groundwork for future modernization, and we ask with this
budget that you sustain those efforts.
Our goal remains 66 percent, two-thirds of the Active Duty
Army brigade combat teams, and 33 percent of the National Guard
and the U.S. Army Reserve units, to be on the highest levels of
readiness. Those numbers, those levels of readiness are what we
need to be able to align with the strategy that is laid out in
the National Defense Strategy, and with continued, consistent,
predictable congressional support, on-time budgets, we can
reach those levels of readiness sometime in 2022.
Specifically, this budget will fund 58 brigade combat teams
and 6 security force assistance brigades for the total Army, 32
combat training center rotations to include 4 for the National
Guard, increased prepositioned stocks in both Europe and
INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command], and many, many other
current readiness initiatives.
In terms of modernization, which is really just another
term for future readiness, this budget will fund improved
capabilities across our 6 modernization priorities which
include 30 specific programs that are embedded within them. In
addition, another 50 programs of significant importance of the
Army. In short, this budget will increase the lethality of
munitions and forces across the globe and increase the
lethality of the Army in the future against any threat.
Lastly, I want to highlight that this committee, Congress
as a whole, has provided us tremendous support over the last
several years. We recognize that, and we are committed to
applying our resources deliberately and responsibly,
understanding that they have been entrusted to us by Congress
and the American people, and we will continue to do that going
forward to ensure that we maintain our solemn obligation to our
soldiers that we will never send our sons and daughters into
harm's way unless they are properly trained, fully manned, have
the best equipment money can buy, and are extraordinarily well
led.
Thank you again for your continued supported to our
soldiers and their families, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Secretary Wilson.
STATEMENT OF HON. HEATHER WILSON, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE,
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put my
entire statement in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Secretary Wilson. And then just summarize a few things.
The budget that the Air Force has presented this year is
aligned with the National Defense Strategy. That is the
guidance we gained as we began to develop this budget, and we
have been consistent about that all the way through.
I would like to really just highlight three things with
respect to our budget and the state of the Air Force today.
Last year, the Congress asked the chief and I what is the Air
Force you need to implement this National Defense Strategy? And
at the time, we didn't know, and we should know. And you
directed in the Defense Authorization Act last year that we do
a piece of analysis on what is the Air Force we need to
implement the National Defense Strategy. Not what is the Air
Force we have or what is the Air Force we can afford in this
year's budget, but what do we need.
The answer to that is that the Air Force will be in the
forefront regardless of where the next conflict occurs, and we
are too small for what the Nation is asking us to do. Today we
have 312 operational squadrons. The Air Force we need has 386
operational squadrons. Putting that in context, at the start of
the Gulf war, there were 401 operational squadrons in the
United States Air Force. It is not unreasonable, given the
threats that we face, that we need to build a larger and more
capable Air Force. But it is not just more of the same. We have
to evolve, to incorporate advanced technology, and use it in
new ways.
Second, America is building a more lethal and ready Air
Force. We are more ready today than we were 2 years ago, in
large part, because of the resources that Congress has made
available to the Air Force and our focus on restoring the
readiness of the force. That means people, and training, and
equipment, and maintenance, and spare parts, and munitions.
What you have allowed us to do is to be more ready for anything
the world may throw at us.
Third, we are fielding tomorrow's Air Force faster and
smarter. In 2016 and 2017, the Congress gave us new authorities
and pushed more authority down from the Office of the Secretary
of Defense level to the services to give us more authority to
buy equipment faster and smarter. We are implementing those
authorities and stripping time out of program plans to get
capability from the lab bench to the warfighter faster.
We cannot succeed, Mr. Chairman, without your support, and
I wanted to personally thank all of you for the on-time budget
that you gave to us in this fiscal year. It gives us stability
and the ability to plan and execute that budget.
I would also be remiss if I didn't point out the need that
we have for a supplemental for this year to cover the costs of
the terrible storm that hit Tyndall Air Force Base and, more
recently, Offutt Air Force Base. If we don't work together to
find a way through to do a supplemental, it is going to have a
devastating impact in the last 6 months of this fiscal year as
we try to hold things together in the wake of two terrible
storms.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Wilson and
General Goldfein can be found in the Appendix on page 90.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
General Goldfein.
STATEMENT OF GEN DAVID L. GOLDFEIN, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF,
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
General Goldfein. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Thornberry, distinguished members of the committee, what an
honor to once again represent your Air Force, Active, Guard,
Reserve, and civilian airmen who stand the watch and provide
top cover for the Nation and our joint and allied teammates to
include the finest and most lethal Army on the planet. And I
will just say ``hooah''.
General Milley. ``Hooah''. Come on.
General Goldfein. This hearing is among the first official
forums since Secretary Wilson announced her pending departure
from the Air Force to become a Texan. And I want to say
publicly on behalf of all airmen and their families what an
honor it has been to work with her every day to make our Air
Force more ready and more lethal, and this budget represents
the culmination of our work together to build the Air Force we
need to compete, to deter, and if deterrence fails, to fight
and win.
And so I want to state for the record that we are a better
Air Force because of the leadership and the vision of our
Secretary, Dr. Heather Wilson.
Chairman, I went to war for the first time as a young
captain flying F-16s out of Shaw Air Force Base in South
Carolina just a few days after Saddam Hussein invaded his
neighbor in Kuwait. And as the Secretary said, at the time, we
had 401 operational squadrons and 945,000 Active, Guard,
Reserve, and civilian airmen in an Air Force that landed our
Nation's initial punch: 401 operational squadrons to defeat a
middleweight, non-nuclear power who threatened his neighbor in
the region but who posed little threat to our homeland and our
way of life.
Today, as the Secretary said, we have 312 operational
squadrons, down from 401, and we have 685,000 airmen, down from
945,000. We are not the Air Force of Desert Storm. When General
Tony McPeak was the chief in 1991, he and his fellow Joint
Chiefs were focused on supporting a single combatant commander,
General Norm Schwarzkopf, the commander of U.S. Central
Command. But today, should deterrence fail, and we find
ourselves defending our Nation against a major nuclear power,
as chief, I will be simultaneously supporting at least three
combatant commanders who will be demanding air, space, and
cyber power.
The geographic combatant commander will request forces to
support his campaign which will include backfill for any
fighters, tankers, command and control forces he will place on
nuclear alert. The next call I will receive will be from U.S.
Strategic Command. He will tell me how many bombers, tankers,
and command and control forces he needs to execute his nuclear
mission, protecting not only our homeland but also our allies
and our partners. And the third will be from U.S. Northern
Command who will tell me how many fighters and tankers and ISR
[intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] and C-2
aircraft he needs to execute his plan to defend the U.S.
And the Air Force will support these missions
simultaneously, not sequentially, while at the same time
shoulder to shoulder with our joint teammates maintaining a
global presence to deter any rogue nation who might choose to
take advantage of our situation while simultaneously
maintaining campaign pressure against violent extremism.
This is the stark difference between fighting a
middleweight rogue nation without nuclear weapons versus
competing, deterring, and if deterrence fails, fighting and
winning a peer fight. And it is why Secretary Wilson and I
continue to articulate in every forum that the Air Force is too
small for what the Nation is asking us to do. It is why we
reported to this committee that the Air Force we need to
execute the National Defense Strategy requires 386 operational
squadrons.
With your support of this budget request, we will continue
to rebuild the readiness and lethality of this Air Force which
you supported last year with an on-time appropriation following
a damaging sequester and years of budget uncertainty, and for
that, we thank you.
You know, Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the
committee, history doesn't always repeat, but it does rhyme now
and then. My father fought as a young F-4 pilot in Vietnam. He
and many of his peers stayed in and rebuilt the Air Force his
son needed to fight and win in Desert Storm, followed by 28
years of continual combat operations including 10 years of
Operations Northern and Southern Watch, air campaigns in
Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, and continuing through the past 17
years fighting violent extremism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria,
and North Africa.
My daughter and my nephews are young airmen today. With
your continued support, with on-time budgets, we will build the
Air Force they will need to fight and win side by side with our
incredible Army in this era of great power competition. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify, and we look forward to your
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you all. I will start with the Air
Force, sort of building on the main point that both you and the
Secretary made, General Goldfein, that--I forget the numbers
off the top here, but roughly you said we have how many
squadrons at this point, Madam Secretary?
Secretary Wilson. Sir, we have 312 operational squadrons.
The Chairman. Right. And you were saying that we needed
388, something like that?
Secretary Wilson. 386.
The Chairman. 386 to get there. And, you know, I realize
the Air Force budget is a little bit complicated because, you
know, some of that goes to the intel, some of it goes here, but
roughly, I think your budget request is in the $150-160 billion
range, is that correct?
Secretary Wilson. It is a little above 160. It is a 6.5
percent increase over last year.
The Chairman. Okay. So I guess the question is how much
would you need in order to have the Air Force that you both say
that we don't have but desperately need?
Secretary Wilson. If you just look in rough numbers, first
of all, we are looking out in the 2025, 2030 timeframe which is
what you guided us to do and to look at the threat in that era.
The Chairman. Just clarify on that point. So you are--the
numbers that you cited earlier about how large you think the
Air Force needs to be is to meet the 2025 threat environment,
not to meet the current threat environment?
Secretary Wilson. That is correct. You guided us to look in
the 2025----
The Chairman. I get what we guided you to do. I am not
asking about that. You basically stated, and it seemed like it
was more present tense than future tense when you both were
talking about it, that we right now today do not have the Air
Force that you think we need to defend the country, and I am
just curious how much more money we would have to spend to get
that Air Force.
Now, I understand you don't create planes out of whole
cloth in the blink of an eye, and it takes time, but putting
that point aside, how much more would it cost to have the Air
Force that you think we need right now?
Secretary Wilson. Well, if you just look in rough terms,
the Air Force we need of 386 squadrons is about 25 percent
larger than the Air Force we have.
The Chairman. Right. And realistically, within the budget,
I mean, even assuming--and you got a really good budget in
2019, $717 billion, you know, an increase. I mean, do you
realistically think that within the DOD budget and the budget
writ large that we are going to be able to get to those kind of
numbers, because it is not just the Air Force that would make
that argument about how they don't have enough. How does that
factor into what we are realistically going to be able to
provide you?
Secretary Wilson. We fully recognize that there are
tradeoffs that are made and that the country may not be able to
afford the Air Force that we need in order to execute the
National Defense Strategy at moderate levels of risk. What that
represents, that gap between the strategy that we have, what is
necessary to execute that strategy, and what we really have,
represents risk.
The Chairman. Yes.
Secretary Wilson. And that risk is that we will not be able
to accomplish the objectives that the combatant commanders have
set out in their plans on the timelines that they have asked us
to meet.
The Chairman. Here is the problem I have with that, and I
won't drill too deeply into because it could take a long time
if I did. So we have got a $750 billion budget request from the
President. That is a hell of a lot of money, certainly a lot
more than a lot of our adversaries spent. And at the same time
we got that, over the course of the last week from all of you,
we have been getting here is the stuff that the $750 billion
didn't include. And I haven't done the math on that one, I
apologize, but it is a reasonably large number that the
Pentagon is now telling us that they can't possibly--well,
sorry. I overstated that slightly. Saying that there is an
unacceptable level of risk created by the fact that we are not
funding all the stuff in addition to the $750 billion throwing
at it that we put in the budget.
My point is this has no end, okay. I remember a discussion
in this committee between a member who shall remain nameless
who wanted Secretary Gates to tell him stop talking to us about
risk. Give us the budget that has no risk in it. If Secretary
Gates was one given to laughing, he would have. He just finally
said we don't live in that world. You cannot eliminate risk.
And to a certain extent, you can always compel us. I mean,
we could spend a trillion dollars, and I am halfway convinced
you would all be sitting here telling us okay, that is great,
but here is all the things we can't do. And that frustrates me
at a certain point because I hear about risk, but you know, I
saw the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] nominee say 3 or 4
months ago when the number was going to be $733 billion that
anything below $733 billion presented a, quote, unacceptable
level of risk. And 2 days later, it was boosted to 750 which I
imagine that anything below 750 would present an unacceptable
level of risk.
What I am asking for long term is a better understanding of
what risk is because we could throw money at you all day long,
and you are going to come back at us and say well, there is
still an unacceptable level of risk. I don't find that helpful,
which brings me to my second point and that is the audit and
the issue of not knowing where the $750 billion is going to go.
And it is impossible to overstate this point. We literally
don't know where a chunk of that $750 billion is going to go.
We can identify some of it here and there, but by any normal
accounting measure, you can't tell us where you are spending
your money, how much inventory you have. There was, I don't
know, something like 427 structures within the DOD [Department
of Defense] disappeared in a year. They were just off the
books.
So without getting into the broader issue here, what I
would like for you, and I will turn over to the Army now, maybe
Secretary Esper having done the deep dive on your programs that
you did, you can tell us. What steps could this committee take,
and we are not going to get a full audit. I get that. I
understand that, you know, this is probably 60 years worth of
mismanagement in terms of accounting and accountability, and we
are not going to fix it in a year.
I want progress, okay. Is there some piece of the inventory
that we could say okay, let's do a deep dive and figure out
because we don't even use, like, a normal barcoding system to
keep track of what we move within the Pentagon and buy and
sell. Is there some step, steps, that we could take that are
achievable in the short term to help us have greater confidence
on where this 733 or 750 or trillion or whatever it is we
decide we want is going to be spent?
Secretary Esper. Mr. Chairman, I think the audit is very
important. I found it very helpful during my time in the
private sector. I think it tells you a lot about yourself and
your organization.
For the first year, we made our way through most of the
process. We came up with 429 findings. We now are building
corrective action plans for each of these. The Army Corps of
Engineers did pass their audit, and based on our progress
today, and we can get into the details as to IT [information
technology] systems incompatibility, databases, et cetera, but
we think that we will get a clean opinion on our working
capital fund in 2021 and our general fund in 2022.
The Chairman. Okay. But specifically to my question, you
know, and I am sorry. Accounting is very complicated and
difficult. I appreciate the fact that we have at least one
accountant on the committee. I think that is enormously
helpful. But could you give us a concrete sort of, I don't
know, layman's example that says here is something that was
going wrong. We have either fixed it, or we are about to fix
it, and here is why that is going to help us better understand
where the money is going.
Secretary Esper. Well, what comes to mind is accountability
of real estate, buildings, and so----
The Chairman. Good example.
Secretary Esper. The databases, first of all, don't
necessarily have all the buildings in them. And if they have to
talk between installations, I might have to come back and give
you more detail, but in many cases, the databases don't talk.
And then you have to go out--so we had to hire teams and
dispatch them out to each installation to literally walk block
by block and count buildings and describe them and try and put
a price on them because it requires a value, and just that
inventory process alone takes a lot of time and a lot of
effort. But we made good progress this year.
But then you have to update the database and make sure they
can talk, so at the end of the day, you know what you have and
what you don't have, and you can see yourself a whole lot
better. That is--to me, that is what is great about an audit.
It tells you what you really look like based on your inventory
of your real property. You know, we have a very good
accountability of munitions. That is pretty important, but
across the board, that is just one example, and we can provide
you more if you would like.
The Chairman. And that is good, and of course, the problem
is that it is always easier whether you do it on the front end,
okay. So if we had had these sets set up in place in the 1950s,
1960s, and 1970s, the incident from, like, 15 years ago when
there were six nuclear weapons that were put on, I think it was
a B-52, and flown across the country, and nobody knew that it
had happened because they didn't have an adequate accounting of
where the nuclear weapons were is perhaps the most alarming
example. But you know, yeah, with the buildings, should have
done that when we bought the damn things, okay. You know, why
do you have buildings that you didn't put on the books when you
bought them?
So going back and fixing that I think is enormously
important because then we can have greater confidence in the
numbers that you all are talking about in terms of what we
need. I could go on, but I won't.
Mr. Thornberry.
Mr. Thornberry. Let me just follow up on a subset of what
the chairman was talking about. In addition to putting more
responsibility on the services rather than DOD for the
acquisition of things, another major push of this committee in
recent years has been to adopt more commercial practices in
various ways because it turns out that Walmart and others are
pretty good at barcodes and keeping track of logistics and
various other examples.
But part of my frustration is a number of the things we
passed into law have not yet been implemented because it takes
so long to write the regulations and get through that whole
process. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but can
either Secretary Esper or Secretary Wilson give me a little
hope that the process in implementing what we have already
passed to improve these processes is actually picking up pace?
Secretary Esper. I was going to let her go first since I
will be able to do this again next year, and she won't.
I would say, Mr. Thornberry, that we are making great use,
I think, in the Army, probably all the services, because we
meet and talk a lot about this. Whether it is the middle-tier
acquisition authority, OTAs [other transaction authority], we
are making a lot of progress on that front. I mean, a purpose
why we stood up Army Futures Command was to get outside, out
from behind our gates and walls, out into the community to work
more with the commercial sector, the private sector, and
particularly young entrepreneurs and innovators.
And by the same token, then use that legislation to move
quickly. So we have funded quick prototyping. We have been able
to bring folks in in our version of a shark tank, if you will,
to help get those innovators in and tie them--get them working
with our requirements developer, so we are making good use of
it. I think there is some things we need to clear up inside the
building to make sure it is as efficient and as timely as
possible, but we thank you for the authorities that was given
to us.
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I would only add to that
that I think the thing to be cautious about, the Air Force,
like the Army, is moving out very quickly and not only using
these authorities but being more transparent and accountable
for how we are using them. I think the thing to be cautious
about is that old habits die hard, and they are--the thing to
watch over the coming years is attempts to take these new
authorities and make them look like the way we used to do
business. And there are plenty of checkers who are checking the
checkers, and that doesn't always add all that much value.
Mr. Thornberry. Well, it is something that I want to
continue to talk to you all about. Again, what I am talking
about right now are the things we already passed and
implementing them in the way for the goals that we intended.
Let me ask the service chiefs just to comment on one other
issue. As has already been noted, the pace of operations, the
rising threat, and the declining budgets resulted in a
significant, I would say, readiness crisis. We actually lost
lives that we need not have lost, in my opinion, because of the
combination of those factors.
So we, together, have put more resources into the budget.
We have, I hope, started to turn it around, but I think it is
important for us to hear from each of you a summary, not in
great detail, the progress we have made on the readiness issues
and where we are versus where we need to be. Is the job done?
Have the last 2 years of increasing budgets and having one on
time really got us back to where we need to be when it comes to
readiness?
Because as one of you said, I can't remember which one, I
would interpret it as morally wrong to send somebody out on a
mission without the best equipment, the best training, the best
support that this Nation can provide. And that is on our
shoulders as much as you-all's. So I would appreciate, General
Milley and General Goldfein, a snapshot of progress on
readiness and where we are versus where we need to be.
General Milley. Thanks, Congressman. I appreciated the
question. In short, about 55 percent, as Secretary Esper said,
and we have improved our readiness of our tactical units. When
I became Chief of Staff 3\1/2\ years ago, there were three
brigade combat teams at the highest level of readiness. Today
we have got, roughly speaking, 28 as of about December. So that
is a significant improvement, but that is not where we need to
be.
If we are serious about great power competition and really,
the key, we want to be able to win if deterrence fails, but the
key is deterrence. You never want the question asked or
answered whether you can win or lose against Russia and China.
You want to deter the possibility of conflict being raised. So
the way to do that is strength, to have large, capable,
extraordinarily ready forces that can rapidly deploy and
project combat power anywhere on earth.
And then if the enemy or your adversary knows that, then
the probability of them taking a risk and crossing some sort of
red line won't happen. So for the Army, we have improved our
readiness significantly in the last 2 years or so, but you are
not going to dig yourself out of an 8- or 10-year hole plus all
the cost of fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, et cetera.
You are not going to do that in just two budget cycles. This is
going to be a sustained level of effort.
We think if all other things remain equal, which of course,
they never do, we think, though, if they do that we will be at
the levels of readiness we project, 66 percent in the Regular
Army, 33 percent in the Guard and Reserve, sometime in 2022. If
we don't get budgets on time, we won't. If we go to a BCA
[Budget Control Act], it will be catastrophic. We will revert
back to squad- and platoon-level training which will increase
risk and increase the probability of war.
So readiness is all about being able to fight and win, but
it is all about deterrence, and that is really what the game
is. So we want to--we have a ways to go, a lot of work to do,
and we appreciate your continued support.
General Goldfein. Sir, what I would just add to that is
that, you know, we stopped the crisis in 2018. We sort of
leveled off. We began the recovery in 2019, and what we are
bringing forward in 2020 continues and actually accelerates
that recovery going forward.
For the Air Force, readiness first and foremost is about
people, and I know we have had this discussion. We were 4,000
maintainers short, and we are--with your support, we have
closed that gap to zero. They are young, but we have closed the
maintainer gap, and so--and we are also flying more in this
budget than we have in the past, so we are moving in the right
direction.
Among the most important things that Secretary Wilson and I
did was we took--we are approaching the additional dollars
towards readiness different than we have in the past. In the
past, we would have spread that across all squadrons, and then
all ships would have rose to a higher tide over time. We
determined we couldn't wait that long, so we went back and
looked at those squadrons that are required in the opening days
of a China or a Russia campaign, labeled them as pacing units,
and we took the additional money and put it to them first. And
as a result of that, we were able to shorten our readiness
recovery by 6 years.
So today, over 90 percent of the lead packages for those
pacing units required in the opening days of a China/Russia
campaign, over 90 percent of those are ready for combat
tasking. The remainder of those pacing units will be complete--
will be ready in 2020, and then we will continue to apply that
additional resources as we go forward.
And I would just end by saying that we also, for the Air
Force, have a very near-term readiness challenge, and that is
the impact of readiness if we don't get a supplemental because
right now, we are cash-flowing the recovery of Tyndall and
Offutt. And as the Secretary is forced to make decisions as we
go forward, that is going to have an absolute near-term impact
on the readiness of our force.
Mr. Thornberry. Well, I appreciate it, and I think it is
important to look at what our responsibility in this is as well
as you-all's.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you all for your dedicated and
distinguished service, and particularly best wishes as you move
on, Dr. Wilson. And with that, I will defer my questions to Ms.
Slotkin.
Ms. Slotkin. Thank you, Congresswoman.
General Milley, I was really glad to hear in your opening
statement that you described Russia as, quote, the only current
existential threat to the United States. I just want to make
sure I have that. It wasn't in your written statement. I just
was hoping you could confirm that statement that you read aloud
here in front of us.
General Milley. That is correct. And the reason for that is
because of Russian nuclear capability. Now, we have nuclear
capability as well, so there is, therefore, a standoff and
mutual deterrence. But because of their nuclear capability,
they are the only country on earth that is capable. I am not
saying they would do it----
Ms. Slotkin. Right.
General Milley [continuing]. But they are capable of
destroying the United States of America.
Ms. Slotkin. I just thought it was just a really important
and striking statement from someone who is going to be our
chairman soon, and I hope you maintain that strong focus on
that threat as you elevate to the chairman position and keep
that independent voice with our President and with others.
I wanted to ask both service chiefs or basically everyone
on there. We are about to have NATO's 70th anniversary. We have
the secretary general coming to speak with us, and the
conversation around partners and allies and their value to us.
I think sometimes the conversation gets caught up in sort of
the feel good pieces of having allies and partners where I see
it as, you know, our allies and partners have a real economic
value to us. When they come and fly their F-16s in our
operation, that is one F-16 we don't have to fly, right? When
they bring their carriers in, when they bring their resources
in, that that actually lessens the burden on us. And can I have
both generals speak to the financial value of fighting in
combination with allies and partners?
General Goldfein. Well, I will give you one example that is
real term right now today, and that is the combined North
American Command-NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense
Command] that protects the homeland with Canada. And so every
day we stand the watch protecting this homeland with our
Canadian allies and partners with dual-headed commander at
NORTHCOM-NORAD, and so that is just one example of how we
benefit from it every single day.
General Milley. I commanded the IJC [International Joint
Command] corps-level headquarters underneath General Dunford in
Afghanistan a few years ago, and I think we had 42 allies and
partners at the time. Every one of those soldiers that filled a
duty position would have otherwise had to have been filled by
an American soldier, so that is an example.
But more broadly, though, on 19 February 1945, my father
hit the beach at Iwo Jima, and 7,000 Marines were killed in 19
days, 34,000 wounded in action in that same time. My mother
took care of the wounded coming back.
The reason NATO exists is to prevent a war, a great power
war. We did two of those, World War I and World War II. The
reason it went into place is because those people 70 years ago
said we screwed this up. The first half of the last century was
a mess, 140, 150 million people killed between 1914 and 1945.
We cannot do it again. Allies matter, NATO matters, and working
together shoulder to shoulder matters in order to maintain the
international order, preserve deterrence, and prevent great
power war.
Ms. Slotkin. I appreciate that.
Turning to the budgets, you know, I think--when I am at
home in Michigan trying to explain increasing budgets to the
population back home will feel like they want money invested in
different ways, you know, I am always a huge advocate as
someone who has been in the defense world my entire life, but I
see the conundrum between the complete lack of uncertainty that
you all have to deal with from us, right, and knowing what your
budget is going to be year after year, dealing with things like
sequestration; and then on the other side for us and the
American public, the lack of transparency because we can't say
with a straight face that you all can pass an audit. That, to
me, is the conundrum.
So I wanted to ask this question. First of all, I am glad
to hear that there is going to be progress on the audit. I
can't emphasize enough as someone who speaks with the general
public, if I can say you guys can pass an audit, it is a lot
easier to advocate and explain to the American people why the
budgets need to keep going up. Would you take the tradeoff of
more predictability over a 5-year period, concrete
predictability, for a lower top line?
Secretary Wilson. Congresswoman, I have never been asked
that question before, but I think predictability matters. And
particularly, given the history of what we have seen in 10 out
of the last 11 years where programs get scrunched and things
get stretched out, I think it actually does matter quite a bit.
I know how hard it is to think about it when you are
budgeting----
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. If you
could summarize quickly.
Secretary Wilson. I think that is it.
The Chairman. Great. Very well done.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of you
for your service, and thank you for being here today with
Secretary Wilson. I was really grateful. In serving in the
House, we were the Wilson and Wilson team. And so I just wish
you best on your future career, and I am very pleased to find
out that the ranking member, Thornberry, is thrilled about your
coming to Texas. It is all positive.
And Madam Secretary, in October of 2018, the Secretary of
Defense issued a memorandum directing the Air Force to achieve
an 80 percent mission capable rate for F-15s, F-22s, and F-35
aircraft by the end of fiscal year 2019. Will the Air Force be
able to meet this readiness goal on each of the platforms, and
how will it sustain 80 percent mission capable rate?
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, there is a
couple of things that are conditional now. If we don't end up
with a supplemental, it will be extremely difficult to meet
those readiness, those mission capable rates.
With respect to the overall plans, we are trying to meet
the guidance of the Secretary of Defense, but for the Air
Force, we are not just interested in mission capable rates of
pieces of equipment. We are actually looking at the C1 and C2
readiness rates of units. I can have mission capable aircraft
that are sitting in a hangar, and it doesn't give us the combat
capability that we need. So we look at overall readiness, and
the chief described our readiness recovery plans.
Mr. Wilson. And it is very encouraging to see the focus on
readiness.
Secretary Esper, I am grateful to represent the people of
the Second District of South Carolina which is the home of Fort
Jackson. Fort Jackson trains over 60,000 soldiers per year with
about 10,000 soldiers in basic combat training on any given
day. The Army brought in 70,000 troops last year. How are you
improving basic training facilities at Fort Jackson? Please
describe how this budget invests in better trained soldiers so
that they can be ready to execute the duties upon arrival at
their first duty station.
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. So one of the reforms we made
over the past year involves basic training for our infantry
soldiers, and this pilot was conducted at Fort Benning but will
find its way to our other posts where we train infantry
soldiers.
Basically what we did was this. Recognizing the needs of
the operational force, we expanded combat basic training, one
station unit training, from 14 weeks to 22 weeks, by 2 months.
We instituted a number of reforms where we changed the program
of instruction to reflect the challenges of future warfare such
as urban--fighting in urban warfare environments.
We also addressed additional physical training for our
soldiers. We lowered the drill sergeant ratio to 12 to 1, and
we have seen incredible results from this pilot, and that will
eventually work its way to Fort Jackson as well.
Mr. Wilson. That is very encouraging. And Ms. Secretary, it
is very encouraging the Army plans to field two batteries of
the Iron Dome system which was developed in Israel in the
continental United States as an interim solution for the
indirect fire protection capability against rockets and cruise
missiles. Is the Iron Dome an interim solution or an enduring
solution? When do you plan to submit the request to Congress?
What would be the impact to national security if the request is
not approved?
General Milley. Let me, if I could, Congressman----
Mr. Wilson. Yes, General.
General Milley [continuing]. Just comment on that. The Iron
Dome is a very capable system. It is got basically 100 percent
track record in combat. We clearly need it to protect our
formations, and we are buying the two batteries as mentioned.
They will be coming online here next year, 2020, as part of
this budget, and we will have the first unit equipped, and we
will employ them as necessary.
Mr. Wilson. Well, it is an extraordinary system.
General Milley. It is extraordinary.
Mr. Wilson. And it is very encouraging.
General Milley. It is very good
Mr. Wilson. And, General, how is the Army progressing
towards the goal of ensuring 66 percent of the force is ready
as meeting full-spectrum readiness requirements? Will the Army
reach this by fiscal year 2022?
General Milley. I believe, yes, unless--if the
international environment remains as it is right now and we get
predictable budgets on time at the amounts requested, then I
think we will--our estimate is--the Army's estimate is it will
achieve the 66 percent and 33 percent for the Guard and Reverse
by sometime in 2022.
The key components are manning, training, and equipping, as
you well know. Equipping has come along very, very well with
these budgets. We have increased the pace and OPTEMPO
[operational tempo] of training. We have reorganized the CTCs
[Combat Training Centers] and the amount of time for Guard and
Reserve. The long pole in the tent has always been manning, and
it remains manning. So we want to get the formations that we do
have on the books, we want those manned at 100 percent strength
for all the combat units brigade and below by 2022. And once we
achieve that, we will look at other formations.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
of our witnesses for your testimony today, and I most
especially want to thank you all for your service to the
country. Madam Secretary in particular, we have had the
opportunity to work together both on the HPSCI [House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence] and the HASC [House Armed
Services Committee], and I appreciate the great contributions
you have made to our national security and wish you well as you
transition now into the next chapter of your career.
And General Milley, I just want to take the opportunity to
congratulate you on becoming the next Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, and look forward to our continued working relationship
as well.
If I could start with Secretary Wilson.
You recently testified that the recovery and reconstruction
of Tyndall and Offutt Air Force Bases, which have been
devastated by extreme weather and flooding, will cost nearly $5
billion. The fiscal year 2018 NDAA [National Defense
Authorization Act] requires that the Department of Defense
describe future-focused mitigations needed to ensure mission
resiliency and their cost.
Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has failed
significantly to meet its statutory mandate on this report, and
I am concerned that we are now in a cycle of throwing good
money after bad. The lack of foresight with regard to
investments, in my opinion, in resiliency is not only fiscally
irresponsible, but places our service members and our readiness
at risk.
So my question is really to all of our witnesses, and I
don't want anybody filibustering, I want to try to get to these
as quickly as possible. I have several.
Do you agree that the changing climate poses a threat to
our readiness?
Secretary Esper.
Secretary Esper. I am not sure that I could say that it
poses a threat to our readiness, but climate change is
something we have to take into account as we consider our
installations, our training ranges, and how and where we may
fight in the future.
Mr. Langevin. General Milley.
General Milley. I would say the effects of climate change
are things that we have to consider at the strategic,
operational, tactical level in all of our military operations
in the future.
Mr. Langevin. Secretary Wilson.
Secretary Wilson. I agree, we have to take it into account
for the Air Force. Weather and weather effects, from the South
Pole to the deserts of the Middle East, is something we have to
deal with and predict every day.
Mr. Langevin. General.
General Goldfein. I would just add that we are a land-based
force that is globally--we have a global footprint, and so we
are watching everywhere, and especially in the Arctic, where we
have a significant footprint, and the effects there.
Mr. Langevin. So to each of you, are you planning and
making investments in the fiscal year 2020 budget in order to
mitigate the risks that we will face in the short, medium, and
long term to our CONUS [continental United States] and OCONUS
[outside continental United States] installations?
Secretary Esper.
Secretary Esper. Mr. Langevin, we are doing work at our
installations, consistent with our installation management
plans. But I would have to go back and bring you back more
detail to lay that out more clearly for you.
Mr. Langevin. Okay. I would welcome that answer when you
have a chance to get up to speed on it.
General.
General Milley. The same thing. We will have to get back to
you for the record, Congressman.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Mr. Langevin. Secretary Wilson.
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, when we are rebuilding
Tyndall, we are trying to rebuild it in a way that is
resilient. And we actually have a new infrastructure investment
strategy that tries to make our bases resilient, because we
fight from our bases and they have to be resilient to all kinds
of adversaries, including the weather.
Mr. Langevin. General.
General Goldfein. Yeah, same.
Mr. Langevin. Okay. I would hope that we are building
resiliency in, that we are planning ahead. I mean, climate
change, whether people want to recognize it or not, it is
happening, and we are going to be throwing good money after bad
if we do not plan.
Whether a base should be rebuilt or we build it resiliency
in, it has to be done, because it is going to be a waste of
taxpayer dollars if we don't. And it is going to affect our
mission readiness, I am convinced.
So what I want to ask, Secretary Esper, let me switch to
this--well, let me ask you, how are you evaluating those risks
as they evolve? How are you prioritizing your budgets? And can
you commit to providing a briefing in the coming months on this
topic and the methodologies that you are using?
Secretary Esper. Congressman, you are referring with regard
to the impacts of climate change?
Mr. Langevin. Yes, and your planning and how you are
building----
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir, we will commit to coming back
and briefing you.
Mr. Langevin. Okay.
And, Secretary. Or whoever.
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, I would say that, for
example, in our infrastructure strategy, when we look at a
base's resilience, we look at how is it--you know, we are doing
some things in the Arctic with respect to making sure
permafrost stays permanent. I was just at Offutt Air Force
Base, and because of the backup power systems we put in,
STRATCOM [U.S. Strategic Command] and the new STRATCOM
headquarters didn't miss a beat, even though a third of the
base was being flooded by the terrible storms that----
The Chairman. And again, I apologize, the gentleman's time
has expired.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Wilson, it is great to see you. It is great to
have you here before us as Secretary of the Air Force. We are
all saddened that you are departing, but I look forward to when
you return as Secretary of Defense. I am going to say that
everywhere I go, because I think you truly, with your
background and expertise, I think, are very poised to be the
first female head of the Secretary of Defense, and I look
forward to when we welcome you here at that time.
General Goldfein, you have stated I think most eloquently
about the budget that we are facing and the real costs if the
number should go down. We have seen budget proposals of $750
billion, we have seen 733. There have been some who have said
it could even be lower.
You have made it clear that this is not a luxury, that
there are real, hard things that would be devastating to the
Air Force if this number goes down. Could you please share
those thoughts with us?
General Goldfein. Yes, sir. And all the Joint Chiefs as we
have gotten together to talk in the Tank with Chairman Dunford,
we have all aligned with the fact that at 3 percent real
growth, it allows us to maintain our current capability; 5
percent growth actually allows us to both modernize and really
improve readiness.
The impact of the instability, we talked earlier about the
impact to the services and our ability to plan ahead, and that
is a real challenge for us.
Mr. Turner. But, General, you have talked about, like, we
will lose specific things; there are things that will be
affected in your capabilities if this number drifts downward.
Can you speak to those?
General Goldfein. Yes, sir. There will be flying hours that
we will lose, which are a direct impact on readiness. There
will be aircraft modernization that we will lose, which we
absolutely need to stay ahead of the threat. And there will be
significant impacts on our investment in space, which is
significant as we go forward to transition from a benign
environment to a contested environment.
Mr. Turner. Okay. Thank you.
Secretary Wilson, as you know, I am the past chair of the
Air and Land Subcommittee, so I am very dedicated to our work
to go to fifth-generation aircraft and the F-35. I am
disappointed, obviously, in the number of aircraft that the Air
Force is currently looking to acquire for the F-35. The prior
budget request had indicated that you should be probably at 60.
The request we get is 48.
I just wanted to have a discussion with you, that we all
know about the F-35 production, and just get your confirmation
of my thoughts here.
If we don't buy more F-35s next year, we can't buy more
than next year, right? I mean, because every year that we put
off increasing the amount of F-35s that we buy, the supply
chain doesn't keep up, the production line doesn't keep up, and
we put off the ability for us to ramp up to where we would have
both increased cost savings and also increased numbers of F-35
that we can put into service.
Do you have some concerns that as we continue to put off
buying higher numbers of F-35s, that we are really just locking
in increased costs, locking in inefficiency, and making it more
difficult for us to have the flexibility to do that later?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, I am not sure that I am
concerned so much about those effects. I do think that we--the
Air Force is committed to the F-35. We need its game-changing
capability.
We also need both capacity and capability. And one of the
things that we are facing, now let's--I mean, let's go back a
second. It was before any of all of us were here, really, but
it was the F-22 was supposed to replace the F-15. That didn't
entirely happen. And those decisions are made and behind us.
The reality is we have got F-15Cs that are not going to
live long enough to get replaced, and the consequence would be
that our force structure will decline in size. The best thing
we think we can do given the resources that we have is to buy
the 48 F-35s this year and to supplement them by replacing the
F-15Cs.
Mr. Turner. Okay. Well, I didn't raise the F-15 because I
really think it should not be an apples-and-oranges discussion.
As we were having the discussion earlier, in fact, you had
represented that you thought that the choices of modernizing,
or buying new F-15s, shouldn't be at the cost of the F-35.
Which is why I wanted to walk you through the--if we buy 48
aircraft this year and not 60 doesn't it make it more difficult
to buy 78 the next year? And isn't it absolutely that we lock
ourselves into an inability to have flexibility to increase the
number of the F-35s by what we do this year?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, as I understand it, we had
our folks check with Lockheed, could they build 60 this year,
in the fiscal year 2020, and the answer is, yes, they could. So
as far as flexibility in the supply chain, I think at least at
that level, that kind of flexibility exists.
I would also maybe ask the chief to talk a little,
including about the UPL [unfunded priorities list].
Mr. Turner. But it does generally affect the next year,
right? I mean, if they could do 60 this year but we only buy
48, aren't they going to come back and say, well, we could do
60 next year, versus we could do 78 next year? I mean, we are
pushing off the inevitability of the ramp-up that we are losing
by us pulling that line forward.
General Goldfein. Yes, sir. I can't speak for industry, but
my understanding of how they invest in their workforce, in
addition to the tooling and the line, is that they invest year
to year. And so it would be more difficult to go to--the larger
the jump, the more difficult it will be for industry.
Mr. Turner. Secretary Wilson, you have done an excellent
job of trying to lower the cost of sustainment for the F-35, I
know, with the problems that we have had with the ALIS system
that you are working on. Can you give us a short update on
that?
Secretary Wilson. The Air Force is using its software
factory, called Kessel Run, and working with Lockheed to jump
forward to development ops and get more capability to ALIS
faster, and the first drop of software, I believe, is this
month.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
They seem determined, Secretary Wilson, to ask you the
question with, like, no time left, and then force you to answer
that. So I appreciate your flexibility on that.
I do want to have just one point of clarification, maybe
General Goldfein. Is it your testimony that you do not feel
that the Department of Defense can adequately defend the
country for $733 billion?
General Goldfein. Sir, I absolutely believe that we can
defend the country today. I think the question that you asked
us, you specifically asked us was, what does the Air Force need
in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe to be able to adequately defend?
The Chairman. Right. And I apologize, I am going bigger
picture here than just your individual budgets.
And, General Milley, as the soon-to-be Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, I mean, we have heard testimony about a
bunch of numbers. Do you think you can adequately defend the
country for $733 billion in the fiscal year 2020 budget?
Forgetting the future for the moment, just talking about the
fiscal year 2020 budget.
General Milley. I think the Army's component of the defense
of the United States, what we are asking for, the answer is
yes.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank the witnesses.
I would like to ask Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein a
very simple question. Are you in favor of the Pentagon's
current proposal for a space force?
Secretary Wilson. Yes.
General Goldfein. Yes.
Mr. Cooper. I thought your testimony was interesting. On
page 9 you say--you use the passive voice here: ``The
Department of Defense recently submitted legislation to
establish the space force as a new armed service within the
Department of the Air Force.'' You didn't seem as enthusiastic
in that paragraph as in some other paragraphs.
Secretary Wilson. I am not really sure what to say about
the use of the passive voice. Maybe my English teacher would be
upset with me. But the point is that the proposal came from the
Department of Defense. It wasn't something that we just wrote.
That was all I was trying to say.
General Goldfein. Congressman, can I offer that when the
President gave guidance, we spent several months within the
Department of Defense debating, very robust debate, on where we
would land to get in line with his guidance. And that was
everything from the initial guidance of the separate service,
separate department, and everything that comes with that, to a
JAG [Judge Advocate General] Corps, Medical Corps, and
everything in between.
Where we landed, from a warfighter's perspective, is a
recognizable place to have a service that stands up within the
Department of the Air Force. That decision was made just prior
to the legislative proposal coming forward.
And so since then, we have been directed by the Secretary
of Defense to do the detailed planning associated with what
this force looks like, and that detailed planning is weeks old.
Mr. Cooper. More use of the passive voice. You said, the
decision was made. So I want to know whether the Air Force will
be enthusiastic about the space force proposal, or are you
being dragged, kicking and screaming, to support this?
General Goldfein. I think the fact that we are having a
national debate about space is absolutely necessary, it is
needed, and I give the President and the administration a lot
of credit for raising this level of conversation to the one we
are having.
Mr. Cooper. I am not hearing anyone being dragged, but I am
hearing some gritting of teeth.
General Goldfein. Sir, there is no gritting of teeth here.
This is from a warfighter's perspective and as someone--you are
not going to have many folks sitting in front of you who have
actually employed space capabilities in combat, like I have, as
the space coordinating authority for Central Command. And let
me just tell you that the path that we are on and where we are
going is the right path.
Mr. Cooper. So it is wholehearted and full-throated
support?
General Goldfein. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cooper. Whoa. So although the previous testimony had
been you needed $13 billion to do it, the $2 billion that is in
the Pentagon's proposal now is sufficient?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, let me talk to you a little
bit about cost estimates. We were asked to come forward with
the cost estimates for a variety of pieces of proposals. That
includes the standup of a unified combatant command, which has
already been approved by Congress, and it included everything
that would go towards making a fully stand-alone department.
The proposal that the President approved does not create a
full stand-alone department. It creates a service underneath
the Air Force. And one of the benefits of that is that it costs
less money.
Mr. Cooper. Well, we like things like in the Army
testimony, doing more with less. That is an awesome position to
be in. I hope we can do it here.
If memory serves, the record of the Air Force in regard to
the space force is first opposition, then support, once the
President came on board, now full-throated, wholehearted
support, although at different budget numbers.
Is the current Pentagon proposal, is it unamendable, is it
perfect, or should Congress weigh in with substantial changes?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, I think that there is a
proposal, which we support. We also recognize that this is a
conversation and that legislation is required by this
committee, by the House, and by the Senate, and we are open to
discussing those things with all of you.
Mr. Cooper. Finally, in the short time remaining, how
urgent is this request? How quickly do we need to act in order
to prevent the U.S. from falling further behind?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, I think the most important
thing is the programmatic changes that you approved in fiscal
year 2019 and the elements in the budget. We also believe that
this is the year to go ahead and make the changes that are
needed with respect to organizational structure, and we will
work with you to accomplish that.
General Goldfein. Sir, can I add just in a few seconds, of
all of the work we have ahead of us, the most important work we
do right now is stand up the new combatant commander, because
that normalizes the business of warfighting going forward. As
we get that, every other action we take now follows that and
aligns with where we need to go.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General Goldfein, you are absolutely right, I agree
with you on that.
First of all, thank all of you for your service.
General Milley, congratulations on your promotion.
I wanted to ask you, we all know that the Army's Future
Combat System [FCS] and Ground Combat Vehicle programs were
failures. How and why will the Optionally Manned Fighting
Vehicle be different?
General Milley. I think the key is that, number one, the
technologies have advanced to a level where we have confidence.
Secondly is we are doing a lot of experimenting and
prototyping.
And that is fundamentally different than what happened
with, as you noted, with FCS. With FCS we got out in front of
our headlights in the sense that we were trying to demand a
requirement and a vehicle for which the technology wasn't
mature.
But we know factually that optionally manned or robotic
vehicles work today. They are working in the commercial world.
They are driving and delivering goods and services up and down
the highways and byways of America even as we speak. So it does
work.
Driving on the highway is a little bit different than
driving through the hinterlands or the mountains or the terrain
of the Earth's surface or in some urban areas that might be a
result of combat operations.
So there is some more research, development, science,
technology that has to be done in order for these robotic
vehicles to negotiate that type of terrain, and there are some
more challenges. So I don't want to be Pollyanish about it.
But we are very, very confident it is going to work, and
the vehicles that we think will come off the production line
here in the not too distant future will have great capabilities
to be optionally manned.
Mr. Rogers. It appears that the U.S. is finally going to
withdraw from the INF [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces]
Treaty. Does the Army intend to remove the previously imposed
range restrictions on your long range precision fires
initiative that complied with that treaty heretofore?
Secretary Esper. Congressman, if and when we depart from
the treaty, the Army is prepared to move forward in extending
the range of our Precision Strike Missile, for example.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you.
I yield the balance of my time to Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
Secretary Esper, last week we received the Army's unfunded
requirements list, and the railhead at Fort Drum was at the top
of this list. That is a project that I have very much
supported.
Can you explain why infrastructure projects such as this
railhead at Fort Drum did not make it into the budget request
and what you are doing in the interim to ensure that units like
the 10th Mountain Division maintain the capability to rapidly
deploy in response to worldwide threats?
Secretary Esper. Right. I will take the first stab at it
and then let the chief do, as well.
So on improvements such as that, and MILCON [military
construction], the wants and needs always exceed the resources,
and we try and prioritize them based on readiness and power
projection. Clearly for our installations--and Fort Drum is one
of them, of course--they are places by which we project power
forward.
The Army's--first thing it needs to do anywhere it goes is
deploy. We have to get there, which means getting first from
the fort to the port, and then port to overseas.
So we rack and stack those, and we put them in the order
based on what we think the mobilization process looks like and
the timelines for deployment, and that is how we come up with
that list. And that is likely how it made it onto the UFR
[unfunded requirements] list, if you will.
Ms. Stefanik. General Milley.
General Milley. Just a process note. Each of the service
chiefs submit the UFR list, the unfunded requirements list,
based on our assessment of risk and our chiefs' assessment of
risk that feeds into the Chairman's Annual Risk Assessment. So
everything is related to risk, as was pointed out by Chairman
Smith early on.
With respect to Fort Drum, as you know, the commandant up
at Fort Drum, that railhead is very important, 10th Mountain
Division has a strategically deployable, rapidly deployable,
division size capability, and that railhead is critical to
getting the troopers from 10th Mountain Division out the door.
So we want to make sure it is up on there. However, within
the UFR list, I decided to put that on there as one of many
things that I think would improve our readiness, if additional
moneys became available.
How does it rack and stack to the $182.3 billion of
requirements that we put into the budget? It was just below the
cut line on the 182.3, but if additional moneys became
available, it is on that UFR list, and we would like to see it
funded if possible.
Ms. Stefanik. Absolutely. So I will continue to prioritize
that project and fight for appropriations when it comes to the
MILCON budget.
With 30 seconds left, I will ask a question for the record,
and you can submit written response.
Secretary Wilson and Secretary Esper, I am curious to hear
your thoughts and feedback on the transition to the Defense
Health Agency. What challenges have your services faced? And
what lessons can we learn from that transition?
This is something that we understand deeply in the north
country in New York, given that Fort Drum is one of the only
Army installations without a hospital on post. We work with
civilian hospitals. General Milley, of course, is very familiar
with this model.
But I will take that for the record and look forward to
reading your written response.
Thank you. I yield back.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 109.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all the witnesses this morning.
In particular, Secretary Wilson, congratulations on your
service and leaving on your own terms, which is the best way to
end your chapter, and I am sure you are going to do great
things in the future.
After listening to all the Texas talk this morning, I just
want to say congratulations to General Milley. It is nice to
see a citizen of Red Sox Nation leading the Joint Chiefs.
General Goldfein, in July 2017 a Marine Corps KC-130
crashed and took the lives of 17 service members. The Navy, in
the wake of that, requested and Congress appropriated funding
to replace the legacy propellers on the entire C-130 fleet.
I know the Air Force temporarily grounded the Air National
Guard C-130s, but it is very unclear whether or not you are
going to proceed along the same path in terms of replacing
those propellers, which certainly was identified as a
contributing factor in terms of the crash.
Could you clarify what the Air Force position is and
whether you are going to proceed in terms of replacing those
propellers?
General Goldfein. Yes. Thank you, sir.
So what we found as a result of the accident investigation
was that propellers procured before--or made before 1971 needed
to be replaced. We have completed the replacements of all of
those.
The propeller that now we are looking at--and we are doing
the acquisition strategy right now--is the NP2000. It is an
eight-bladed propeller. And we started off with a business case
analysis. We are actually now working through the acquisition
strategy because we think it is the right strategy going
forward to replace all of the propellers in the C-130H
community with that.
Mr. Courtney. Well, that is good to hear because the
propeller that was involved in that crash was actually a 1980s
propellers. So I think really let's just move forward, and I am
glad to hear your answer this morning.
On March 14, Dr. Roper came before Seapower and Projection
Forces and talked about the foreign object debris that was
found at the KC-46 tanker. At that point, he had just visited a
Boeing factory and said that he felt that their processes were
valid.
Unfortunately, 11 days later, they found a second incident
involving foreign object debris. Could you talk about what the
Air Force's response is to that second incident?
Secretary Wilson. Thank you, Congressman.
We actually stopped again the acceptance of the KC-46s
because of foreign object debris that we found in some closed
compartments. We have got corrective action in place, including
a 100 percent look at some of those closed compartments to make
sure that the production line is being run the way that it
needs to be run.
Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, I know you had made some pretty
optimistic projections about full delivery, and it just seems
these keep sort of getting in the way. And hopefully we are
just going to make sure that the oversight continues as strong
as possible.
I would like to go back to the space force proposal,
because in the budget document that was submitted, section
1707, I mean, there is some pretty extraordinary transfer
authorities which the administration is proposing. In fact, 7-
year blanket funding that would allow DOD to move funding from
anywhere--anywhere--in the Department to the space force as
long as it is somehow connected.
Given what is going on right now in terms of the heartburn
surrounding the transfer authority for border projects, why
can't we just do a 1-year transfer and then do normal
budgeting? Why is 7-year transfer authority part of this
proposal?
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, we will
obviously work with you on those kinds of specifics of the
proposal, but we do need more than 1-year transfer authority.
At least we think we do. We are in the midst of doing all of
the detailed planning the chief referred to. We have a team
that is stood up within the Air Force to go through all of the
details of what would be required, when.
Mr. Courtney. Because obviously that sort of changes the
budget projection that, again, we just discussed here a moment
ago. If there is transfer authority of that sweeping in nature,
I mean, actually, the costs could be far different than what
was put into the budget as a line item.
Just again, Secretary, Army Secretary, thank you for being
here today. Again, we just had a discussion regarding the Fort
Drum construction issue which was left out of the budget.
Again, that unfunded projects list that came over from the Army
last week coincided with the $1 billion transfer for border
construction. How do you balance moving money out of the
Department of the Army at the same time you are coming back to
Congress, saying, oh, by the way, there are unfunded
priorities, such as the Fort Drum project?
Secretary Esper. Right. I understand, yes, sir.
Well, Congressman, we didn't move the money out of the
Army. When we realized we had a military personnel wedge of
about a billion dollars, we apprised Congress. We have
certainly notified OSD, Office of Secretary of Defense, of
that. And as they are more often than not to do, they take that
wedge from us and use it for broader DOD priorities.
Mr. Courtney. And without even consulting Congress, by the
way, which, again, is a very big breach of normal practice
around here, and I, frankly, think it is going to do damage to
transfer, reprogramming----
The Chairman. And while I agree with Mr. Courtney's point,
his time has expired. So well made.
Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Wilson, I know the folks at University of Texas-El Paso
will be happy to have you and the school will be well served by
your future service there. So welcome back to Texas--or welcome
to Texas, I guess. You were almost there when you were in New
Mexico.
I did have a couple comments about the audit issue that has
been discussed heretofore. The real full-court press on getting
that done began when Leon Panetta was Secretary. He was the one
who really started the ball rolling and communicated that to
the leadership.
I have been watching to make sure that subsequent changes
in leadership, that each one of the new leaders gave the kind
of full-throated support that is going to continue to be
necessary to get this done. And while there is a lot left to be
done, there has been a lot done.
And good, hardworking men and women in uniform and
civilians have been at this process for a long time and I don't
want our comments here to discourage them or think that we
haven't recognized that an awful lot has been done.
Twenty eighteen was the first year that the whole thing was
under audit. That is a big deal.
Secretary Esper, I know you mentioned some 400-plus NFRs
[Notices of Findings and Recommendations]. Individuals have
been assigned to each one of those to make sure that they are
done. Is that correct?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir, they are preparing corrective
action plans for each of those to make sure we get them done in
a timely----
Mr. Conaway. And I assume the Air Force has done a very
similar thing, Ms. Wilson?
Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Conaway. And so tracking that work, they all have
timelines, they all have ways to get at it, and that will get
us even closer to getting the books and records audited. Is
that a fair statement?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir, based on the timeline I gave
Chairman Smith earlier.
Mr. Conaway. I got you. Good work, but the truth of the
matter is, the systems--maybe those legacy systems were created
in an environment when auditing was not an issue. It was never
to be expected. The systems complied with the Appropriations
Act, with the Antideficiency Act.
So we do know--we just don't toss money in a bucket and not
know where it is at, but we can't audit it. And that meant
setting up internal control systems that could be audited so
that you don't have to check every single transaction. You can
count on the system to work. And those have been put in
process.
So I just want to give a pat on the back for the
hardworking men and women throughout your agencies that are
getting this thing done. Long way to go, and we have got to
keep the pressure on them. That pressure comes from the top,
and I appreciate each of the four of you, your attention to
this.
It has percolated all the way down further in the systems.
I have told this story before. I was on the USS Texas, and we
were doing a bit of a town hall meeting in the galley. And a
young seaman asked me, ``Mr. Chairman, what about that audit
thing doing, how is it working?'' Well, I don't know if he was
put up on that, but if a young seamen on the galley of the USS
Texas knows about the audit issue, then we are making progress.
General Milley, last week the Acting Secretary was here and
the budget drops the end strength of the Army by almost 8,000.
Can you speak with a little bit of granularity as to what that
means? General Goldfein mentioned 4,000 maintainers short. What
happens to our Army when they can't recruit the additional
8,000 that would have been there had you been able to recruit
them?
General Milley. Thanks, Congressman. Let me put it in a
little bit of context.
We were able to recruit 70,000 soldiers into the Army last
year. That is a 10-year high. And, yes, we missed the mark by
6,500, but we did that because I set the bar too high, on an
unachievable goal. Secretary Mattis and others cautioned us
against that, by the way. They thought that the bar was being
set too high, and, in fact, it proved to be that way. So we had
a very, very ambitious goal last year, and we came up short.
But we did achieve a 10-year high. That 70,000, that is
bigger than the Australian and Canadian Armies combined. So it
wasn't like we had a bad recruiting year, we just missed the
mark that we set.
Having said that, the key point for us is to fill the holes
in the existing force structure, fill the manning holes. We
have some units, when I became the Chief of Staff of the Army,
that were going to major training events at 65 or 70 percent
strength. That is unacceptable. We need units going to training
at greater than 90 percent strength. In order to do that, we
need to make sure that we are filling them at 100 percent
strength.
We have also taken action to reduce our nondeployables
significantly. When I became the chief, we had 140,000, 150,000
nondeployable soldiers. That has been dropped down
considerably. So what was 17 percent high on average for units
and nondeployables is now down around 6 or 7 percent.
So it is recruiting, retention, reduction of
nondeployables, and ensuring our soldiers are ready to go. That
resolves the manning issue for the Army to fill the holes in
the existing units.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation.
I yield back.
Mr. Garamendi [presiding]. Thank you.
I think it is my turn, the chairman not being here.
General Milley, congratulations on your appointment. We
await your confirmation.
General Goldfein, as always, your service is much
appreciated.
Secretary Wilson, you are on to new things. El Paso awaits
you, and we will miss you.
Esper, you and I are going to be together, so we look
forward to that.
General Milley, in your testimony you said that you need $4
to $5 billion this coming year for modernization, long range
precision fires, $1.3 billion, combat vehicles, and so forth.
In your testimony, Secretary Wilson, you mentioned the
problems at Tyndall and Offutt. You didn't mention the fact
that the Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune was also devastated.
Total cost of recovery from those three bases is somewhere
around $8 billion. And I assume it is a priority because those
are key bases for the American military and our security.
What I don't understand is why the billion dollars from the
U.S. Army personnel account was transferred to the
counternarcotics account, so it can then be used to build a
border wall, when you are giving us testimony that the recovery
of these bases is absolutely essential, and I don't understand.
So I am going to ask specifically, Secretary Wilson, what
is your view of the transfer of that billion dollars from the
Army personnel account to build a wall rather than to backfill
the $740 million that you have had to spend to clean up Tyndall
Air Force Base? Could it be better spent at Tyndall?
Secretary Wilson. We have had a--I can't think of a time
when I was here, and certainly in my service in the Air Force,
where we have had a natural disaster like we have seen hit
Lejeune and Tyndall and Offutt when there wasn't a supplemental
to help with that and we didn't take it from other parts of the
service or other parts of the Department. So I think we need a
supplemental to recover from the storm damage.
Mr. Garamendi. I won't press you, but, in fact, the money
is already in the Department of Defense. The decision was made
to transfer it for the construction of 150 miles of border
fence, rather than Tyndall, Offutt, or Lejeune.
Secretary Esper, what was your view of that transfer? Was
it the proper thing to do? Is it more important to build a
border wall than to transfer the billion dollars to the Marines
for the repair of Camp Lejeune?
Secretary Esper. Congressman, that is not my call to make.
My perspective is prioritization within the Army. You know,
obviously, Acting Secretary Shanahan has a broader perspective
because he sees all of DOD, and, of course, the White House has
a national perspective.
So my ability to prioritize within the Army is what we did.
I will tell you, the fiscal year 2019 appropriations from which
that was taken met--meets our----
Mr. Garamendi. Specifically--excuse me for interrupting--
specifically, the money was in the Army account. Could it have
been transferred to long range precision fires or maybe combat
vehicles, or vertical lift, or maybe air missile defense? Could
it have been transferred there for those purposes, to
specifically serve the military's need for high-effect combat
with our near-peer adversaries?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. But there is two qualifiers
here. One, of course, is it came from the military personnel
account. They were soldiers we did not have. And so that is
point number one. The fiscal year 2019 budget satisfied our
readiness and modernization needs as presented to you all last
year.
The second thing is, we came across this in September/
October and turned it over to OSD at that time. So this is well
before any consideration of, at least to the best of my
knowledge, of reallocating money to the 284 account came about.
Mr. Garamendi. So the money could be better spent on a 100-
mile fence rather than on all the other needs that the U.S.
Army has?
Secretary Esper. Again, not my call.
Mr. Garamendi. Including Fort Drum?
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. Not my call, Congressman. Again,
I see the priorities within the Army.
Mr. Garamendi. So it is not your responsibility how money
is spent within the U.S. Army?
Secretary Esper. It is, but you are asking me to make a
relative value choice between the Army and a border wall.
Mr. Garamendi. Why were we not notified of this transfer?
Secretary Esper. I am not--I can't answer that question,
Congressman. I would have to refer you to OSD.
Mr. Garamendi. The final point is that, do not expect
transfer authorities in the coming year. Do not expect transfer
authorities in the coming year because of what has happened
this year.
I yield back my time. I see the chairman is here.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Cook.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Wilson, sorry to see you are leaving.
First of all, as somebody that went on the CODEL
[congressional delegation] to Red Flag, I wish everybody on
this committee was there. Great, great insight. Everybody knows
I am the dumbest Marine in the world, and I learned more about
the Air Force. And if you weren't all in with the F-35, talking
to those pilots and everything else--and a lot of it,
obviously, was all in a classified mode--it was fantastic. So I
encourage you to do it again.
I did have a couple of questions about those Australian
AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System]. They look like
something out of ``Star Wars.'' Are we evaluating those
capabilities compared with our old AWACS system that is
probably older than me, if there is such a thing?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, it is called a Wedgetail.
And maybe I will ask the chief to talk a little bit about
Advanced Battle Management and where we are going. We don't
just think about particular platforms anymore, but how do we
merge data from multiple platforms to get from any sensor to
any shooter really quickly.
General Goldfein. Sir, I will just tell you that last year
we brought to you a significant change in the way we plan to do
business in the future.
And the question we asked was, how do we ensure that a
soldier, sailor, airman, Marine that is on the ground, inside
of defended airspace, will have visibility on enemy movement on
day one of a campaign.
And the current platform-centric approach is not going to
be viable past the next few years, because the enemy can hold
it too far out to be able to do its job.
So we are transitioning from a platform-centric approach to
a fusion of sensors and capabilities so that that soldier that
is inside enemy airspace has visibility on day one. Therefore,
when we talk about platforms, Wedgetails and other kind of
platforms, you will see the Air Force shifting more to a family
of systems than a single platform solution.
Mr. Cook. Thank you.
General Milley, the active protective system, I am a big
fan of that, I have been after that for years. I guess, are we
stopping at 4 armored brigades as opposed to moving on to,
what, the 11 or 12 that----
General Milley. No.
Mr. Cook [continuing]. I was kind of hoping we would get
for the Abrams?
General Milley. The short answer is no. We intend to put
active protective system on every armored vehicle in the United
States Army over time. The four is interim, at the wait point,
en route to equipping the entire armored force with active
protective systems.
Mr. Cook. By the way, I want to compliment the Army on the
outstanding job they have done. And I remember 6 years ago when
we were talking about readiness and all the units were C3, C4,
it was absolutely horrible. And to come as far as you have, I
think, is just outstanding.
I still hold a grudge against you on the fact, on our trip
to Europe that you deliberately skipped our trip to Belleau
Wood on the Marine Corps birthday. And I understand that it was
an all-Army trip, and I had to go into depression training for
a month.
But really I just can't compliment you enough on how far
the Army has come in readiness. It is all about readiness.
And I know that we are going to have some issues. I am
worried about the number of the buy, like everyone else, on the
F-35. And I think of the evil word ``sequester.'' If my mother
was still alive and I said that she would rinse my mouth out
with soap, and I think that speaks volume on how I feel about
that. We are going to have some challenges with the NDAA.
But I am very, very happy with the panel and some of the
things that have been done.
And I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Norcross.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman.
I would like to thank all of the witnesses.
Secretary Wilson, thank you for your service. Much
appreciated and had a great relationship.
And, General Milley, on your nomination, it is good to see
a New Jersey-educated, since we are doing the States, a good
Princeton grad, on your nomination.
But we have sat here over the last two cycles and heard so
much about the next-generation, fifth-generation fighters. I
know, General Goldfein, you and I have had this discussion--
same thing with you, Secretary Wilson--is that now, after
hearing that time after time, there is a shift and a start of
the F-15E.
And the discussion had been that the deterioration of the
C's are going a bit quicker than you expected. But that
happened in approximately the last 9 months. And I continue to
get questions from those on my subcommittee and the full
committee, how could this change have happened rapidly, and so
soon, that the retirement--if you look at an airframe to an
airframe, it is an equal.
But do you consider the F-15 and the F-35 equal when it
comes to a near-peer competitor, if we were to go to war with
China or Russia?
General Goldfein. Sir, no, and not even close. Here is the
situation we found ourselves in. You won't find a stronger
proponent of the F-35 than the current Chief of Staff of the
Air Force. It is a game-changer. But we have to look at it as
part of a penetrating joint team that doesn't travel alone.
This F-35 is going to be inside of enemy airspace.
You know, sometimes we are guilty of placing a red dome on
a PowerPoint chart as though a country can keep us out. The
best they can ever do is actually put a block of Swiss cheese,
because there is holes there, and it is our job to know where
they are and get in and exploit them.
And the quarterback of the penetrating joint team that is
capable of doing that, that we bought to do that, that can fuse
information and call the audibles we need, is the F-35.
But you got to look at it from the F-35, plus the B-21,
plus the RQ-170, plus the X-37, plus a brigade combat team,
plus a SOF [special operations forces] team, plus a tactical
submarine.
We have invested $135 billion in this budget over the FYDP
[Future Years Defense Program] in penetrating capability. But
the challenge we find ourselves in is we need both penetrating
and standoff, and four aircraft have to fly into the 2030s to
give us the capacity we need to fight and win--the A10, the F-
15E, the F-16, and the F-15C. The F-15C is not going to make
it.
So what we found ourselves with was a capacity shortfall.
And we started by saying we are going to keep the F-35 on our
program of record. We are the largest customer, we are a tough
customer, and our program of record is 1,763. And we are not
backing off an inch, and we are not putting a dime of the F-35
into anything else but what we need to do with the F-35.
But we have a capacity challenge. Those F-15Cs are not
going to make it. And when we look at options on the table, we
have a hotline of F-15EXs--F-15Es. The Saudis and the Qataris
have put money into a hotline. And when you look at the
operating costs over time, it became the most affordable
solution to fill a short-term capacity shortfall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Norcross. So you talk about the sustainability of the
operational. If the costs were to continue to come down on the
F-35, it will now be somewhat slower because you are investing
in the F-15.
So how did this come not in the last 4 years, but in the
last 9 months? That is what people keep asking me, how did this
all of a sudden, in the last 9 months, change to the last 48
months?
General Goldfein. Sir, I think it is important to start
with what hasn't changed. And the chairman made the same
comment, I believe, in his testimony, is what has not changed
is our commitment to the F-35. We just have a capacity
shortfall that we have to solve in the timeframe we have to
solve it.
We looked at the best cost estimates that we had available
to us, which not only procurement, but also operations and
sustainment. And by having an F-15 variant replace an F-15,
same construction, same hangars, same operating and support
equipment, same maintainers, same--so the transition costs are
minuscule. And so, therefore, in terms of time and readiness,
as long as we do this on top, as a small slice on top of the F-
35 and the other penetrating joint capability, this gives us
more combat lethality. This is not an either/or discussion.
This is an additive discussion.
Mr. Norcross. I am almost out of time, but we are going to
have further discussion, because we need to make sure we are
making what little investment we can make go to the right way,
particularly when it comes to that fifth-generation fighter.
Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for the service you have provided our
country.
And, Secretary Wilson, you will be missed. I enjoyed
serving with you in Congress, and I enjoyed working with you in
your current position. I wish you the best in the future.
For General Goldfein and General Milley, the fiscal year
2020 budget proposal goes a long way towards rebuilding our
forces toward readiness and finally investing in modernization,
but we still have a long ways to go. We have talked about the
risk involved if we don't have $750 billion, but can you be
specific, as specific as possible, with what capabilities are
at risk if we do not have that top-line amount of 750, what
training risks we incur, and what risks we would incur in the
event, God forbid, of a major conflict?
General Goldfein. So I will start out.
First of all, let's talk training. For an Air Force, we
train both virtually and on our ranges. And on those ranges we
have got to be able to replicate the threat that we would
expect to meet if we were to send airmen into harm's way. And
so what would be at risk is our ability to replicate that
threat with the proper environment, both virtually and
physically on our ranges, going forward.
What is also, I think, at risk, is the significant movement
that we started last year--and Congress supported this--and it
was a significant move for the Air Force to shift from a
platform solution on command and control and battle management
to a network solution going forward.
That is our future in the business of joint warfighting, is
to ensure that we are taking every sensor and every shooter and
connecting them together so that we can have better decisions
and bring effects from all domains simultaneously to overwhelm
an adversary, and it has as much of a deterrent effect as it
has a warfighting and winning effect. That will be at risk with
lower budgets.
General Milley. Congressman, I would say in terms of
manning, we would likely have to turn back and not fill the
holes that we have been filling.
In terms of training, your larger-scale operations or
training exercises will be trimmed back in various places, not
only in the continental United States, like at NTC [National
Training Center] or JRTC [Joint Readiness Training Center], but
also overseas. Right now, for example, we are doing our first
emergency deployment readiness exercise, deploying an armored
brigade combat team out of Fort Bliss, Texas, all the way to
Europe. First time that has been done in probably 25, 30, maybe
even 40 years. Exercises like that would come down.
In terms of equipping, spare parts, which are critical to
keep our vehicles and helicopters flying, those would probably
slow down as well. And I suspect that the broader categories of
readiness would degrade proportionate to the amount of money
that was less in the budget.
On a broader scale--you asked about conflict with the near
peer--the way we evaluate risk is task, time, and troops.
So can the United States Army, in this case, accomplish the
task that the combatant commander asks it to do in the various
war plans, yes or no, can it accomplish the task? And we know
that through various war games, et cetera. Can you do it on
time, in the timelines required by the war games? And can you
do it at an acceptable level of cost, expressed in casualties
of U.S. forces?
We do all those calculations, spend a whole year doing all
that. That results in our annual risk assessments that are
classified, reported to Congress, Secretary of Defense, and so
on.
And I would argue that if the budgets were to drop
precipitously, or significantly, that the levels of risk would
proportionally go up, and the probability of offering an
opportunity to an adversary that we were perceiving to be
weak--we were being perceived to be weak, or that we lacked the
will to support a large, capable, competent military with both
capability technologically and capacity, those would be signals
that we wouldn't want to send. So I think risk would go up.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
And for Secretary Wilson or General Goldfein, it is my
great honor to represent the airmen of the Air Force Space
Command in Colorado Springs. We are talking a lot these days
about the imminence of the threat that our near-peer
adversaries pose to our space assets. What benefits would a
space-focused either combatant command or a space corps provide
for your space warfighters?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, we are the best in the world
at space, and our adversaries know it, and they are seeking to
develop the capability to deny us the use of space in crisis or
in war.
In fiscal year 2019, the Congress supported a change in
about $5 billion in our defense--in our space budget and an
addition of $7 billion over the FYDP. This year's fiscal year
2020 budget also represents a significant increase in space
spending in fiscal year 2020 and beyond, because it is shifting
from a benign to a contested environment. The forces that we
have in Colorado, as you well know, are operating some of our
most important space assets, and they are exceptional airmen.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gallego.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
General Milley and General Goldfein, General Neller,
Commandant of the Marine Corps, recently raised the alarm that
he was experiencing severe and dangerous deficiencies in the
Marine Corps due to unplanned demands placed on the Armed
Forces. On March 22, I sent a letter to each of you and to
Admiral Richardson asking whether your services also had the
same readiness issues associated with unfunded mandates,
including the southwest border operations. Do you have an
update on when you will each respond to my letter?
General Milley. Acknowledge receipt of the letter. Got it,
I think it was last week. We are going to respond. The Army
staff is working through it, and we will get it over to you
shortly.
Specifically, though, the Army and the Marines are
fundamentally different in terms of size of scale and scope. So
what General Neller wrote, he is representing the Marine Corps
and stands alone, and let it stand on its own merit.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Mr. Gallego. I understand, General.
General Milley. That is not the position of the Army.
Mr. Gallego. I will go deeper into questions on that----
General Milley. Sure.
Mr. Gallego [continuing]. Later. Thank you, though.
General.
General Goldfein. Sir, we will get that back to you right
away. And the only thing I would add, tell you, is that
probably the largest unfunded mandate that we are facing right
now is we are cash-flowing Tyndall recovery and Offutt
recovery.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 109.]
Mr. Gallego. Thank you.
General Neller listed serious problems with the current
funding mandate. He said the Marines were working in structures
compromised by natural disasters, that exercises and
engagements with allies around the world had to be cancelled,
and that the Corps would have to stop hurricane work in May.
Are airmen or soldiers also working under these same set of
dire circumstances as their Marine Corps counterparts?
Understanding, obviously, that I understand the difference
between Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force.
General Milley.
General Milley. That is not the same for the Army, no.
Secretary Wilson. Sir, it is--there is a similarity with
the Air Force in that the Marine Corps was hammered by a storm
at Camp Lejeune. We were hammered at Tyndall and at Offutt.
Last week I had to stop 61 facility projects in 18 States.
If we get to the 1st of May and we still don't have any
help, we are going to have to put a pause on Tyndall recovery,
where it will affect flight operations, and we will have people
there who will have to continue to work in degraded facilities.
And then the decisions that I will have to make in May, and
then my successor in July and September, will be similarly
difficult.
Mr. Gallego. General.
General Goldfein. Sir, same.
Mr. Gallego. Have you spoken to Acting Secretary Shanahan
about these readiness issues that you just brought up,
Secretary Wilson or General Goldfein, about the readiness
problems and issues meeting your requirements, specifically in
terms of natural disaster recovery?
Secretary Wilson. Yes.
Mr. Gallego. Okay. Have either of you spoken to President
Trump about his desire for a wall at the southern border
outweighing your service funding requirements?
General Milley.
General Milley. I have not personally talked to President
Trump about that, no.
Mr. Gallego. Secretary Wilson.
Secretary Wilson. No.
General Goldfein. No.
Mr. Gallego. Great.
Secretary Esper and Secretary Wilson, have you spoken to
Secretary Spencer about General Neller's concern and whether
they were reflected at all in your services? I know this is
kind of redundant, but I want to make sure we are covering all
bases.
Secretary Esper. No, I don't believe we have.
Secretary Wilson. No, I don't believe I have.
Mr. Gallego. How can we be confident the money that we
authorize or that appropriators send to the Department to meet
shortfalls won't be reprogrammed into the future to something
that doesn't help the readiness issues that we have been
discussing, for other issues or for other programs, such as a
wall on the southern border, going into the future?
Secretary Wilson. Sir, in the case of the Air Force, it has
to do with recovering from the storm and the need for the
supplemental.
Mr. Gallego. Right, I understand. But politically speaking,
what confidence do I have going into the future that more
money, as I said, won't end up at some other project, whether
it is the border wall or something else into the future?
Secretary Wilson. Senator, we are trying to work with you
on the supplemental.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you for the promotion.
Secretary Wilson. I am not sure how to answer your
question.
Mr. Gallego. I am sure you have already heard many Members
of Congress on both sides say that because of this situation,
because of what President Trump is forcing us--or what is
occurring--it really creates a lot of confidence problems about
how we fund our military and whether we have to be stricter
into the future in terms of flexibility, which I think also at
the end is a detriment.
And I guess it is not really appropriate for you to comment
one way or the other, but I think I just want to reiterate what
many of my other colleagues, both on the right and the left
side of me, have said in regards to how disturbed we are that
money is going to be taken without legislative approval for
projects from the military which we have clearly designated as
important priorities to us.
But with that, I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all my
colleagues' interest today in MILCON projects at Fort Drum.
Because of this interest, I expect that you each who have
referenced it will partner as we fund this railhead in the
MILCON approps bill. But let me state for the record regarding
the border security questions. The House Appropriations
Committee released a list of vulnerable projects, and that does
not include Fort Drum. I think that is important to note for
the record.
Moving on to my question, Secretary Esper and General
Milley, with the standup of Army Futures Command, can you
explain how the new command is interfacing with academia,
industry, and the greater S&T [science and technology]
enterprise? I know the Army has prioritized advanced
prototyping within the RDT&E [research, development, test, and
evaluation] budget for fiscal year 2020. Can you expand upon
this decision and how you plan to also maintain support for
basic research?
Secretary Esper.
Secretary Esper. Sure, Congresswoman. I think the first
part was our selection of Austin, Texas, as the headquarters of
Futures Command. We set it right there in a city growing, a lot
of capability in terms of research and development. It is
embedded in the University of Texas system, and we are not
behind walls or barbed wire. We are actually out in the
community, we are working with young entrepreneurs and
innovators, and we are also reaching out to academia there and
in other places.
So for example, a couple months ago I went to Pittsburgh on
a recruiting pitch and spent some time at Carnegie Mellon
University where we opened up the Artificial Intelligence Task
Force. And as we did that, there were a dozen, two dozen
companies, and other institutions of higher learning there, so
we are trying to involve all parties in this to make sure that
we do that.
Critical to that is sustaining predictable--sustained
predictable funding for S&T. That is what--and now we have
aligned 80 percent of that to our six modernization priorities,
so we are making sure we get good ROI [return on investment] on
each dollar we invest.
Ms. Stefanik. General Milley, did you want to add to that?
General Milley. AFC [Army Futures Command] has got
tentacles throughout the entire Nation, centered in the great
State of Texas as previously mentioned, but tentacles
throughout academic and S&T and R&D [research and development]
throughout the entire Nation.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you.
I will yield back the balance of my time to Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Representative Stefanik, and thank
you all particularly to your families who bear the brunt of all
of our service, so thank you.
And Secretary Esper, I just also wanted to--and General
Milley, to commend the Army on Futures Command. I started on
the M1 tank which hasn't been modernized in 40 years, and that
entire vehicle.
But taking a step back, I think the defense strategy is
right to shift back to great power competition, but we also
can't forget the wars that we are in. We have to be prepared
for future years, but we have to be also still focused on the
60 to 70 countries right now as we speak where we have special
operators and other folks deployed that need our support.
So shifting over to you, General Goldfein, and to Secretary
Wilson, we all know--we don't need to rehash the issues with
the A-10 over the years, your predecessors that essentially
Congress has forced the Air Force to keep it. Now we have the
light attack aircraft that seems to be--procurement seems to be
dragging along, and just as a--just very quickly, in 1952, your
predecessors on both sides, Secretary of the Air Force,
Secretary of the Army, agreed to where Army aviation ends, Air
Force aviation begins. I wonder with this kind of seemingly
over the years, I don't know, resistance, cultural resistance
to the close air support mission, is it time, maybe, to shift
that light attack----
General Goldfein. Sir, first let me----
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Over to the Army and have them take
that on?
General Goldfein. Sir, let me first respectfully push back,
if I could.
Mr. Waltz. Sure.
General Goldfein. I have been fighting side by side with
the United States Army my entire career. I have been on the
ground. I have been in the air. There is no resistance. No
resistance, and I will tell you. We are going to fly to the
sound of guns, or we are going to die trying, so we are
committed----
Mr. Waltz. I appreciate that, General.
General Goldfein. So we are committed to close air support.
Mr. Waltz. We cannot let that pendulum swing too far to fly
high, fly fast, fly far while we still are--there is a lot of
folks in this town that want to wish those wars away. They are
still ongoing. We have dead Green Berets in Niger that had to
rely on the French for close air support.
General Goldfein. Sir, I would----
Mr. Waltz. We need that capability now not years from now.
Thank you.
General Goldfein. Thank you for the opportunity to state
without equivocation that we are and we will always be
dedicated to supporting on the ground with close air support.
Can I talk for a minute about light attack? If I could----
Mr. Waltz. Absolutely.
The Chairman. You can talk for 20 seconds about light
attack.
General Goldfein. I can't give you a better example of how
I believe we have aligned ourselves with Congress, with
congressional content on the authorities you gave us to advance
the business of light attack. And if there is a follow-up
question where I have time, I would love to walk you through
just what we have accomplished with those authorities.
Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, I will be back for a following
question.
The Chairman. Thank you. Just so you know, we have got
votes 1, 1:15ish, so we are going to press on and get as much
as we can before they call votes or until we are done with
witnesses.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
critically important that we have an overarching vision for ISR
modernization. That is certainly a joint effort. The TAC
[Tactical] Air and Land Subcommittee had a pretty good briefing
from both the Air Force and the Army on current capabilities
and modernization. The Air Force--I know in open sources, I
have read that of the 76 squadrons that you are looking to
expand to over the next several years, 22 are C2-ISR squadrons.
The COCOM [combatant command] commanders have an unsatiable
appetite for intelligence and information, and my concern is
that when we are in a contested environment that the Army may
not be putting its best foot forward right now in the
modernization effort, and so let me ask this question.
And you know, when I look at the eight cross-functional
teams, I don't see ISR in there. And while I know when we go to
war, you are going to go as a joint force, there are going to
be operations and moments out there where you can't rely on the
Air Force for whatever reason, not because they are not
unreliable but because the contest is too great, so that there
is going to be an operational tactical need for ISR
capabilities. Where is that in the Army modernization program,
and is it reflected in your budget?
Secretary Esper. So thank you, Mr. Brown, for raising this
issue. ISR is critically important, and you have hit the nail
on the head. It is how do we adapt our systems or procure
future systems to be effective in an environment that is very
contested with very capable enemy air defenses and other means.
So ISR is part and parcel of several of our cross-functional
teams. It is critical.
What comes to mind immediately is long range precision
fires in order to do deep targeting. You can look at even the
next-generation combat vehicle which is considering organic
drones to do over-the-horizon type of capabilities and even
down to the soldier lethality CFT [cross-functional team] where
soldiers are backpacking small drones to use at the tactical
level. That said, we also have an ISR task force within the
Army that works at the organic level, the joint and the
national level, to make sure we are well integrated. We are
pushing hard on this front to make sure we can do this.
I would be remiss as well since you were a helicopter
pilot, as part of our future vertical lift we are looking at
manned/unmanned teaming, if not fully autonomous, where we can
penetrate enemy air defenses and do unmanned with our rotary-
wing aircraft the ISR we need to help with the ground force
maneuver.
Mr. Brown. So are there--are you contemplating any force
structure changes over the next 10 years?
Secretary Esper. You know, our Futures Command is working
this right now. As we pool multi-demand operations, our new
doctrine forward and develop it, they are actually looking at
how do we organize the Army differently if need be? How do our
formations change? How does all that happen? And this is part
and parcel to that.
Chief I don't know if you----
General Milley. Yeah. A couple of comments, Congressman.
First we are putting 4\1/2\ billion dollars into ISR in this
budget, so it is not like we are not doing it. It didn't make
it into the top six as a stand-alone, but it is embedded
within--as the Secretary said, it is embedded within almost
every one of those, so ISR is a piece of it.
Thirdly is armies don't fight wars. We fight as a joint
force. So it is important to understand, as Congressman Waltz
and I know you understand and everybody else. We fight with the
Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, and we fight as a combined
force with our allies, so all of these things are
interoperable, and we leverage each other's capabilities.
I think it was mentioned, for example, the F-35s being the
quarterback of the joint force. And we are leveraging these
capabilities from space and the air domain. So there is a
significant amount of ISR out there. We recognize its
importance. We think we are putting in the appropriate amount
of money and investment in ISR in this particular budget, and
it is embedded within those priorities.
Mr. Brown. You know, and I appreciate the joint fight, the
joint force effort. I just think that there are going to be
times when a COCOM commander is going to be out there, is going
to make a request for ISR, and the demands are going to be too
great. Currently, they have organic capabilities. They are
operating now more in uncontested environments. Are those
organic capabilities going to be able to survive and be
effective in a contested environment? But I think--it sounds
like the answer is you are making the investments. It is in the
budget.
Let me just use the remaining 20 seconds to say that I am
not picking up the A-10 mantle like Representative McSally, but
we have got A-10s in the Maryland Air National Guard. I am
concerned that they are programmed to be grabbed and taken by
fiscal year 2021, but yet we have not yet heard about the
replacement airframe, the C-130J. So for the record, if you
could just follow up with my office on the status of the field
and the C-130J to the Maryland Air National Guard.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. DesJarlais.
Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for being here today. First, I would like to thank Secretary
Wilson for having Under Secretary Matthew Donovan meet with the
Arnold Air Force Base's community council yesterday at the
Pentagon to address their concerns, so we are grateful for
that.
We can't address the threats laid out in the National
Defense Strategy without solid investment in our range and test
facilities and the associated testing and evaluation workforce,
and I should also note the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation recently released a report highlighting the need to
improve U.S. infrastructure to conduct operationally relevant
testing of the next generations of weapons.
So Secretary Wilson and Secretary Esper, what is your
assessment of the U.S. capabilities to fully test hypersonic
technology?
Secretary Wilson. Sir, we are actually going to be building
some more wind tunnels, hypersonic wind tunnels. I just visited
where we are going to be building one in Indiana and then
another one at Arnold, and so those are the two places that I
am aware of.
Overall on testing and training ranges, there is a
significant investment in the Air Force budget in improving our
testing and training ranges.
Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. And Secretary Esper, I know that you
have a fondness for this region of the country because both our
wives share the same home county of Franklin, Tennessee, so I
would like to get your input on Arnold in the same question.
Secretary Esper. Yes, sir. On the Army test ranges,
particularly as we look forward with regard to our six
modernization priorities where we are pursuing anything from
directed energy to hypersonics, you know, other systems we know
that we need to continue to improve our test ranges and our
infrastructure, you know. Sensors, for example, come to mind as
you test hypersonics is how do you make sure you have the means
to test them and track them and monitor their performance in
flight.
Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Second question. What are the
services doing to improve and modernize test capabilities
within their respective range and test facilities?
Secretary Esper. I will just pick up and say again, I have
been to a couple of our test ranges, whether it is Yuma,
Arizona, or White Sands Missile Range. We recognize
improvements are needed to each, but it goes to all of our
others. We need to look at that, and I think we can come back
and give you more detail if you want that.
Dr. DesJarlais. Okay.
Secretary Wilson. Sir, our test ranges, and particularly
our training ranges, are significantly impacted by the budget,
a significant increase. The two that will be most impacted in a
positive way are Nellis and JPARC [Joint Pacific Alaska Range
Complex] in Alaska. We were going to be trying to bring those
to what we call fifth-generation capability and then a number
of other improvements in our ranges that are closer to home for
many people in the lower 48.
Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. And then kind of along the same
lines, finally, are we adequately addressing the infrastructure
and workforce needs to support the testing and evaluation of
current and planned weapon systems?
Secretary Esper. I think again, that is part and parcel of
what we are looking at to make sure we improve. It is a
combination of things. It is infrastructure. It is sensors. It
may well be people as well. All those things we are looking at
because we need to make sure we are postured to do the testing
we will need to do in the coming years as we move forward on
prototyping new systems and then certainly down-selecting and
operationally testing them.
Secretary Wilson. Sir, I think we are okay on testing. I
would say that on our ranges, some of the things that are most
expensive and difficult to get are the simulated enemy things,
and we are adding in more what we call red air or contract red
air to be able to imitate bad guys and fly against us.
Dr. DesJarlais. That is all I have. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Brown [presiding]. Thank you. Representative Houlahan
will be next.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you so much for all of your time. I
have two very brief questions, and one of them has to do with
on the very 70, 80 days that I have been in Congress, one thing
I have learned about my job here is to make sure that we
deliver a budget on time so that you guys can be responsive to
that budget and know what to plan for.
And so I share the responsibility with Congress to make
sure that that happens, but I also have learned a little bit
about the--your responsibility as well on your side of the
table to make sure that you provide clear priorities for us.
And so I represent the State of Pennsylvania, and one of
the things that has been striking to me is that in the most
recent round of budgeting, there has been a reduction or no
longer an ask for the Chinook upgrades, for armored multi-
purpose vehicles upgrades, and Bradley upgrades. And all of
those things were, as of 18 months ago, in the prioritization
of the budget and I think have caused a lot of consternation in
the Pennsylvania supply chain, I can tell you.
And so my question to you is what changed, you know, over
the last 18 months, I guess, Secretary Esper, and General, that
would have made you change your minds about the importance of
these upgrades?
Secretary Esper. Congresswoman, I will go first. I would
say a few things. First of all, clear guidance from Secretary
Mattis at the time with regard to our direction followed up by
the National Defense Strategy which said shift from 18, 19
years of counterinsurgency warfare to high-intensity conflict,
and that caused us to relook everything we did.
We also rolled out a modernization strategy, I think in May
of last year, and then topped it off with the Army vision that
I introduced at the beginning of this hearing. So the pivot
toward being able to fight and win against near-peer
competitors caused us to relook everything and fundamentally
shift the direction with regard to how we train, how we man,
and how we equip the force, and soon how we organize as well
based on new doctrines.
So five major lines of effort there that are driving all
this and pulling us in the direction of those modernization
priorities that you are referring to.
Ms. Houlahan. Sir.
General Milley. The same thing, Congresswoman. When the NDS
[National Defense Strategy] was published by Secretary--then
Secretary Mattis, that represents a fundamental shift, and it
is authoritative. It is orders to us that we have to go back
and do the analysis, and we have to make the appropriate
shifts. If we do not shift, if we continue to produce legacy
systems, then we are going to really put at risk, significant
risk, very, very high risk, the first battle of the next war
where soldiers that are probably yet unborn will be fighting
with equipment that we see today, and that will not be a good
thing, as you well know from your own service. So we have made
a conscious, very, very difficult decision to shift gears and
start laying the groundwork to fund the modernization of the
United States Army.
Ms. Houlahan. And I really understand that hard decisions
need to be made. And I guess one of my questions to you is was
there any consideration in making these hard decisions about
the impact on the supply chain or the industrial base? In the--
--
General Milley. Absolutely. It was discussed at great
length, extraordinary pain, led by Secretary Esper and the
whole Army staff, civilian and military, and massive amounts of
hours. I can't even describe the level of pain that was
throughout all that discussion. Absolutely yes.
Secretary Esper. I would add as well, we had a number of
conversations with the private sector, particularly the CEOs
[chief executive officers] and senior leaders from, I think,
some of the companies you are referring to. We could only be as
transparent as we could with regard to particular cuts, but we
were very clear with regard to where we are going, the six
modernization priorities. And as I and the other chief senior
leaders have messaged for well over a year, that is where we
are going. There is predictability. Those priorities are not
changing, and that is where we are shifting $30 billion into
the future.
So meet us there. Come talk to us about how you can be a
player in that future because whoever gets on that bus will
have a franchise or work or whatever you want to call it for
decades to come after that because that is our new direction.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, and I look forward to those
continued conversations on that.
I only have about a minute left, and so I will try and
truncate my question which is what are we doing--I was a
lieutenant in the Air Force, an engineer, and I looked up and
didn't really understand in the late 1980s, early 1990s, what
my career path looked like because of the change in threat.
My question is what are we doing in this area of cyber to
make sure that a young lieutenant such as me would look up and
understand where they could head in a career in the military?
Secretary Wilson. Congresswoman, over the next couple of
months, we have been working for about 18 months looking at how
do we evaluate, how do we promote officers, and develop
officers for the future of combat. And probably by this summer,
we will be rolling out new categories, including separate
categories for different kinds of officers.
There are about seven different subcategories so that a
cyber officer doesn't have the same things to do in their
career as a maintenance officer, and they don't compare to each
other because we need to promote to the needs of the service
and not just promote everybody like their line in the Air
Force.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you so much for your time.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to begin by
joining my colleagues in thanking Secretary Wilson for her
service. You are well-thought-of throughout the Air Force, but
particularly in my community where we have a number of Air
Force assets. I am grateful for all the time you have spent
with the amazing service members in northwest Florida.
My questions springboard off of Dr. DesJarlais' questions
about test and evaluation. Right now, we have a problem in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico. It is that people want to drill there
for oil, and it is where the Air Force tests experimental
missiles, among many other things. And I am not a practitioner,
but I would expect that testing experiment missiles over oil
rigs is probably a bad idea.
There is currently a moratorium in place that protects the
Air Force and the military mission that is set to expire in the
year 2022. General Goldfein, on the 23rd of June in 2017, you
wrote Chairman Bishop a letter. You copied then Chairman
Thornberry and myself on that letter. And in part you stated
the moratorium that protects the Air Force is essential for
developing and sustaining the Air Force's future combat
capabilities. The Air Force needs the certainty of the proposed
extension to guarantee long-term capabilities for future tests.
Emerging technologies such as hypersonics, fifth-generation
fighters, advanced subsurface systems will require in large
testing and training footprints and increased Air Force
reliance on the moratorium far beyond 2022.
General Goldfein, has anything changed regarding the Air
Force's position since you sent this information to then
Chairman Bishop, and then Chairman Thornberry, and myself?
General Goldfein. No, sir.
Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chairman, I would seek unanimous consent to
enter this letter in the record.
The Chairman. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Mr. Gaetz. And I would ask General Goldfein, you know,
right now, candidly, the bargaining going on is to trade away
space in the Gulf test range for oil companies in exchange for
an extended period of time that you say is essential for the
Air Force's planning.
If we had a Gulf test range that got smaller rather than
larger, what impact would that have on the types of things that
we need to test and evaluate given the current National Defense
Strategy?
General Goldfein. As we build longer-range capabilities, it
is going to require longer-range testing. It is as simple as
that. And it is going to have a devastating impact as we really
build--as we work into directed energy, as we work into
hypersonics, as we work into long-range capability. To make
sure we stay ahead of the adversary, we cannot afford to have
our ranges get smaller. They have to get bigger.
Mr. Gaetz. And Secretary Wilson, do you have any basis to
disagree with General Goldfein as to the need for a Gulf test
range that is not getting smaller but getting larger?
Secretary Wilson. No. And in fact, the number one reason
that we need to rebuild Tyndall is because of its immediate
access to the Gulf test range without going over any population
area.
Mr. Gaetz. Well, thank you. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know you
appreciate brevity, but I would just state for the record that
this is an issue where there is unequivocal--an unequivocal
position of the Air Force that they need this. And during the
115th Congress, the special interests who wanted to explore
energy won, and we couldn't get these protections into the
NDAA. And so I am hopeful that with the new majority in control
that we would listen to the military officials and that we
would consider the request that General Goldfein made in 2017
to consider these changes and to consider an extension in the
NDAA.
The Chairman. I would be very open to that request. Just as
the gentleman knows, you can have your 5 minutes. We won't rush
you on the 5 minutes. It is just when we go over 5 minutes, and
you always do a great job of going less than that, so I
appreciate that.
Mr. Gaetz. Well, seeking to earn extra credit and in
protection of the Gulf test range, I will yield back my
remaining 90 seconds.
The Chairman. It is time off from purgatory. I appreciate
that, but we will absolutely work on that issue. It is very
important, and I appreciate your asking about it.
Ms. Sherrill.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you, and thank you, Secretary Wilson.
It has been an honor to get to know you over these first
several months of Congress. I am sorry to hear you are headed
to Texas instead of the great State of New Jersey. We will miss
you, but thank you for your service.
Secretary Esper, as you know, Picatinny Arsenal in my
district has an outstanding record in designing, developing,
producing, and delivering world-class lethality for all of our
DOD components. They are responsible for delivering 90 percent
of the DOD's lethality and for the implementation of
acquisition, streamlining, and cost-saving initiatives that are
modeled--that are a model for how we should be executing all of
our acquisition programs.
I am aware of several ongoing efforts to analyze roles and
responsibilities of various Army organizations, and given that
the workforce at Picatinny is a highly trained and skilled
acquisition organization, I am curious because we know that
ammunition is in continuous production. It gets produced, and
then it is either used in training or set aside for times of
conflict, so there is no transition to sustainment for
ammunition like there would be in, say, a tank or a helicopter.
So the lifecycle management of those programs should be
done by acquisition experts, and I am curious. Can you give us
some sense of the--and some detail on the McKinsey study
entitled ``Transition to Sustainment'' or ``Roles and
Responsibilities.'' What is the exact topic of those studies,
when will each be completed, and when can I and other members
of this committee receive the findings of these studies?
Secretary Esper. So thank you for that question,
Congresswoman. Picatinny is a great place. I was there last
year, enjoyed really spending time with the workforce. They are
wonderful and got briefed on a number of things they are
developing to include technologies that are critical to our six
modernization priorities. So I had a spectacular visit there.
The Army is reviewing a number of reform proposals. I think
what we call the Army Reform Initiative currently contains
about 750 different proposals or so that came up from the
ranks, from the field, from the commands, and we are working
our way through those. That, in conjunction with ``night
court'' which remains underway, we continue to look for reforms
so we can shift money appropriately.
There is a look at ammunition sustainment, particularly
when you get into the purchasing piece of it. I am not current
on where that stands, but that is being looked at between our
acquisition folks and our Army Materiel Command jointly
together to make sure that we again put it in the right place
appropriate to ensure we sustain the force and the readiness of
the force. And again, it is another reform initiative to make
sure we get maximized efficiency in the service.
Ms. Sherrill. Would you mind getting back to me just on
exactly where you are at with that----
Secretary Esper. Sure. Will do.
Ms. Sherrill [continuing]. That process. Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 109.]
Ms. Sherrill. And the National Defense Strategy also calls
for ground forces to reform and prepare to face near-peer
adversaries. How are we going to ensure that the ongoing
research into long-range ammunition, mortars, and other
projectiles has a path to transition into procurement against
all the other competing budget priorities so we are not
outgunned in future conflicts.
Secretary Esper. Well, I will take the first stab. I am
sure the chief has some points here as well, but obviously we
spent a lot of time and money over the last couple years, for
example, building up our munitions to ensure we were ready. And
I will just leave it at that for now, but we are looking ahead.
I mean, there is some incredible capabilities. The extended
range of cannon artillery, for example, which will give us 70-
kilometers-plus range will--which will allow us to outrange
Russian counterparts, it is not just about the gun in that
case, but it is about the round. And I believe I actually saw a
prototype of the round out at Picatinny, so it is developments
like that.
It is as well as the new cased ammunition for the next-
generation squad weapon. Also had a chance to witness a
demonstration there at Picatinny, so I think Picatinny is on
the leading edge of a number of things we are doing when it
comes to ammunition, and ammunition is critical if we are going
to get the ranges we need to fight and win future conflicts.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you very much.
General, did you have anything to add?
General Milley. No. I think the Secretary said it all,
ma'am.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you.
And then one final question. Secretary Wilson, was there a
comparison of the cost of performing a SLEP or service life
extension on the F-15C versus owning and operating the planned
fleet of the F-15X? Anyone.
Secretary Wilson. There was an analysis of that, and the
airframe just really isn't going to make it. And so the most
cost effective option was to buy off the end of the line the F-
15EX.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. Thank you very much. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Goldfein, we will pick up that conversation on
light attack, and I do want to be very clear. I am not and I
don't know of anyone that is doubting the Air Force's march to
the guns. I would not be here. I would be dead without the A-
10, without the AC-130, without those close air support assets.
What I am talking about is capability.
I would also be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time
I called up for close air support, and the assets were up
getting gas. They didn't have the loiter time that we needed
and particularly in remote locations all over Africa and other
places where we need it.
So that is my point, and I would appreciate to be able to
talk to your team for the record. My point is that capability
was needed years ago. It is needed now. With all of the shift
to near peer and a lot of that conversation, I fear the
pendulum swinging too far and that we are still in the fight as
much as many people in this town would wish it away.
So I just appreciate for the record a discussion, a better
discussion on when we are going to get those capabilities,
particularly special operators.
Switching to space, I believe the Space Corps is the right
way to go. Thank you for the hard work and the proposal there.
You know, I really think that we are sitting in a point in
history. Air Force shifted away from the Army Air Corps in
1947. They needed unique capabilities and people, and I think
we are seeing that same shift now with space, with that new--
now that new warfighting domain.
On some of your programs, particularly your launch
programs, I did want to ask Secretary Wilson, you know.
Obviously we need to retain our assured access to space. What
are you seeing as the risk and benefits of the Air Force's
strategy of selecting its service--two service providers, I
understand, for launch?
For the 5-year contract, we just had an award, my
understanding, on the RDT&E side for upgrading the launch
vehicles to be able to handle the military payloads, so that
was just awarded. But before that research is done, we are
going to have another award in terms of launch going forward
for the next 5 years. How do you rationalize those two, and
where do you see that going?
Secretary Wilson. Let me give you a couple things on
launch. First, we have had a 24 percent decline in unit cost of
launch since 2012, and it is because of a competitive
environment and advances in research and development. And we
are 76 for 76 on the reliability of our launches.
The guidance that we were working on, and it comes from the
Congress, is to end our reliance on the Russian RD-180 engine
by 2022, and we are on track to do that. The real challenge is
in our most difficult area, the heavy lift area which is where
this request for proposal that we expect to issue in April is
going to address, the ideas or request for proposal in April
for a 2020 decision in order to get off the RD-180 Russian
engines by 2022. So the timeline is set by the congressional
mandate and by our joint desire to not be reliant on Russian
engines.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you.
One last question shifting over to you, General Milley.
There is just a lot of buzz, take it for what you will, in the
Special Forces community about a drop in standards for our
Green Berets getting through that pipeline, long and difficult
pipeline. Some would argue too long. That is to meet the demand
that is being placed on our force; 18 years in and counting, I
think we are in a generational war.
The capacity-building efforts, I commend what you have done
on the SFAB [security force assistance brigade]. Have you
looked into that, into this issue, allegations of
investigations down at Fort Bragg and retribution on cadre that
are trying to raise these issues?
And if you have looked at, you know, what do you make of
it?
General Milley. We have, and I say we. As you know, the
United States Special Operations Command, SOCOM, has title 10
responsibility for all U.S. special operations forces, Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marines.
And Tony--under Tony Thomas' leadership and Fran Beaudette
who is the commander of the U.S. Army Special Operations
Command, both of them have looked at those allegations in
depth, and I have looked at it as a Special Forces veteran as
well.
So the basic conclusions are yeah, there has been some
modification of changes but not to lower standards, to meet
standards of an evolving world and evolving demand. So I don't
think that the special operations standards in the Q Course, as
far as I know, I don't think they have been lowered for any
particular reason, and that is what I am getting out of----
The Chairman. I am sorry.
General Milley [continuing]. Lots of people. I am sorry.
The Chairman. General, the gentleman's time has expired.
General Milley. Okay. I am sorry.
The Chairman. And I certainly take your point that it is a
crucial issue, but it is good to know that they are maintaining
the high standards, so----
Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to all of you
for being here and for your service to our country.
To Secretary Esper and General Milley, thank you so much
for all the time that you took with us recently, with me in
particular, to talk about this budget and to answer and address
the questions that I had.
Secretary Wilson, good to see you again, and I want to
thank you for the multiple conversations that we have had as
you transition to El Paso and the great University of Texas at
El Paso and to hear me out as I bring forward concerns by the
community and talk about the opportunities that lie ahead.
Secretary Esper, in reading over the budget and the memos
about the budget, the fiscal year 2020 budget request for
military construction, family housing, and BRAC [base
realignment and closure] is an increase of over 387 percent,
and it includes, please correct me if I am wrong, a backfilling
of the funding that was taken by the emergency declaration for
the wall?
Secretary Esper. So Congresswoman, I think you are
referring to--I think it is $3.6 billion that was inserted into
the Army budget by the Office of the Secretary of Defense as a
placeholder, if you will, along with another $3 billion or so
for other emergency-type actions and then I think a couple
billion for the bases that were destroyed by hurricanes.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 109.]
Ms. Escobar. I just want to go on the record about how
deeply concerning it is to me to know that funding was taken.
And we have heard from a couple other members here today about
our ability to trust that money that we have appropriated won't
be moved for purposes that were not intended by this committee
or by the Congress.
And so I just want to state publicly how troubling that is
to me, and it concerns me especially in light of what we
discussed at our classified hearing, Secretary Wilson, about
the challenges that the Army faces ahead and the money that is
being cash-flowed in order to try to cover some of those
challenges, so I just want to express my concern.
I am also concerned about the fact that in this budget,
there appears to be a $200 million decrease in family housing,
is that correct?
Secretary Esper. I would have to check on that. I don't
believe so. We are actually investing substantial sums of money
for MILCON and what we call FSRM [facilities sustainment,
restoration, and modernization] which is sustainment and
renovation to get our Army family housing up to Q1 and Q2
levels at a much quicker time than what it was before, and I
think we are now exceeding OSD standards.
So I would have to come back, and maybe it is a--sometimes
what happens is what we propose. For example, last year
Congress adds additional money, and then we come up with more
money over the proposal, but it looks like less because
Congress inserted additional money. So let us do the forensics
and come back to you as to how you are reading that.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 110.]
Ms. Escobar. I appreciate that. I see that there is an
increase in the remediation component----
Secretary Esper. Right. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Escobar [continuing]. But this was brought to my
attention during a recent veterans town hall meeting that I had
in El Paso about the military housing for families, and so I
would like to understand that more.
Secretary Esper. Sure.
Ms. Escobar. And to--one of the things that we learned at
one of the other briefings, at least from my perspective, I
think it is going to require a significant amount of investment
to not just remediate, but I think in a lot of cases probably
rebuild.
Secretary Esper. Right.
Ms. Escobar. So I look forward to a continued conversation
on that.
Secretary Esper. Some of it is, as well, the Army--most of
the Army housing is privatized, so a lot of that funding--most
all that funding comes out of what has been capitalized by the
private partners.
And Chief, did you want to add something there?
General Milley. We can get you the actual forensics,
Congresswoman, but I am pretty sure that some of that $200
million or a good part of it is due to some completion of
overseas projects in our OCONUS bases, but we will get you the
actual numbers.
Ms. Escobar. I appreciate it. As I mentioned, this was
something important to some constituents at home, so I would
like to learn more.
Secretary Wilson, so again, congratulations on the
nomination. I want to ask you about something, a trend that has
been disturbing to me, on sexual assault and the Air Force. It
remains a serious problem throughout the military, but these
trends in our service academies are really of great concern.
This February report surfaced that nearly half of female cadets
in the Air Force Academy experienced sexual harassment during
the 2017-2018 academic year. Another 15 percent reported
unwanted sexual contact. Could you tell me what the Air Force
has done to address that?
The Chairman. And I apologize. This is a very, very
complicated question to hit you with with 3 seconds to go in
the time, so we are going to have to have you submit an answer
for that for the record because I know the Air Force has worked
on a great many different issues.
So please get back to Ms. Escobar with a detailed
explanation. It is just--it is not something you can do in 10
seconds, I don't think.
Secretary Wilson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And with that, the gentlelady's time has
expired.
Mr. Bacon.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to thank all of
our witnesses here today for sharing us with your expert
positions and opinions.
I have a couple of points for questions. I want to, first
of all, just congratulate Secretary Wilson for a job well done,
and we have great universities too in Omaha for just future
reference.
Secondly, on the issue of the F-15, this was an issue
forced on the Air Force over a decade ago. There was a desire
for doubling the number of F-22s, and that decision was made
outside of the Air Force to stop that production. Now we are
left with a gap today that we have to fill. So I understand the
predicament that you all are in.
And thirdly, when it comes to the reprogramming, I don't
think it is optimal, either. I don't think this is the way we
should have gone forward, but Congress had the opportunity to
work with the President, find a compromise for border funding,
and it did not.
It went backwards from the original position, and now today
we are left with a crisis with 800 to 900,000 pace coming here
illegally, being caught at the border and being swamped,
swamping our DHS [Department of Homeland Security], our Border
Patrol. Even Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of the DHS under Obama,
President Obama, said we have a crisis, so this is something we
can't ignore.
Anyway, I appreciate your points on that earlier in the
hearings, my first question is to General Milley. My
understandings are tank modernization, our infantry fighting
vehicle, our MLRS [Multiple Launch Rocket System] is behind
what China and Russia is doing. We have some plans for the
infantry fighting vehicle and the MLRS, but should we be
concerned that we have this gap that we are--it appears to me
that we are outgunned, outranged right now in these areas, and
are we doing everything we can to close that gap? Do I have
that right?
General Milley. We are doing everything we can to close the
gap. In terms of outgunned and outranged, typically what people
mean by that is outgunned, is your adversary will have more of
that type of--more capacity than you do. And in the case of
Europe, yes. The Russians could mass more armor than the United
States at a point of crisis, perhaps. That is possible.
If you add up all of NATO, though, you get a different
number. So the outgunned piece, you have got to be careful, and
you have got to do the math, and it can be interesting. With
China, the same thing.
So as far as outranged goes, the tanks of the world, all of
them, German, American, Chinese, Russian, et cetera, pick your
tank, they are all within reasonable ranges and capabilities of
each other. The Russian tank has a missile attached to it, ours
does not, so they have extended range, et cetera. But I am very
confident that the weapons platforms are within acceptable
degrees of risk of each other.
The real difference on any tank or any aircraft or anything
is the training of the crew. It is the people. It is the skill
of the operator. And I would match our skill against anyone.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
I want to thank Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein for
visiting Offutt. Secretary Wilson, could you tell us what will
be the impact if we do not get Tyndall and Offutt in a
supplemental? You are doing cash flow right now, as you said.
What is the impact if we don't get this done in a timely
manner?
Secretary Wilson. Sir, we have already had to hold back
money for 61 facilities projects in 18 States on the first of
May if we don't have--don't start to have funding flow. We are
going to have to put the Tyndall recovery on hold.
By the middle of May, we are going to have to stop some
aircraft repairs, ground some bombers. Maintenance backlog is
going to start to increase because we are having--we are going
to have to cash-flow this, and if we don't have a supplemental,
we have to take it out of this year's budget.
And then at some point, probably sometime in the middle of
the summer, we will have to defer the Offutt recovery.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
General Goldfein, considering Compass Call on our
electronic warfare capabilities, and we have always tried to
push for two replacement aircraft a year. And I know this year
we were requesting one of the Air Force's. I just think it is
hard on a squadron to have one Gulfstream, one EC-130. Could
you just explain the problems here, and would you optimally
want two a year or just--if you could give us a little
background, I would be grateful.
General Goldfein. Yeah. The challenge we have, Congressman,
on this one is that we have got to take the aircraft--we have
got to take the equipment from the C-130 and place it on the E-
37, so you have got--and we have got to do this while we are
meeting combat and command requirements. So limiting ourselves
is based on the fact that we have got to maintain C-130s at the
same time we bring on the new aircraft and make that
transition. And so while we would like to do it faster, what we
built was the capability of doing it--essentially build the
airplane while it is flying.
Mr. Bacon. Concerning the RC-135, I heard from the HAF/A2
[Headquarters Air Force director for ISR] that there is no plan
to defund the RCs in the future, that it is the weapon of
choice for the decades to come. Is that your understanding?
General Goldfein. It is, but the same work that we are
doing in Advanced Battle Management System as we look at what
the replacement for Joint STARS [Surveillance Target Attack
Radar System] is going to be, we are looking at all of these
capabilities. The ones that right now are more platform-
centric, to how do we look at all of the sensors that we have
and all of the domains and all of the services and use that as
our asymmetric advantage as we fuse that information to get
greater fidelity and better decision making.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. A couple quick comments.
One thing has come up that I don't think this committee has
focused on, and I know Mr. Scott mentioned this, we need a
supplemental. I appreciate your comment on that and the impact
that has had on the military, but also it's had a devastating
impact on a large number of communities across the country. We
need to work through and get a deal on that.
On the border wall, I don't disagree that there is, without
question, a huge problem at the border right now. The problem
that we have is that a wall is no solution to any of that. So
with all the problems that we have down there, to take, you
know, 5, 6, 10, $20 billion, whatever it is to build a vanity
wall, that does not solve the problem.
The problem is we have got people pouring up here from
south of the border, and I think a thoughtful policy--certainly
things have not gotten better since the Trump administration
has implemented whatever immigration policies they have wanted
to implement. It has gotten worse. And then to say we are going
to cut off the funding from Central America, you know, when I
think the one country where things have gotten better is El
Salvador where USAID [United States Agency for International
Development] has been down there helping so that people don't
have to flee. Yeah, we have got big problems at the border. The
solutions coming out of the White House are making it worse,
not better, and I darn sure don't want to take 6, 7, $8 billion
out of DOD to build some wall that isn't going to make the
situation any better.
So we definitely have to work on that. We are not saying it
is not a problem. This is not the solution, and we don't want
the money taken out of DOD. So happy to work with you on that.
Ms. Haaland.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you all for
being here, and thank you for your service to our country.
Secretary Wilson, as you are well aware, the fuel spill on
Kirtland Air Force Base resulted in up to 24 million gallons of
jet fuel leaving dangerous toxins and contaminants in our
ground soil that posed a threat to Albuquerque's clean drinking
water.
I have heard from many of my constituents that the Air
Force is not clearly communicating its efforts to remediate the
spread of those dangerous contaminants, and there is a
discrepancy between the progress the Air Force claims and what
has been asserted by community stakeholders.
So my question is--or my questions. Community stakeholders
have repeatedly expressed that the Air Force has either refused
to take their input or refused to share information about the
cleanup, leading them to believe that environmental restoration
at Kirtland is no longer a priority. Any budget priorities must
include a responsibility for this and other contamination that
the Air Force has caused in New Mexico, and it has happened at
other places too as I am sure you know.
Can you tell us whether the Air Force remains committed to
the environmental restoration efforts at Kirtland and elsewhere
and protecting the drinking water upon which thousands of
Albuquerque citizens rely? And what are you doing to gain back
the public trust on that issue?
Secretary Wilson. Congresswoman, we are committed to the
Kirtland project. It is a pump and treat project, largely,
which will continue over a long period of time.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. And of course, as I mentioned, the
community stakeholders have a different idea of what the--how
that progress is going, and I am hoping that you will or
someone will contact them and leave the door open so that they
can have some assurance that what they believe and what the Air
Force is doing are not two different things.
Secretary Wilson. Happy to work with you on that.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. When are you leaving?
Secretary Wilson. The end of May.
Ms. Haaland. Okay. We might have time, then. Thank you.
My second issue is military housing, and it has already
been mentioned by a few of my colleagues, but I wanted to see
if we could just--if I could get my issues out there a little
bit, go a little bit deeper and more detailed.
But military families have met with House and Senate
Members regarding the harrowing impacts that poor military
housing conditions have wreaked on their health and safety.
These dire conditions range from mold, to vermin, to lead, to
roofs and floors caving in.
I grew up in a military family and lived on military--lived
in military housing all of my young life. The housing was
always a direct reflection of the discipline that my dad's
Marine Corps career demanded, and it doesn't seem like it is
that way any longer. I know firsthand that service members like
my dad have the highest degree of readiness when they know
their family's basic needs are being met.
So the services have announced a number of measures to
address these issues going forward, but sadly, many families
are already suffering the financial hardship from unexpected
moves, uncontestable security deposit withholdings, repair and
medical bills that they don't get reimbursed for, severe health
problems, lead poisoning, respiratory issues from black mold,
and so it appears that your budget priorities must include
that.
I know that it looks like there is a $200 million decrease
in the Army's family housing budget and just a modest increase
in the Air Force's. What are the services doing to support
those families who have experienced the impacts from these poor
housing conditions?
Secretary Esper. Congresswoman, we have instituted a couple
dozen initiatives. We provide updates to the committees. I am
sure we can get that to you as well if you haven't seen those,
but it runs the gamut of everything you have said, and we have
completed 100 percent inspections of all of our homes. We have
had townhalls. We are negotiating or actually discussing with
the CEOs changes to all those policies you talked about, non-
refundable policies. We are upstaffing at the Army with regard
to our garrisons to ensure that there is 100 percent quality
assurance, quality control whenever there is a handover of
quarters.
I mean, there is just a couple dozen things we are doing to
make sure we take care of our families because they are number
one, and this is--you know, this has been an eye opener for
everybody. And the Army, the leadership is getting back
involved in the housing business, and that is our number one
commitment.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 110.]
Ms. Haaland. Okay. That is good.
The Chairman. I am sorry. The gentlelady's time has
expired.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ma'am, gentleman, thank
you for being here today.
I was tardy because I was on the floor of the House of
Representatives speaking on the need for disaster relief, and I
just want to make sure that you are all aware that both bills
failed in the Senate yesterday. Both bills failed. The
Republican bill failed 44-49, and the Democratic bill failed
46-48. Obviously there is partisan politics going on right now.
If the disasters had hit New York or Vermont, I have no doubt
that they would have--that assistance would have already been
provided.
But I do have a question, Secretary Wilson. Has the
administration submitted a request for disaster assistance for
disaster supplemental?
Secretary Wilson. The money is actually attached to the
fiscal year 2020 budget, so it is in there with an emergency
clause, and it clarifies the amount.
Mr. Scott. My understanding, though, is that OMB [Office of
Management and Budget] has not actually requested a
supplemental package. I mean, obviously, we need a supplemental
to pass within the next 8 days. And just so--so you understand
where the calendar is, 8 days from now we leave for Easter
break, and we do not return until April 30th.
Now, I am fine if we don't leave for Easter break until we
get a disaster bill done, but I would suggest to you as someone
who has been fighting since October to get a disaster bill done
that we need help. We need help making sure people understand
the damage that is going to be done if we don't get a bill
passed. And I don't think--I don't think most of the Members of
Congress recognize the damage that is going to be done to the
Air Force and our military readiness, much less the public.
And it is embarrassing to ask you this, but some of you are
going to have to get on the news and talk about--and when I say
get on the news, it has got to happen now. We have 8 days until
we leave until April 30th. And I am just asking for your help,
asking for the President to turn it up. This is ridiculous.
Obviously there is partisan politics going on over there,
but the truth of the matter is the President could have done
more to help with this before now too, and I am asking you for
help.
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, you will have every ounce of
help that I can provide you including I have been talking
publicly about this, sometimes hard to break through, but this
has been a priority for the Air Force since October, and we
have talked about it, worked together on it.
Mr. Scott. Yes, ma'am.
Secretary Wilson. And we are doing everything we can.
Mr. Scott. But I have seen no stories on this in the
mainstream media, none whatsoever, about what the implications
of no disaster bill, Congress taking a 2-week or 3-week break
between now and April 30th. If this doesn't get done, and from
the standpoint of time, we have tomorrow in which case we have
got a major event on the House floor which is going to take up
a lot of time.
Then there is a fly-out. So of the 8 days left, 5 are
legislative, 3 of the 5 are fly-in and fly-out days where the
time is going to be very limited.
I just--you have done a good job of making the point to the
choir that this needs to be done. The House has passed two
bills. The House has passed two bills. The Senate has yet to
pass a bill. And I would just ask that as you leave here, we
need people on the news making sure that Congress does not
leave for Easter break until a disaster assistance bill is
done.
And I will tell you. I think there is very little chance
that a bill is done before we leave for Easter break. So with
that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of my time and
maybe somebody has got some good news.
The Chairman. Well, thank you. I appreciate you emphasizing
that issue. It is unbelievably important.
Ms. Luria.
Mrs. Luria. Well thank you all for being here today.
I would like to start with General Goldfein. In your
statement, you said the Air Force need is 386 operational
squadrons. Also, in your statement you compared this to the
height of the Cold War. Previously you mentioned that was, you
know, at the start of Desert Storm that you had 401 operational
squadrons.
I am trying to compare the two timeframes, the advancement
in technology and lethality of weapons and weapon systems and
aircraft that we have and just trying to understand how we are
trying to go back to something so close to our Cold War height
with all of the advances we have made in our weapons systems.
Have we not gained any efficiencies?
General Goldfein. Thanks. No. Thanks, ma'am, and I would
characterize it as not going back but absolutely going forward.
So here is what we did. To answer the Congresswoman's question
of what Air Force do you need to successfully execute the
National Defense Strategy with moderate risk?
We started off with a fully burdened campaign plans, the
global campaign plans for both the China and the Russia plan.
And I say fully burdened because it won't be just the EUCOM
[U.S. European Command] commander that will be supported with
joint capabilities. It will be the EUCOM commander, the
STRATCOM commander, the NORTHCOM [U.S. Northern Command]
commander. All commanders are going to need forces.
So we took the fully burdened global campaigns, and then we
looked at the assessment of the threat, again, the best threat,
and then we ran 2,000 iterations, computer simulations of
different force elements and force structures to find the
optimum force that we need to be able to execute the strategy.
That is what we have laid forward.
Mrs. Luria. I appreciate the amount of data and analysis
that went into that. I was just--for comparison sake and the
amount it cost to invest in the squadrons and each aircraft
which is increasingly more expensive, I was just trying to get
at, really, is there no more efficiency because we have
increased lethality, and we have increased capability of
aircraft over time?
General Goldfein. Actually, there is, ma'am, built into it.
And remember, 401 to defeat a rogue nation that is non-nuclear,
386 to defeat a China or a Russia or nuclear peer.
Mrs. Luria. Okay. And so, you know, just comparing it to
the, you know, Navy's analysis where they come up with, you
know, something about half of their Cold War peak number that
they are saying they need in ships now, I would really like
just an opportunity separate from this forum because we don't
have time to understand the analysis that you put into taking--
to creating that number, and I will shift now.
What percentage of global combatant commander demand for
strike aircraft did you meet last year?
General Goldfein. Say that again, ma'am. I am sorry.
Mrs. Luria. What percentage of combatant commander demand
did you meet worldwide last year both for strike aircraft and
for tanker aircraft? I have asked this of the Navy relative to
carriers, so I am interested for the Air Force.
General Goldfein. Yeah. So when we did our analysis,
interestingly enough, not surprising, long-range aviation was
in the most demand. Tankers, bombers.
Mrs. Luria. Okay. I am just trying to get for combatant
commander demand this year. Do you have those numbers? Can you
get that back to me?
Secretary Wilson. Is the question are we meeting the combat
commander demand?
General Goldfein. I think you are looking for a
percentage----
Mrs. Luria. Yes. What percentage. So I asked each combatant
commander about the demand that they had for aircraft carriers,
and EUCOM said less than a half, CENTCOM is less than a fifth,
and PACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] is getting 70 percent. So
do you have a percentage equivalent for Air Force assets
relative to combatant commander demand?
General Goldfein. We can get you those details, but it is
always a trade. And the chairman, as the global integrator of
capability----
Mrs. Luria. Right.
General Goldfein [continuing]. Brings those decisions to
the Secretary of Defense.
Mrs. Luria. I understand that is the GFM [Global Force
Management] process.
General Goldfein. That is how we determine that.
Mrs. Luria. But I now shift to General Milley. The same
thing as far as brigade combat teams. Do you have an assessment
of what combatant commanders requested this year versus what
was provided and where those gaps are?
General Milley. We are meeting the global combatant command
demand on brigade combat teams, and roughly speaking, about 60
percent of global combatant command demand is for Army forces,
so we are meeting it. We are at the margins. We are much less
than the 1:2 deployment-dwell ratios. We are spinning hard. And
as you know, the size of the Army has reduced significantly
from the peak of the surge in Iraq and Afghanistan, although
the number of forces required in Afghanistan and Iraq, et
cetera, have been roughed as well.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you.
General Milley. We are spinning pretty hard.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you very much.
In the interest of time, I will shift to another topic for
Secretary Wilson. Are you familiar with the 2014 independent
review of the DOD nuclear enterprise?
Secretary Wilson. I am not sure I would know it by that
name, but--so I am not--I am not sure I can answer the question
accurately.
Mrs. Luria. Okay. Well, my followup was that that
particular review, and I believe that General Goldfein was
involved in that process as well, and in your position at the
time----
Secretary Wilson. The nuclear posture review?
Mrs. Luria. No. The DOD review of the nuclear enterprise.
So it reviewed all nuclear assets including ICBMs
[intercontinental ballistic missiles], nuclear deterrents as
far as submarines, bombers, our NATO dual-capable aircraft.
General Goldfein. Yes, ma'am. I think what you are
referring to is nuclear posture review, and yes, we were
involved in that.
Mrs. Luria. I am not referring to the nuclear posture
review, but the assessment that was made in 2014.
So I am out of time, but I will try to follow up you with
separately on the question. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Esper, you were in Indiana a couple of weeks ago,
and we appreciate you visiting AM General. I was happy to read
the press accounts of your statements about the need to
modernize the Humvee as the Army retains it as the workhorse of
the tactical vehicle fleet for the coming decades to come.
The Army has requested funding to initiate a nonarmored
Humvee modernization program in fiscal year 2020, and I want
you to know that my colleagues and I stand ready to support
your initiative to modernize the Humvee fleet for the future.
So Secretary Esper, can we also count on your best effort
to proceed quickly in this Humvee modernization program?
Secretary Esper. Congressman, my best effort is to proceed
quickly on every modernization program. I am not as familiar
with this one, but we are always trying to move quickly. Speed
is essential here. It is a key component of acquisition reform.
Mr. Banks. Appreciate that very much.
Moving on to a different subject. As the Army and the Air
Force focus on modernization, one of the major concerns that I
have is the competition with our peers in fielding offensive
and defensive hypersonic technology.
Secretary Wilson, a few weeks ago, you too were in Indiana
visiting Purdue University to see some of the strides that they
are making in several areas of advanced technology such as
hypersonics. Can you highlight the importance for us of
hypersonic technology in a future fight?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, we think that it is very
important to the future fight because it gives us speed and the
ability to strike at a standoff range, and it is actually a
very good example of where all the three services, but in this
case particularly, the Army and the Air Force are working
together where the Army had tested a weapon with Navy funding,
where the shell worked better than the one we did, but we had
some good rockets.
And so we are--we put together a tri-service program to
develop a hypersonic weapon, drop it and test it off of a B-52,
launch it from the ground or launch it from the deck of a ship.
And by working together using best technology, we accelerated
the advancement of hypersonics by 5 years.
Mr. Banks. Can you as well, Secretary Wilson, talk about
the role that universities can play in the testing and research
of technologies like the advancement of hypersonics?
Secretary Wilson. When we look at the future force, we need
to invest in research, development, testing, and evaluation
both at the early stages but also in developing prototypes and
testing them and moving very rapidly. Our adversaries are
innovating faster than we are, and we need to figure out where
they cannot go and get there faster to create dilemmas for our
adversaries.
Mr. Banks. So as you head off to higher education, you see
an important rule that universities play?
General Milley. I absolutely do, and it is--and we are very
close to finishing our new science and technology strategy for
the Air Force, and it will emphasize partnerships outside of
the government laboratories.
Mr. Banks. Okay. I want to move on to another subject,
Secretary Wilson. We have been hearing for quite some time that
the Air Force has made a firm decision regarding the future of
our strategic bomber force. We are concentrating on the old and
the new. The new is the B-21 penetrator. The old is the B-52, a
pre-Vietnam-era aircraft that has served our Nation well, but
it is old.
And the Air Force has embarked on a commercial engine
replacement program [CERP]. Secretary, the Air Force's fiscal
year 2019 budget justification document forecasted fiscal year
2020 funding for this program at $312 million. However, the
fiscal year 2020 budget exhibits reflect a funding level of
just $175 million for B-52 CERP, or $137 million less. What is
your expected timeline to complete this program to ensure our
B-52s will be able to continue operating at a critical piece of
our strategic plan?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, I will have to get back to
you on the specific laydown of the funding and give you a
detailed answer if I could.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
Mr. Banks. I appreciate that. Are any fundamental changes
to the acquisition strategy for this important upgrade for the
B-52 fleet, are there any?
Secretary Wilson. No. We are modernizing the bombers. We
are, of course, buying the B-21, the long-range standoff
weapon, and modernizing the intercontinental ballistic
missiles. The other part that is not often mentioned in the
importance of the nuclear deterrent is nuclear command control
and communication, and about three-quarters of that is in the
Air Force as well.
Mr. Banks. Okay. We will look forward to seeing some more
of those answers for the record. I appreciate your testimony
very much, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Moulton.
Mr. Moulton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you all
very much for your service.
Secretary Wilson, we will miss you, and so I figured I
would start with you. I have significant concerns about our
current and future competitiveness with Russia and China, as
you know, particularly in space, cyber, and artificial
intelligence [AI]. I know you have been an advocate for more
investment in these areas, in these next-generation
capabilities. And you have testified before, in front of this
committee, that we currently can match China in AI.
As you depart your position, do you believe our current
level of investment and level of focus on AI will be sufficient
to compete with China over the next 30 years?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, 30 years is a long time. I
think it is an absolute priority. And when we come out with our
science and technology strategy, one of the things that it will
emphasize is speed and complexity, and particularly speed to
decision making, which means that algorithms and gathering vast
amounts of information and understanding that information
quickly will be one of the keys to success in future warfare.
Mr. Moulton. So China's made a commitment of $150 billion
between now and 2030, which is only 11 years away. I think the
number in this year's budget was $927 million for the
Department of Defense on AI. Do you feel comfortable?
Secretary Wilson. I don't think any of us can feel
comfortable with respect to artificial intelligence.
Mr. Moulton. Thanks. Secretary Wilson, in your testimony,
you stated that our potential adversaries are rapidly fielding
capabilities that approach our own, and in order to prevail in
conflict, we will need systems that can penetrate contested
environments or have long-range effects. What does a sixth-
generation fighter need to be able to do, that the current
fighters can't?
Secretary Wilson. Congressman, I am not--I may defer to the
chief here on some things, but this isn't something that I am--
that I feel really comfortable talking about in open session.
But the sixth generation is probably still pretty far off. We
are focused on buying the fifth generation, but--Chief?
General Goldfein. We are not--Congressman, we are not
committed to a platform, per se. We are committed to some key
technologies----
Mr. Moulton. How soon do we need to make these commitments?
General Goldfein. Well, we have already made--what you will
see in our budget is a commitment to next generation of air
dominance. Speaking at the unclassified level, I will just tell
you that there are some key technologies that we are advancing,
that we believe will come together and be very important to
going forward. One of those----
Mr. Moulton. How soon will we need those capabilities,
General?
General Goldfein. Well, we are going to need those
certainly into the 2030s.
Mr. Moulton. Into the 2030s?
General Goldfein. Absolutely.
Mr. Moulton. These are capabilities that the F-35 has or
does not have?
General Goldfein. Some that the 35 has, and some that the
35 is going to complement, and that is about as far as I can go
in this forum.
Mr. Moulton. Okay. General, you have been fighting
admirably for more resources for your service. And I just ask
you, do you agree with this statement, quote, if I had more
money, I would put it into lethality, not bureaucracy.
General Goldfein. Yes.
Mr. Moulton. Okay. So that was your service secretary
testifying against the creation of a space force. Secretary
Wilson continued, quote, the Pentagon is complicated enough, we
are trying to simplify. This will make it more complex, add
more boxes to the organizational chart, and cost more money.
So what has changed about the Pentagon in the last year and
a half--year and a half--since that testimony, to change your
opinion on the bureaucracy, vis-a-vis a space force?
General Goldfein. I will tell you, for me, sir, what
changed was, the decision that both the Department, the Air
Force, and the White House made, to build a force inside the
Department of the United States Air Force. Because for me, as a
warfighter, it became recognizable in the business of space
warfighting, and business of joint warfighting, because there
really is no such thing as war in space. There is war----
Mr. Moulton. So, in other words, you are supportive of a
space force created within the Air Force?
General Goldfein. Yes. I am.
Mr. Moulton. But not supportive of a space force created
outside of it?
General Goldfein. That is correct. And I would----
Mr. Moulton. Then why do we need the bureaucracy of a space
force? Isn't the Air Force capable of doing these things?
General Goldfein. The Air Force is fully capable----
Mr. Moulton. Okay, great. Secretary Wilson, Admiral
Stavridis has written, Trump is right to warn that we might be
attacked from space someday and of the need to be ready for it.
But we are being attacked from cyberspace right now, and that
demands an immediate response. He is arguing for the need for a
cyber force ahead of a space force. Do you agree or disagree
with Admiral Stavridis?
Secretary Wilson. I think Admiral Stavridis highlights an
important problem that is also reflected in our budget, which
is the need to make sure that we are resilient with respect to
cyber capabilities and that we develop more tools for cyber----
Mr. Moulton. Would you agree with his prioritization, that
cyber right now, because we are literally being attacked daily
by Russia and China, is more important than space?
Secretary Wilson. I think they are both important.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Torres Small.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you all for your service, and thank
you specifically to Secretary Wilson. We will miss you, and I
am also hopeful that there are some things we can work on
together in this last dwindling time that we have.
New Mexico Air National Guard is the only Air National
Guard in the country without an operational flying mission, and
it is one of just three States without its own aircraft. Yet
the Air National Guard enterprise is based on established
capstone principles that set the foundational framework for
mission set application throughout the 54 States and
territories.
Specifically, one of those capstone principles is to
allocate at least one unit-equipped wing and flying squadron to
each State. Secretary Wilson, are States that are currently
unable to align with these core principles, due to divestiture
of aircraft in the past, given priority for new mission
opportunities?
Secretary Wilson. Congresswoman, the way we do new missions
in the Air Force is to look at what are the requirements of
those missions and which bases or States or localities are the
best to be able to accomplish those missions. As you know, I
have a strong--a big part of my heart in the New Mexico Guard,
and my husband was a ``Taco.'' He was a member of the New
Mexico National Guard. Their loss of their F-16 aircraft was, I
know, devastating to the members of the Guard and the State of
New Mexico. And I hope long term that they are able to develop
a mission. One of the things that I think is important is for
those units to look at how can they partner with Active Duty
forces and meet an operational Air Force need.
Ms. Torres Small. Switching now to another topic that is
incredibly important for New Mexico, and across the country, as
we see increasing impacts, when it comes to PFAS [per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances]. Last week, I expressed my deep
concerns to Acting Secretary Shanahan on the lack of leadership
by the Department of the Defense to proactively address the
PFAS contaminants at military establishments.
Secretary Wilson, I want to convey that the Air Force has
showed that same lack of urgency when it comes to PFAS
contaminants, particularly in New Mexico. Secretary Wilson,
please explain what efforts the Air Force has taken to work
with the communities affected around Cannon Air Force Base and
now Holloman Air Force Base.
Secretary Wilson. When the EPA [Environmental Protection
Agency] identified PFAS and PFOA [perfluorooctanoic acid] as
emerging contaminants, the services--all of the services went
out and surveyed our sites. We looked at, I think it was 297
different sites where we might have been using this
firefighting foam. We have replaced a hundred percent of our
firefighting foam. We have surveyed the drinking water on each
of our bases. We have done 110 detailed site inspections. We
are providing alternative water at 21 locations.
There is not currently a cleanup standard. And we have
reached out to both the Department of Agriculture as well as
the EPA and Health and Human Services to try to encourage them
to establish a cleanup standard. There are some things we can
do under existing law, to be able to prevent further migration
of any plume, but--and we are doing that where we have
identified problems.
Ms. Torres Small. So my real concern is a lack of ownership
by the Department of Defense and the Air Force specifically
about this issue. It came up at the last hearing as well, EPA
standards were brought up, and also in some of our
conversations and conversations with staff about a lack of
authority to do certain things, that were having real impacts
on consumption and water in New Mexico.
So I want to make sure that we are working together to
address this, rather than trying to pass the buck. So what is
it that the Air Force needs to be able to do more, to start
acting to collect--to stop increased plume spreading?
Secretary Wilson. We do have the authority to prevent any
further migration of the plume and also to provide clean water,
both on base and off base, to people who are affected. The
Department of Agriculture has some other authorities with
respect to agricultural products which we don't have the
authority to do. I would say that one of the things that is
important is that less than 4 percent of this chemical was sold
for firefighting foam, and a very small percentage of that, for
the military firefighting foam.
So there is 1,100 commercial airports, and this particular
chemical is used in waterproofing, it is used on the coatings
for fast-food wrappers. It is prevalent. And so there is a
national issue, of which we are trying to get after the part we
are responsible for.
I have to say, almost no one else even wants to look. And
so I think--I think, you know, we are trying to do what we can
with the authorities we have for the things we are responsible
for. But 96 percent of the problem is not even identified.
Ms. Torres Small. I would ask that you prioritize
addressing----
Secretary Wilson. Absolutely.
Ms. Torres Small [continuing]. The part that we know.
Secretary Wilson. Absolutely.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. I yield my time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Thornberry.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
thank our witnesses and make one observation. Going back to
Secretary Wilson's initial comments about the Air Force we
need. For many--for a number of years on this committee, a
frustration among a number of members that service chiefs and
secretaries were not really giving us their best military
judgment about what was needed to execute the mission that they
were given.
And I think--I just want to emphasize, I think it is
important for us to hear from you, the Army you think you need
to carry out the missions you have been given, the Air Force
that you need--and it may or may not come to pass. But under
the Constitution, it is our responsibility to build and
support, provide and maintain the military forces. And we
have--we will have to have a conversation about what is
acceptable risk, what is not.
But as I have been listening to all of the different items
under discussion here, it just reinforced to me, the need that
we hear from the people in you-all's position about what you
believe it takes to do what you have been asked to do. And then
the process will proceed from there.
I think you-all have done that today, and I appreciate it.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I completely agree with
Ranking Member Thornberry on that. I think it is very helpful
for us to hear from you on that. I think, you know, the next
step is, okay, if we are not able to do what it is we are
asking you to do, I always submit that there are--well, there
is three options, the last one of which I will close with in a
second. One is, okay, we need to buy more stuff.
Two is, we need to change what the mission is. You know, it
may be that we are asking you to do things that don't need to
be done, and stretching you too thin from other things that do
need to be done. And that is the piece that I don't think this
committee traditionally does as much as it should of drilling,
you know, what is the mission, why are we doing this, why do we
say we need that. And that is a part of it I want to examine.
And the other piece is something that I really want to
thank Mr. Thornberry for his work on this, and that is the
issue of how we spend the money at the Pentagon. And what I
have always wanted to hear more from our witnesses is, not
just, okay, here is where we are short, but here is where, you
know, we are spending money that frankly we don't need to be
spending, or here is an area where, you know, we looked at the
books and, oh my gosh, we spent $3 billion on this and we
shouldn't have. And we want to fix that.
Because it would be a lot easier for us up here to advocate
for more money for you if we knew it was being well spent. And
sadly--the audit is not just an esoteric thing, it is not just,
oh, gosh, we would really like to sort of see it. It is not
like a teacher writing on your paper, show your work. You know,
it really matters, because we don't know where the money's
going. We can't figure out whether we need to spend it.
And without question, because of the mess where we don't
adequately account for all the money that is spent in the
Pentagon, a ton of money has been wasted. And a lot of the
problems, I submit, on the F-35, on all these programs that we
had, on future combat systems, on the expeditionary fighting
vehicle, all these programs that were just--you know, on the
aircraft carriers, that were nightmares from the start, in
terms of how much they wound up costing, could have been
reduced if we knew what we were spending the money on, if we
had an adequate accounting system within the Pentagon.
So we are going to continue to emphasize making progress on
that, because it is all connected. You save money there, then
you got more money to meet, you know, the demands that you have
outlined to us.
And I agree with the ranking member, you outlined them very
well.
So, with that, I thank you very much for your testimony,
and we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:16 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 2, 2019
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 2, 2019
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 2, 2019
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GALLEGO
General Goldfein. The CSAF replied to Rep Gallego on 12 June 2019.
In the letter (attached), he addresses the Congressman's concerns on
the effects of unfunded mandates, including southern border operations.
[The letter was not available at the time of printing.] [See page
38.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK
General Milley. The Army supports the Defense Health Agency (DHA)
assuming full administration, direction and control of Medical
Treatment Facilities (MTFs) with the goal of maintaining high quality
of care for our beneficiaries, seeking greater efficiencies in
healthcare services, while the Military Departments continue to focus
on readiness. For the Army, Phase I consisted of Womack Army Medical
Center (WAMC) at Fort Bragg, NC, transitioning to DHA on 1 Oct 2018.
Since the transition, Regional Health Command-Atlantic (WAMC's previous
higher headquarters) continues to provide to WAMC a significant amount
of its administration and management support such as human resources,
resource management, information management operations, and logistics.
DHA developing the necessary structure, processes, and resources to
provide healthcare delivery capability and oversight at all echelons.
The Army analysis is that DHA will not meet their functional transition
plan for the remaining MTFs without an established Plan of Action and
Milestones to facilitate the transfer of thirty-four required MTF
administration and management functional capabilities from the Military
Departments to DHA. We are collaborating with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Defense Health Agency and the other Services to
improve 21 DHA's transition plan with conditions-based milestones and
establishing a human capital transition strategy to retain vital work
force expertise. The Army recommends that DHA focus on the transition
of the MTFs and the rollout of the Military Health System Electronic
Health Record as a matter of priority and includes appropriately
scoping DHA's Combat Support Agency role and continue further planning
for additional entities (such as research and training) with execution
after a synchronized MTF transition is successfully completed. [See
page 28.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHERRILL
Secretary Esper. The Army contracted with McKinsey & Co. (McKinsey)
to complete two distinct efforts relevant to life cycle management
activities. The Transition to Sustainment project covered the
synchronization and workload transition between the Program Executive
Offices (PEO) and the Lifecycle Management Commands (LCMC) for systems
and equipment. McKinsey delivered the guidebook documenting the process
to establish transition-to-sustainment plans for systems and equipment
in September 2018. The Army expects to finalize the guidebook in the
fall of 2019; after which time, Army will provide a copy to Congress.
The Joint Program Executive Office Armaments and Ammunition (JPEO A&A)
coordinated a facts-based independent assessment (lead by McKinsey &
Company) of the management of the ammunition industrial base. The
assessment covers the Class V ammunition enterprise roles and
responsibilities for managing government-owned, contractor-operated
facilities. The final report titled DoD Ammunition Enterprise
Organizational Assessment is not an official Army position, but was
conducted to provide information and make recommendations for Army
Senior Leader consideration. We anticipate a decision from the
Secretary of the Army in the near future. [See page 49.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. ESCOBAR
Secretary Esper. Yes, the $3.6B includes backfill funding. [See
page 52.]
Secretary Esper. There is not a $200M reduction to baseline
funding. The difference between the FY19 and FY20 request for Army
Family Housing is almost entirely due to the $189M drop in the
construction account from FY19 to FY20. The FY19 budget was the Army's
largest Family Housing construction request since FY09 due to large,
one time, project costs associated with overseas housing. The Army has
programmed several large Family housing construction projects since
FY15, averaging $172M per year over the past 6 years. Last year,
Congress funded the last of four projects totaling $241M to construct
new high-rise towers at Camp Walker, KO (USAG Daegu), while
simultaneously funding the third increment of a $302M high-rise
construction program at Camp Humphreys, KO, and a $95M construction
project at Vicenza, Italy. With our FY20 budget request, we have
returned to baseline funding levels and will be able to meet the OSD
goal of 90% good or adequate (Q1/Q2) Family Housing inventory. [See
page 52.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HAALAND
Secretary Esper. The Army is taking immediate steps to identify and
resolve maintenance and customer service concerns in both Army owned
and Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) privatized housing
inventories. Army Commanders have conducted 100% home visits and
barracks inspections at all Army installations, to immediately identify
and addressall life, health, and safety deficiencies. In cases where
the deficiency could not be corrected within 24 hours, the Army or RCI
companies have paid to relocate Families to adequate quarters and then
later returned them to their homes. In some cases, the RCI company
offered Families a different home and paid all moving and incidental
expenses. RCI companies are appropriately reimbursing residents for
certain claims associated with damage or loss of property. No Family
will be denied medical treatment resulting from health concerns
associated with housing hazards. The Army's RCI companies have
suspended the utility billing program and stopped charging non-
refundable pet fees. RCI companies may still charge pet deposits which
will be refunded upon lease termination, unless damages are present.
Residents can contest the deposit through their Army leadership,
housing advocate, and the representative of the RCI Company.
Reimbursements made by RCI companies are not included in the Army's
budget. The Army is responsible if a reimbursement is for Army Owned
Housing. Where there are questions regarding reimbursement from the RCI
Company or the Army, residents are encouraged to involve their chain of
command and the installation's Garrison leadership. Residents who have
suffered unreimbursed economic harm caused by negligent conduct
attributable to either the Army or a RCI company can pursue claims for
damages. [See page 57.]
Secretary Esper. There is not a $200M reduction to baseline
funding. The difference between the FY19 and FY20 request for Army
Family Housing is almost entirely due to the $189M drop in the
construction account from FY19 to FY20. The FY19 budget was the Army's
largest Family Housing construction request since FY09 due to large,
one time, project costs associated with overseas housing. The Army has
programmed several large Family housing construction projects since
FY15, averaging $172M per year over the past 6 years. Last year,
Congress funded the last of four projects totaling $241M to construct
new high-rise towers at Camp Walker, KO (USAG Daegu), while
simultaneously funding the third increment of a $302M high-rise
construction program at Camp Humphreys, KO, and a $95M construction
project at Vicenza, Italy. With our FY20 budget request, we have
returned to baseline funding levels and will be able to meet the OSD
goal of 90% good or adequate (Q1/Q2) Family Housing inventory. [See
page 57.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 2, 2019
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. General Milley, in your testimony you commented on Iron
Dome having a successful track record and the Army's report on Iron
Dome says it provides ``the best value to the Army based on its
schedule, cost per kill, magazine depth, and capability against
specified threats.'' The acquisition requires an ``above threshold
reprogramming'' request for FY19 funds.
Is the ``Iron Dome'' an interim solution or an enduring solution?
When do you plan on submitting the request to Congress? What would be
the impacts to national security if the request is not approved? How
can we move more quickly to a program of record and fielding of the
system?
General Milley. Iron Dome is an interim solution for indirect fire
protection capability against rockets and cruise missiles. The Office
of Management and Budget submitted an above threshold reprogramming
package to Congress on April 22, 2019. The Secretary of Defense
certified there is a critical need for the United States Army to deploy
an interim cruise missile defense capability. As outlined in the 2018
National Defense Strategy, we must develop layered regional missile
defenses to deter aggression by near-peer adversaries. If the FY18/19
above threshold reprogramming request for funding of Iron Dome is not
approved, this capability will be significantly delayed. The timeline
for fielding will be approximately 18 months after contract award.
Congress approved the FY19 above threshold reprogramming (ATR) request
for the purchase of two Iron Dome batteries, and to fund the
experimentation and analysis of configurations to inform the enduring
solution. The Army decision point will determine if an update to the
requirements is warranted and if the Army will pursue components of
Iron Dome (Missile Firing Unit and TAMIR interceptor) as part of the
enduring solution. When the ATR request has been approved and contracts
awarded, the Army will determine the feasibility to meet the FY19 NDAA
September 30, 2020 deployment date.
Mr. Wilson. General Scaparotti testified earlier this month to the
Senate Armed Services Committee that there are possible shortfalls with
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets in Europe.
Can you describe how this budget will address shortfalls in
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities?
General Milley. Since 2017, the Army has been working closely with
United States Army Europe (USAREUR) and United States European Command
(EUCOM) to address theater specific intelligence requirements. These
efforts have informed the Army's needs for additional Army intelligence
capacity and capability in Europe for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 budget.
In addition to these needs, continued support to the European
Deterrence Initiative (EDI) funding is necessary. EDI funding has been
important to improve our ISR capabilities to address ISR shortfalls in
Europe. Listed below are some specific examples of how the Army in the
FY20 budget and with additional EDI funding will address EUCOM's ISR
shortfalls. The Army is preparing to deploy three Guardrail Common
Sensor (GRCS) aircraft to Europe in FY20 to address shortfalls in
indications and warning systems. Improvements in electronic
intelligence and cyber sensors will enable the GRCS to provide the
Ground Commander a tactical collection capability, currently absent in
theater. The Army is developing an integrated signals intelligence
(SIGINT), electronic warfare (EW), and cyber capability to improve
ground intelligence collection capability and capacity. This new quick
reaction capability can target modern tactical peer/near-peer signals
of interest in support of ground combat maneuver elements' cyber and EW
activity. This capability will address intelligence gaps dealing with
Russian threats in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. The Army is
modernizing six Prophet systems to replace the current systems in
USAREUR to improve SIGINT and EW capabilities for the ground commander.
This modernization of the architecture framework (both hardware and
software) will facilitate the rapid integration of signals collection.
The Army also is developing the next ground based system, the
Terrestrial Layer System (TLS) which will integrate SIGINT, EW, and
cyber into a common ground platform at the brigade combat team level.
The Army will continue the Advanced Miniaturized Data Acquisition
System (AMDAS) Dissemination Vehicle (ADV) pilot program to support the
1st Infantry Division's operational needs in Europe for expeditionary
access to national capability.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
Mr. Turner. Based on Russia's disruption of GPS during NATO's
Trident Juncture drills last year, reports of China's investment in
missiles that can take out GPS satellites, and reports out of Israel
about Syria jamming and spoofing GPS, we have become increasingly
concerned about future access to GPS in contested environments and
operations.
This especially concerning as Russian air defense systems are
further limiting accessing.
What is the U.S. Air Force doing to field cost-effective non-GPS-
reliant precision munitions with stand-off capability in the near-term?
Have you surveyed allies and partners to see what capabilities they
have and whether they can be fielded more quickly than a developmental
program?
General Goldfein. The U.S. Air Force continues to work to ensure
our ability to deliver precision munitions in all conditions including
GPS-contested environments. We have a family of systems that can
operate in different ways to address these threats. We will be happy to
come brief you and your staff on this subject.
The Air Force recently participated in the Five Power Air Senior
National Representatives (SNR) First AltNav Exploration Group Meeting,
20-21 March 2019, in Germany. We are also actively engaging with IT,
UK, FR, and GE to identify viable non-GPS solutions.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COURTNEY
Mr. Courtney. Section 1707 of the Space Force proposal asks for
authority to involuntarily assign military and civilian personnel to
the Space Force. That includes members of the Army, Navy, and Marine
Corps, who could be ordered to join the Space Force even if they
commissioned as officers in another service. Doing that would clearly
impact the families as well because a Space Force career could be
totally different than the Army or Navy career they were planning on.
Civilians could also be involuntarily placed into a totally different
career path or place of work as well.
How do you plan on managing this reassignment of military and
civilian personnel without negatively impacting their careers and/or
families? Is this broad authority to involuntarily assign personnel
really necessary--couldn't you simply rely on volunteers instead?
Secretary Wilson. The Air Force will minimize involuntary military
transfers to the greatest extent possible through the use of voluntary
transfers using the monetary and non-monetary incentives at our
disposal. The legislative proposal provides for involuntary transfer
authority in the unlikely event that we are not able to satisfy mission
requirements through details and or inter-service voluntary transfers.
Involuntarily transfers would be an option of last resort if for
example a mission was completely transferred from the AF and the
incumbent individuals have skills not available through other means.
These transfers would be handled on a case-by-case basis. The Air Force
will seek to minimize any negative impacts to career development using
existing policies and procedures.
For the civilian force, in the case of a major reorganization such
as this, civilian employees would transfer in place to the Space Force
with the realignment of the mission and billet to which the employee is
assigned, with no loss in pay. Employees would also have the ability to
volunteer to transfer to vacant Space Force positions for which they
qualify. If the individual does not desire to transfer with their
position, the agency will make every attempt to place the individual in
another position for which they are qualified in order to minimize the
potential for adverse impact.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
Mr. Garamendi. Secretary Esper, I recently returned from Kuwait,
where I saw the Army's prepositioned stocks at Camp Arifjan and the
soldiers and civilians who work tirelessly to ensure they are ready for
battle. Can you explain what the Army is doing to ensure resiliency for
this vital mission given Camp Arifjan's location and the threat of
Iranian ballistic missiles? How is the Army thinking about the posture
and location of its prepositioned stocks in the Gulf in light of this
threat? How is the Army coordinating with the Marine Corps to seek
opportunities for joint facilities, storage, and maintenance
capabilities to get equipment covered and reduce the maintenance cost
associated with wear and tear from equipment being stored exposed to
the heat and environment?
Secretary Esper. The range and quantity of Iranian missiles means
that the Iranians can hold locations in the Persian Gulf at risk.
Therefore, the Army partners with the Joint Force and our Allies to
provide protection against Iranian capabilities. The U.S. military
possesses the ability to quickly adjust posture to deter Iranian
aggression, and as we continue to implement the National Defense
Strategy, we will retain the ability to dynamically employ the force
across the globe. The Army is also cooperating with the other military
Services and our Allies to efficiently maintain our prepositioned
stocks. The Army coordinates regularly with the Marine Corps and other
Services within the Joint Staff-led Global Prepositioned Materiel
Capabilities Working Group. These efforts seek joint efficiencies in
prepositioned storage. The Army prioritizes indoor storage for
equipment with the most intensive maintenance requirements and those
needed first in a contingency. Currently, 70 percent of the
prepositioned equipment is stored indoors, which significantly reduces
unscheduled maintenance.
Mr. Garamendi. In 2016 the Pentagon set the cost at the Ground
Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program's Milestone A decision at $85
billion in then year dollars, but called for a more up-to-date estimate
by March 2018 given that the $85 billion figure was at the lower end of
an independent CAPE office estimate that projected the cost as high as
$150 billion. Both estimates were far higher than the Air Force's
initial estimate
Has the Air Force produced an updated cost estimate for the GBSD
program? If so, what is it? If not, when can we expect an updated
estimate?
Secretary Wilson. The Service Cost Position update estimated for
March 2018 was delayed due to the implementation of an updated Security
Classification Guide. In June 2019, an updated Service Cost Position
was presented in conjunction with the OSD Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation (CAPE) Independent Cost Assessment. It is pending public
release.
Mr. Garamendi. According to the 2018 NPR, the life of the Minuteman
III ``cannot be extended further.'' However, neither RAND in a 2014
report nor the Air Force's 2014 analysis of alternatives determined
that another life extension is infeasible. Moreover, at a March 28 HASC
hearing, Lieutenant General Richard Clark, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff,
Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration said: ``We have several of
the [Minuteman III] components that are becoming obsolete. The
propulsion system, the guidance system, even the ability to provide the
solid rocket motor fuel, we only have one more opportunity to do that
for these weapons.'' Why did the NPR claim that the life of the
Minuteman III ``cannot be extended further''?
Secretary Wilson. The Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic
Missile (MM III) weapon system is 39 years past its designed service
life and must be recapitalized due to capability shortfalls, asset
attrition, evolving security environment, degrading infrastructure and
critical system component age-out.
The NPR statements with regards to extending the service life of MM
III are based on the funding requirements to overhaul all the systems/
components without additional operational capabilities necessary in the
evolving threat environment. To do so would be fiscally irresponsible.
GBSD, the MM III replacement system, is being designed with mature
technologies and an open architecture to intentionally lower the life-
cycle costs and provide the flexibility to address identified/
unidentified future capability gaps of the ground component of the
nuclear triad.
Additionally, there are components of the MM III, which can no
longer be life extended but would require remanufacturing, and in some
cases would necessitate significant development work due to the
obsolescence of the technology.
Mr. Garamendi. In 2017 the CBO projected that $17.5 billion could
be saved over the next 30 years by delaying development of a new ICBM
by 20 years and instead extending the life of the Minuteman III by
buying new engines and new guidance systems for the missiles.
Crucially, however, this approach would save $37 billion through fiscal
year 2036 when the vast majority of nuclear recapitalization spending
is scheduled to take place, including other Air Force priorities such
as the B-21 Bomber. Do CBO's estimates comport with the Air Force's
estimate of the cost to sustain the Minuteman III relative to GBSD
through 2036?
Secretary Wilson. The Air Force's assessment does not align with
the CBO's projected savings. The Ground Based Strategic Deterrent
Analysis of Alternatives released in 2014 indicates that it is more
efficient to develop a new ICBM capability rather than sustain the
current Minuteman III.
CBO focuses on the replacement of flight systems (propulsion and
guidance), but additional ground systems would also require
development/replacement due to parts obsolescence and other
sustainability challenges to maintain the Minuteman III capability 20
years beyond the current end of life. The CBO projection also does not
address the increasingly complex global security environment and the
need to modernize the nuclear force to counter competitors' coercive
strategies as outlined in the National Defense Strategy. Additional
ICBM capability will be required to address the need for payload
increases to surmount competitors' defensive system improvements
enabled by rapid technological advancements.
Mr. Garamendi. The 2018 NPR stated that the Minuteman III missiles
``will have increasing difficulty penetrating future adversary
defenses.'' Which adversaries have the capability to defend against a
large-scale ballistic missile attack?
Secretary Wilson. [The information is classified and retained in
the committee files.]
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
Mr. Scott. I commend you on making Army Readiness and Modernization
your top priority. In addition, your focus on collective training
emphasizes high-intensity conflict, utilizing complex terrain, and
operating under degraded environmental conditions:
1. Please explain why the U.S. Army does not have an urban warfare
school despite having one for arctic, jungle, desert, and mountain
warfare?
2. General Milley, in October 2016, said the Army needs ``to man,
organize, train and equip the force for operations in urban areas,
highly dense urban areas, and that's a different construct. We're not
organized like that right now.'' How has the Army prepared or changed
for major operations in dense urban environments since October 2016?
3. From the platoon level through the battalion level at the Combat
Training Centers (CTCs), are you currently able to meet all your
training requirements? What gaps do you foresee for potential future
conflicts?
4. The Joint Urban Operations Office closed with the Joint Forces
Command in 2011 leaving the Department of Defense without an executive
agent for urban operations. Any major combat operations in an urban
area in the future will clearly be a joint operation. How is the joint
force preparing for major combat operations in dense urban
environments? What changes should be made for the joint force to do so?
Secretary Esper and General Milley. 1. The U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Maneuver Center of Excellence, the proponent
for urban warfare doctrine, has published the Army Tactics, Techniques
and Procedures (ATTP) 3-06.11, ``Combined Arms Operations in Urban
Terrain.'' These tactics, techniques, and procedures are incorporated
in unit training events. TRADOC has not developed a requirement for an
urban warfare school given that many installations have their own urban
warfare training sites. Urban warfare training at these home station
sites can be supplemented by training at well-developed existing urban
training sites--Mascatatuck at Camp Atterbury, IN; Shughart-Gordon at
the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, LA; and Tiefort City
at the National Training Center Fort Irwin, CA.
With regard to other schools, there are two primary U.S. Army
Schools that instruct mountaineering/cold weather related courses; the
Northern Warfare Training Center and the U.S. Army Mountain Warfare
School. The Army does not have a jungle or desert warfare school.
Instead, individual units, based on geographic location and anticipated
mission, conduct training in these geographic and climatic regions. For
example, the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii operates a troop school
that provides a Jungle Operations Training Course for 25th Infantry
Division Soldiers.
2. In 2018 the Army revised its primary doctrine manual ATP 3-06,
Urban Operations, and the Army is currently working with the Joint
Staff J-7 to revise Joint Publication 3-06, Joint Urban Operations. The
Army established, and continues to refine, urban training programs at
the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, GA, and also
established a leader's dense urban and subterranean orientation course
at Fort Hamilton, NY, in coordination with New York City. The Army has
determined the collective urban training requirements and plans to
further develop urban training facilities based on those requirements
at its combat training centers.
Beginning in 2017, the Army developed and designed a comprehensive
approach to prepare for future operations; specifically addressed in
the Multi-Domain Operations 2028 (MDO 2028) concept. MDO 2028
identified operations in dense urban environments as a major challenge
and incorporates essential success factors such as the need to man,
organize, train and equip the force for success in an urban
environment.
The Army completed a major study on urban operations in Mosul with
recommendations across 31 Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel,
Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities and Policy (DOTMLPF-P)
capabilities to improve urban operations. Army Futures Command
identified necessary capabilities and is exploring potential solutions
to meet the needs of dense urban operations.
3. Yes. Army Combat Training Centers (CTCs) are able to build on
home station training to prepare units for current known operational
requirements and for decisive action in major combat operations against
contemporary threats. The CTCs constantly examine ways to better
prepare forces. For example, CTCs have increased the use of enemy
drones, jamming, chemical attacks, unmanned aerial system sorties,
indirect fire, and are planning to increase CTC capability to train
forces in dense urban terrain. Army CTCs remain ready to adapt to
specific requirements of any long-term contingency or named operation
by providing mission rehearsal exercises for rotational forces. In the
coming decade, the Army will develop operational concepts and training
for multi domain operations. The CTCs will need to replicate civilians
on the battlefield, dense urban terrain, and other complex terrain as
parts of the operational environment (OE). OE factors that must be
realistically replicated in CTC training include peer/near-peer
opposing force capabilities in cyber, space, deception, electronic
warfare, and artificial intelligence threats.
4. The Army, as part of the Joint Force, prepares to conduct land
combat operations in any and all operational environments, including
dense urban environments. Army training follows Joint and Army doctrine
for the conditions of the dense urban environment: Joint Publication 3-
06, ``Joint Urban Operations''; Army Techniques Publication 3-06,
``Urban Operations''; Army Tactics, Techniques and Procedures 3-06.11,
``Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain''; and Army Techniques
Publication ATP 3-06.1, ``Multi-Service Tactics, Techniques, and
Procedures for Aviation Urban Operations.''
Mr. Scott. The Air Force has suffered significant severe storm
damage at both Tyndall Air Force Base and Offutt Air Force Base.
1. Please explain your supplemental funding needs to repair damage
at these bases?
2. What effects do continual delays of disaster funding have on
your ability to conduct day to day operations?
3. What are you prepared to do if you do not receive the
supplemental funding?
Secretary Wilson. Thank you for your support in helping the Air
Force get FY19 supplemental funding. Although already passed, the
response to your question is below.
1) After the $200M reprogramming approved by Congress, the Air
Force requires $1.1B in FY2019 and $3.9B in FY2020/FY2021 of
supplemental funding for Tyndall AFB and Offutt AFB. FY19 immediate
needs for Tyndall AFB include approximately $550M in Facilities,
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) & Support and
approximately $150M in Military Construction (MILCON) Planning &
Design. FY19 immediate needs for Offutt include approximately $120M in
FSRM and approximately $234M to replace the damaged RC-135 Simulator.
In FY20, Tyndall needs approximately $893M in FSRM and Support and
approximately $2,534M in MILCON; Offutt's FY20 need is approximately
$300M in MILCON.
2) Continual delays of disaster funding affects ability to conduct
day-to-day operations. On 1 May 2019, the Air Force stopped its Tyndall
recovery while limiting aircraft maintenance repairs on 15 May 2019.
Projected on 1 July 2019, the Air Force will have to limit recovery for
Offutt and will cut flying operations by 1 September 2019.
3) Without supplemental funding now, the Air Force must cut
critical facility and readiness requirements, driving Air Force wide
operational risks and negatively impacting recovery. These include: a)
Stop Facility Repairs Air Force Wide: Defers 61 required facility
projects at bases in 18 states across the U.S., impacting airfields and
critical base facilities. b) Stop Tyndall Recovery: Stops all new work
on Tyndall as of 1 May; delays the return of full base operations,
severely impairs flight operations and forces personnel to continue to
work in degraded facilities. c) Cut Aircraft Repairs: Curtails aircraft
repairs creating various maintenance backlogs. d) Limit Offutt
Recovery: Beginning 1 July, defers all Offutt recovery efforts, with
the exception of immediate health and safety needs; delays facilities
assessment and mitigation efforts, increasing damage from mold and
water. e) Cut Flying Operations: Cuts 18,000 training flying hours
starting 1 September, slowing our readiness recovery.
Mr. Scott. We have had several conversations about the Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) and the Advanced
Battle Management System (ABMS) over the past few years. Now that the
decision has been made to maintain the current fleet of JSTARS aircraft
through 2034 while the Air Force transitions to ABMS, I am focused on
the Air Force's Battle Management and Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR) enterprise. With consistent resourcing shortfalls,
the Air Force and the Department of Defense must field capabilities
that exceed the current Battle Management-ISR enterprise, while
ensuring the men and women at Robins Air Force Base receive all the
assistance they need to make a seamless transition.
1. Previously, you have assured me the ABMS mission will remain at
Robins Air Force Base as JSTARS phases out. What is the Air Force's
plan to begin MILCON for ABMS at Robins Air Force Base?
2. Secretary Wilson, we have also discussed the personnel numbers
associated with ABMS and the importance of the Guard component to
Robins. When can I expect a final determination on the number of
employees, Airmen, and civilians, that will be assigned to ABMS?
Secretary Wilson. The Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS)
Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) Team will complete the ABMS AOA by this
summer. Once the ABMS AOA is approved later this CY, the AF will begin
designing and building the ABMS organizational construct to include
required manpower and MILCON for all units and locations that will be
part of ABMS.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COOK
Mr. Cook. Dr. Esper, I was happy to hear about the Army's
commitment to putting APS on all vehicles. What is the Army's schedule
to do so on legacy vehicles? I see limited procurement budget devoted
to putting APS on either Abrams or Stryker in either FY 20 or the rest
of FYDP. I am concerned with this delay in procurement and what it
means for having a fully protected and capable Army against peer and
near-pear adversaries. You have made significant headway in increasing
readiness and ensuring the Army is able to fight tonight, ensuring a
greater percentage of ABCTs have APS would seem like part of that
strategy.
Secretary Esper and General Milley. The Army remains committed to
providing increased protection for our vehicles and their crews. The
Army is pursuing Non-Developmental Item-Active Protection Systems (NDI-
APS) as an interim solution to protect key combat vehicles in a select
number of armored brigade combat teams (ABCTs) as we work towards an
integrated Program of Record (POR) solution for all of our combat
vehicles. The Army selected Trophy as the NDI-APS solution for the
M1A2SEPV2 Abrams tank and will procure a total of four ABCT sets of
Trophy. The Army plans to field the first set of Trophy APS in Fiscal
Year 2020 (FY20) for the M1A2SEPv2 tanks in one of the pre-positioned
ABCT sets in Europe. The Army plans to field the remaining three sets
to Continental United States-based units. The Army selected the Iron
Fist Light Decoupled (IFLD) system for the Bradley and that system is
undergoing Urgent Material Release (UMR) testing now. If successful
with UMR testing, the Army will procure and field IFLD for Bradley's in
one of the Europe pre-positioned ABCT sets in FY22. The Army tested the
Iron Curtain system for the Stryker platform and determined the system
was not suitable for use on the Stryker. As a result, we are concluding
testing and characterization on two other systems as we seek an
effective way ahead for the Stryker platform.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KIM
Mr. Kim. What is the status of acquisition for the Cyber Persistent
Training Environment and how do you coordinate the proposed
capabilities and limitations of the Cyber Persistent Training
Environment with the Unified Platform that the Air Force is developing?
Secretary Esper. The Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE)
program is on cost and on schedule, and it is currently supporting
limited Cyber Mission Forces (CMF) training today, including two large
multi-service training events that were conducted in February and March
2019. The PCTE program is executing an agile and streamlined
acquisition strategy that delivers platform upgrades every six months--
the next upgrade drop is scheduled for Summer 2019. The PCTE program
office is engaged in ongoing discussions with the U.S. Air Force's
Unified Platform (UP) program office as both platforms mature in
support of their separate missions supporting cyber operations. PCTE's
mission to improve the training and readiness of the CMF will
incorporate either virtually or physically any unique capabilities from
UP to ensure the training on PCTE is relevant and realistic.
Mr. Kim. As the acquisition strategy for the Persistent Cyber
Training Environment (PCTE) and other programs get executed, the
cybersecurity of the mid and lower levels of the Defense Industrial
Base (DIB) become critical, as well as the supply chain logistics for
the PCTE and other acquisition programs.
How do 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level Defense Industrial Base (DIB)
suppliers end up being cyber protected? For example, prime suppliers
(e.g. Lockheed and NG) are offered cybersecurity assistance by USG, but
not 2nd, 3rd, etc. DIB suppliers.
Secretary Esper and General Milley. The PCTE program office takes
cybersecurity very seriously. The hardware hosting the PCTE software
training platform is procured using Government contracts that provide
appropriate restrictions on suppliers based on Federal Acquisition
Regulation and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation clauses in the
contracts. For all acquisition programs, the Army is directly involved
with several DOD-led efforts targeted toward shoring up the
cybersecurity posture of the Defense Industrial Base (DIB), throughout
all tiers of the supply chain.
First, the voluntary DOD DIB Cybersecurity Information Sharing
Program, established under 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
236, provides cyber threat information and cybersecurity best practices
to DIB participants.
Second, the DOD Protecting Critical Technology Task Force was
established to serve as the primary mechanism to bring to bear all of
the Department's technology protection efforts. This includes
strategically assessing compliance of DFARS 252.204-7012 for all
defense contracts and subcontracts containing controlled unclassified
information, until a cybersecurity maturity model certification has
been established to incentivize improved cybersecurity across the DIB.
Third, the DOD Office of Small Business Programs has recently
established cybersecurity training as a component of the DOD Mentor-
Protege Program in accordance with Section 1644 (Assistance for Small
Manufacturers in the Defense Industrial Supply Chain and Universities
on Matters Relating to Cybersecurity) of the FY19 NDAA. This training
is educating the small business manufacturing community about
cybersecurity requirements and challenges. Furthermore, the Army is
conducting a cybersecurity operations center pilot program intended to
provide small and medium-sized companies with cybersecurity assistance
including assessments, training, incident response, and mitigation of
vulnerabilities.
Mr. Kim. Please tell me about the progress of the cyber Unified
Platform, specifically the status of Service Oriented Architecture and
Minimum Viable Product.
Secretary Wilson. USCYBERCOM officially accepted Unified Platform's
first set of capabilities (previously known as minimum viable product
(MVP)) on 9 April 2019, which consisted of ten capabilities that were
made immediately available to the Cyber Mission Force. Increment 2,
scheduled for July 2019, will integrate Air Force capabilities. In line
with NDAA 16 guidance and a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
approach, UP utilizes an agile development/operations acquisition
approach focusing on connecting and integrating existing Service
capabilities. These standards strengthen data and information sharing
and enhance lethality through full-spectrum cyber effects
synchronization. Future increments will provide new and enhanced
capabilities to the Cyber Mission Force.
Mr. Kim. How are you coordinating with the other services the
future integration of their Cyber Mission Forces with the Unified
Platform?
General Goldfein. All Armed Services submit relevant cyber
operations requirements to USCYBERCOM's Cyber Requirements Evaluation
Board (CREB) board for review, coordination and validation. In
addition, all services and other key DOD stakeholders engage in a
monthly requirements board which aligns, rationalizes and prioritizes
development and delivery efforts for implementation for Unified
Platform ensuring applicability to the Cyber Mission Force.
Mr. Kim. In my district I have Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst.
The Joint Base is the largest employer in my district with over 65,000
direct and indirect jobs. Under my district's New Jersey Air National
Guard 108th Wing, I have the 140th Cyber Squadron.
The 140th Cyber Squadron is relatively new in the DOD cyber
ecosystem. So far the unit provides one full Cyber Protection Team
(CPT) that can support a variety of defensive cyber operations.
What is your vision and strategy to fully utilize Guard and Reserve
units in the larger Air Force cyber mission?
General Goldfein. The Air Force is committed to a Total Force
integrated approach to resourcing and executing the cyber mission. Some
of our most experienced cyberspace operations Airmen reside in the Air
Force Reserve and Air National Guard, to include the Airmen of the
140th Cyberspace Operations Squadron. We continuously provide 19 Cyber
Protection Teams (CPT), one of which is sourced from the Air National
Guard (ANG). New Jersey, along with Maryland, Washington, Kansas,
Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Iowa, Michigan, and Idaho,
supply member to support that CPT. We currently plan and program ANG
mobilizations for 6 months, and these Airmen serve in the same capacity
as their Regular counterparts. The National Guard Bureau retains the
responsibility of identifying, selecting, and mobilizing the specific
ANG unit to fulfill this task. Air Force Reservists contribute to the
Total Force cyber mission as Individual Mobilization Augmentees (IMA),
often assigned to augment Regular Air Force units, and Traditional
Reservists, assigned to Associated Reserve Unit. Reserve units
augmenting Air Force Cyber organizations are located in Florida,
Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Colorado, Oklahoma, California,
Alabama, and Illinois.
Guard, Reserve, and Regular Airmen and their units train to same
standard and must maintain the same level of readiness. Thus, finding
the proper balance for our Guard and Reserve to utilize their talents
and expertise as Citizen Airmen, while maintaining their civilian
commitments, is critical. These Airmen are talented and active members
of the private sector cyberspace industry, and bring unequaled skills
and experience, invaluable to the service of our country. Any
transition from great power competition to armed conflict will require
Guard and Reserve cyberspace Airmen as an effective counter against our
competitors. Our Total Force Cyber Mission cannot be accomplished
without sufficient and predicable resources, including funding and
legislation, from Congress.
Mr. Kim. What can Congress do to ensure our cyber Guard/Reserve
units are being used to their full extent?
General Goldfein. We need to ensure the Reserve Components are
sufficiently funded to keep pace with the rapidly changing technology
in this evolving mission set. To do so, we need Congress to fully
support cyber funding in the FY20 budget.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HORN
Ms. Horn. Last month we saw a suspension of delivery of the KC-46A,
which is an important part of the mobility triad, the next generation
of aerial refueling tankers and is the replacement for the KC-135. In
addition to the leftover debris and tools found on these newly
delivered planes, there are reports of software and hardware issues
with the remote vision system on the KC-46.
What is the Air Force doing to ensure we don't see more problems
with this platform and to make sure these planes get delivered on
schedule; and how will this impact the Airforce Logistics Centers,
specifically Tinker?
How long until this remote vision system issue will be addressed
and what impact will that have on the long term cost of the contract?
Secretary Wilson. The Air Force takes Foreign Object Debris (FOD)
and other quality/workmanship issues on the KC-46 aircraft very
seriously. The Air Force has appropriate mechanisms in place and Boeing
will be held accountable to the fixed priced contract's specifications
in parallel with aircraft acceptance. Regarding the Remote Vision
System (RVS), the Air Force and Boeing entered into a legally binding
written agreement for the RVS fix at Boeing's expense. Implementation
will take 3-4 years. The Air Force does not project additional delays
to delivery schedules, or delays to aircraft inductions into Tinker AFB
for depot maintenance.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HOULAHAN
Ms. Houlahan. What steps are you taking to ensure cyber issues are
robustly covered by the intermediate and senior service military
education programs and that graduates understand the information domain
is an equal warfighting space? Are you building cyber career tracks to
ensure promotion opportunity for both enlisted and officer ranks? Can a
2nd lieutenant entering the cyber workforce feel confident that he can
build an exciting 25-plus-year career toward the general officer ranks?
Secretary Esper. As part of Intermediate Level Education, the
Command and General Staff College (CGSC) currently teaches,
Introduction to Cyberspace, as part of its core curriculum, providing
an overview of what constitutes the cyberspace domain, major military
considerations in cyberspace, brief case studies, and the doctrinal
foundation of cyberspace operations. The curriculum also includes an
introduction to the information joint function and to U.S. Cyber
Command as a unified combatant command responsible for cyberspace
operations. Select faculty and student SMEs are involved in the
development of cyber/information warfare scenarios/products to support
and assist in driving cyber considerations for Large Scale Combat
Operations in next year's Advanced Operations Course scenario.
The Army War College's School of Strategic Land power for colonels
and lieutenant colonels addresses cyber issues within the framework of
information as an instrument of national power, as one of five domains
of war, and as one of seven joint warfighting functions. Cyber war and
cyber power issues are interwoven across required and elective courses,
in comparison and in combination with other domains (land, sea, air,
and space). Warfighting courses also drive students to consider why
information was added as a joint function, how a combatant commander
may leverage information, and the integration of operations and
information.
In addition to Senior Service College at the Army War College,
there are three other venues that align their coursework to cyber
interests: the National Defense University's College of Information and
Cyberspace; the Senior Service College Fellowship at Carnegie Mellon
University's Institute for Politics and Strategy; and the Fellowship at
the University of Pittsburgh's School of Computing and Information
(Cybersecurity).
At the senior service military education level (General Officer),
the information domain and warfighting cyber challenges are robustly
covered throughout all general officer education and development in the
Army Strategic Education Program suite of courses. Additionally, the
Nominative Leaders Course for Command Sergeants Major addresses cyber
force development issues and resourcing for cyber capability
development within the Army budget/force management lessons.
Yes, the Cyber Corps builds and maintains career tracks that
provide healthy viable career paths, ensuring progression and promotion
opportunities, for officers, warrant officers, and enlisted Soldiers.
Career paths are reviewed and updated annually with input from the
various cyber operational units. Career progression is expected to
include strategic, operational, and tactical assignments. The Cyber
Corps is also instrumental in the Force Design Update and the Command
Plan cycles ensuring appropriate ranks and skills are available at each
echelon to meet mission requirements as organizations with cyber
personnel requirements are created and/or modified. Moreover, the
Army's Talent Management Task Force studied cyberspace career fields as
a case-study on how to effectively close talent gaps. These findings
will be considered to further refine career tracks in cyber, electronic
warfare, and information operations, for Soldiers and Army Civilians in
the Regular Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve.
Yes, a 2nd Lieutenant may be assured of a healthy and viable career
path through Colonel as a Cyber Officer, with potential for General
Officer appointments. Assignments for Cyber Officers are available at
the strategic, operational, and tactical levels, which includes Army,
Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational assignment as
well as key developmental and broadening opportunities. Additionally,
we anticipate future Cyber Corps growth within the force structure,
creating exciting positions at various ranks and levels.
Ms. Houlahan. If the Army is postponing/cancelling CH-47F Block 2
because you want to use the money for other priorities, how are you
going to fund the recapitalization of the Chinook fleet? How does the
estimated cost of recapitalization compare with the estimated cost of
Block 2 upgrades? How do you plan to sustain the Chinook fleet for the
next 20-30 years without Block 2?
Secretary Esper and General Milley. As highlighted during our
recent testimony, we led an extensive review of our entire equipping
portfolio. This initiative was intended to realign resources into our
six Modernization Priorities rather than ask Congress for an
unrealistic increase in our budget. During this process, we determined
that we had insufficient investment in Future Vertical Lift platforms,
to include our Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (our top aviation
priority) and Future Long Range Assault Aircraft programs. Given the
threats outlined in the National Defense Strategy from strategic
competitors such as Russia and China, these are critical requirements
needed to meet our aviation reconnaissance capability gap and to
replace the aging UH-60 fleet, which has an average age of 15 years.
To address these resourcing shortfalls, we decided to accept risk
in our youngest rotary wing fleet, the CH-47F, by halting the Block II
upgrade for our conventional forces. The Army analysis of alternatives
determined that the CH-47 fleet readiness for combat operations remains
sufficient as long as the Army reaches full rate production by Fiscal
Year (FY) 2030 to either recapitalize the CH-47F Block I or procure the
CH-47F Block II or pursue an entirely new Future Heavy Lift Aircraft
(FHLA) that has the range, speed, payload, and survivability need in a
future high intensity conflict. Lifecycle costs to recapitalize the
current CH-47F is projected at about $30 million (M) per aircraft,
compared to about $31M for a remanufactured CH-47F Block II helicopter.
The analysis of alternatives determined that the Army must begin
procurements of either a Block II remanufactured helicopter or the
recapitalization of the Block I by FY28 and reach full-rate production
by FY30. The Army plans to address the decision to remanufacture or
recapitalize the CH-47F, or pursue an entirely new FHLA aircraft in
future budget cycles.
Ms. Houlahan. I understand the Reserve Officers Association wrote
to you, Secretary Esper, on March 15, 2019, arguing for the Army to
``jumpstart the acquisition of waste management incinerators with the
eventual goal of equipping all combatant commands to eliminate the
toxic threat posed by burn pits.'' This letter also indicated that Army
Soldier Systems Center, PM Force Sustainment Systems, has evaluated and
validated technology for the safe and effective incineration of waste
in an expeditionary environment.
What is the status of the Army's evaluation of technologies for the
safe disposal of toxic waste in expeditionary environments, and would
you support investment in this technology?
Secretary Esper. The Expeditionary Solid Waste Disposal System
(ESWDS) program has successfully completed testing. We supported the
technology for this development effort. The Army realigned procurement
funding in FY19, however, based on higher Army modernization
priorities. As the Army continues to review its investments in
modernization, we will continue to consider ESWDS against other
priorities based on future operational needs and available funding.The
Expeditionary Solid Waste Disposal System (ESWDS) program has
successfully completed testing. We supported the technology for this
development effort. The Army realigned procurement funding in FY19,
however, based on higher Army modernization priorities. As the Army
continues to review its investments in modernization, we will continue
to consider ESWDS against other priorities based on future operational
needs and available funding.
Ms. Houlahan. What steps are you taking to ensure cyber issues are
robustly covered by the intermediate and senior service military
education programs and that graduates understand the information domain
is an equal warfighting space?
Secretary Wilson. Air University's intermediate and senior
developmental education (IDE and SDE) programs graduate over 700 joint
and international officers each year. Both the in-residence and
distance learning programs challenge students to think differently
about the new realities of conflict and competition in the twenty-first
century. The following provides an overview of the educational program
elements that ensure Air University's intermediate and senior-level
graduates understand the importance of cyber and the information
domain.
Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) Resident Program:
The Air Command and Staff College educates and develops air-minded
joint leaders. Its rigorous 10-month program offers various courses and
lessons where cyber and information domain are the explicit focus of
the discussion:
- Airpower course: lesson on The Evolution of Cyber Warfare
- Warfare Studies course: lessons on Irregular and Hybrid Wars;
lesson on Cyber
- International Security I course: lesson on International
Order, with a focus on Cyberspace
- International Security II course: lesson on National Security
Decision-making and Regional Security, with specific focus on
Resurgent Russia and Hybrid Warfare
- Joint Warfare Course: lessons on Joint Operations in the
Space and Cyber Domains
- Multi-Domain Operational Strategist concentration (MDOS)
lessons:
Mastery of Domains: Electromagnetic Spectrum
Cyber 1, Cyber 2, Cyber 3; taught at Top Secret
level
Cyber College Joint AWC/ACSC Electives
The Utility of Cyberspace as an Instrument of
National Power
Foundations of Advanced Cyber Thinking & Strategy
Air War College (AWC) Resident Program: The Air War
College educates and develops senior military and civilians joint
leaders. Its rigorous 10-month program highlights cyber and the
information domain primarily in the Warfighting core course, with
specific lessons including:
- Future Environment
- Future Air Force Programs and Technology
- Cyberspace, Today and Tomorrow
- Multi-Domain Command and Control
- Rapid Global Mobility
- Adaptive Domain Control
- Joint Airpower in Integrated Air and Missile Defense
Air University's eSchool of Graduate PME:
ACSC Distance Learning (IDE--On-Line Master's Program): The
eSchool's Air Command and Staff College distance learning (DL)
intermediate developmental education (IDE) program exists to produce a
more effective field-grade officer serving in operational-level command
and staff positions. The demanding program consists of 10 eight-week
courses (six core courses and four concentration courses) with specific
focus on cyber and information domain as follows:
- The Airpower Studies course, with eight weeks of facilitated
learning, includes core lessons on space and cyber capabilities
as force enhancers and critical enablers to traditional
airpower missions.
- The Joint Air Operations course is also an eight-week
facilitated experience, with numerous lessons focused
explicitly on the importance of cyber and information
operations. These lessons include Cyberspace Operations (CO);
Information Operations (IO) and Cyberspace Operations
Relationship; Information and Cyberspace Superiority;
Cyberspace and Information Operations Vulnerabilities;
Integrating IO and CO at the Operational Level; Strategic
approaches to cyberspace based on perspectives from Clausewitz
and Sun Tzu; and, JFACCs integration of joint force IO and
cyber capabilities in airpower planning and execution
Intermediate Developmental Education--Distance Learning 6.0 (non-
degree awarding): In addition to its Master's Degree program, the
eSchool of Graduate PME offers a non-degree distance learning (DL)
version of intermediate developmental education (IDE). Focused learning
on cyberspace and the information domain occurs throughout the DL 6.0
program, with specific lessons embedded in the following courses:
Warfare studies, Airpower studies, Applied Warfare (with several
specific assignments on synthesizing cyber and information ops into
campaign planning), Joint Airpower Operations, and Applied Joint
Warfare (with assignments on integrating cyber effects)
Intermediate Developmental Education--Distance Learning 7.0
(forthcoming, non-degree awarding): The next evolution of the eSchool's
IDE DL program (DL 7.0) offers an even more explicit focus on
cyberspace and information operations. This next version of the course
will include threaded student/faculty discussions on these lesson
topics, all of which have a strong cyber component, specifically,
Contested Domains, Cyber Superiority, Cyber Interdiction, Joint
Functions and Cyberspace, and Space and Cyber in Stability Operations
Senior Developmental Education--Distance Learning 18.0: The
eSchool's Air War College distance learning (DL) SDE 18.0 program
provides a strategic ``air-minded'' curriculum that prepares graduates
to provide strategic leadership, appropriate expertise and critical
thinking in support of national security objectives. This senior-level
DL course includes:
- 15-hour Course on Airpower and National Strategy with focus
on integration of air, space and cyber
- 45-hour Course on Space and Cyberspace Operations
- 3-week facilitated course on Applied Airpower and Security
Studies, with focused discussions on: Cyber and space operating
environments; AF operating environment in the 21st Century;
Developing an effective cyber deterrence strategy; and Waging
Cyber War the American Way
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TORRES SMALL
Ms. Torres Small. The New Mexico Air National Guard has an
abundance of underutilized facilities and infrastructure coupled with
ideal flying weather, ranges, training synergies, and tremendous
capacity to grow in terms of manpower. Additionally, Kirtland AFB, due
to its full scale services from AF medical facilities to base housing
and other support functions is ideally suited for the bed down of the
active duty airmen that would be required for an active association.
Finally the community of Albuquerque is extremely supportive unlike
some states that have received new missions recently. Secretary Wilson,
can you tell us if these factors are, in fact, important considerations
in the AF basing process and, if they are not, why aren't they?
Secretary Wilson. The Air Force strategic basing process uses a
criteria-based analysis, tailored to the specific mission under
consideration, to identify locations best suited to support any given
mission. The approach takes into consideration well-defined evaluation
criteria in the following four categories: mission, capacity,
environmental, and cost. The Air Force also applies ``best military
judgement'' to address considerations outside the specific,
quantitative criteria. The facility, range and weather characteristics
you cited are considered under the mission, capacity, environmental,
and cost categories, while a qualitative assessment of community
support attributes is considered through the application of best
military judgement, where necessary to support a mission.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. ESCOBAR
Ms. Escobar. Recently, HASC received a request from DOD to
reprogram $1 billion in Army personnel funds for fencing--in my
district, in El Paso--as well as in Yuma.
Was this fencing a priority the Army identified? What does the Army
assess is the military necessity or value of this fencing?
Did OSD relay an assessment of the military value of this fencing
to the Army at any time before or after informing you of reprogramming?
Secretary Esper. DOD determined it was a priority to support the
DHS mission on the Southwest Border. DOD has the authority and
responsibility to provide upon request certain types of support, such
as is being conducted on the Southwest Border, to agencies of the
United States for counterdrug activities, including Sections 124 and
284 of Title 10, U.S. Code. In the exercise of this authority, there is
no existing requirement to identify an additional military purpose, as
the Department of Defense counterdrug mission is clearly established in
law.
Ms. Escobar. Fort Bliss is critical to our military's force
generation capabilities--getting forces and equipment to a conflict
quickly and efficiently when needs arise. As you know, Fort Bliss is
one of just two MFGIs in the Army. Our troops are already engaged in
snap deployment exercises that improve our readiness, such as some of
our 1st Armored Division is currently engaged in Poland.
Knowing that stable investment is critical: Please explain how this
budget reflects our modernization needs? Are we on pace to overmatch
our near-peer competitors and the scale of investment they have
provided?
Secretary Esper and General Milley. Fort Bliss is critical to the
Army's current and future readiness. As you know, we are in the midst
of transforming one of the existing brigade combat teams into an armor
brigade combat team. The Army's Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 budget request
provides momentum to achieve the Army's Vision for 2028 of a force that
is well organized, trained, and equipped for prompt sustained ground
combat against near-peer competitors such as Russia and China. The FY20
base budget request for research, development and acquisition is $34.0
billion. There is an increase in Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation programs in the near term to account for the work we are
doing to research, design, develop and test new systems. This will
flatten out as more funding is invested around the FY22/23 timeframe in
order to begin procuring next generation weapons systems and equipment.
In terms of the size of defense budgets, a direct comparison of the
U.S. budget and that of our adversaries is complex, as our potential
adversaries have different missions, different priorities, different
values, and different investments in everything ranging from soldier
pay to housing.
Ms. Escobar. General Milley, you've repeatedly identified the
Army's priorities as 1) Readiness and 2) Modernization.
The committee received the Army's UPL/UFR list. Does each item
identified on that list directly contribute to either readiness, or
modernization, or both?
Do the fencing projects identified in the DHS RFA directly
contribute to readiness. If so, please describe how the projects
contribute to readiness.
Do the fencing projects identified in the DHS RFA directly
contribute to modernization? If so, please describe how the projects
contribute to modernization.
Can you attest that this project in no way adversely affects the
Army's readiness? Please explain.
Are there opportunity costs to pursuing these projects? For
example, what other requirements were not funded because funds were
used to support the DHS RFA?
To you knowledge, why were UFRs not funded ahead of requests from
outside departments? Please identify any internal guidance that
requires such a prioritization.
General Milley. Everything on the unfunded requirements (UFR) list
is linked to modernization and readiness. The Army's FY19 budget was
sufficient to support Army readiness and modernization requirements.
The funds allocated by DOD to the border-fencing projects fall within
DOD's purview. The Army returned approximately $1 billion in personnel
funds in FY19 to DOD when the Army recognized it would fall short of
recruiting goals. DOD utilized these funds according to their
priorities. DOD has the authority and responsibility to provide upon
request certain types of support to agencies of the United States for
counterdrug activities, including Sections 124 and 284 of Title 10,
U.S. Code. In the exercise of this authority, there is no existing
requirement to identify an additional military purpose, as the
Department of Defense counterdrug mission is clearly established in
law.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. HAALAND
Ms. Haaland. The Air National Guard enterprise is based on
established Capstone Principles that set the framework for aircraft in
the 54 States and territories. Specifically, one of those Capstone
Principles is to allocate at least one unit-equipped wing and flying
squadron to each State. Yet the New Mexico Air National Guard is the
only one in the country without an operational flying mission and one
of three States--New Mexico, Virginia, and Washington--that lack
ownership of aircraft. Please explain what the Air Force is doing to
address the lack of a unit-equipped wing and flying squadron in the New
Mexico Air National Guard and to address aircraft ownership in New
Mexico, Virginia, and Washington.
Secretary Wilson and General Goldfein. While we recognize the value
and intent of the ANG's Capstone Principles, our Strategic Basing
Process does not give specific priority to states based on their
alignment with them. We do, however, work hard to ensure the enterprise
we define for each basing action is as inclusive as possible.
The Strategic Basing Process evaluates candidates through a number
of important factors (e.g., suitability of existing facilities,
capacity to absorb additional mission, location demographics and
environmental factors) and all three components are fully represented.
As mission demands evolve and resource constraints remain, the Air
Force continues to ensure it leverages the collective talent and
experience of the Regular, Guard and Reserve Forces to compete, deter
and win.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. LURIA
Mrs. Luria. 1. At the end of this fiscal year, what metrics will
you use to look back and say the Army accomplished its objectives in
line with the five priority missions in the National Defense Strategy?
2. What metrics will you use to look back and say you provided a
good return on investment for taxpayers.
3. Can you provide me with the list of all metrics you will use?
Secretary Esper. The Army staff is currently assessing the best
metrics to use. I envision a number of possible metrics nested under
four broad objective areas: 1. Measure progress toward building
readiness for high-intensity combat in large scale operations, e.g.,
unit readiness recovery for large scale combat operations. 2. Measure
progress toward a more resource-sustainable approach, e.g., speed of
key processes (especially acquisition). 3. Measure progress toward
modernization for multi-domain operations, e.g., development of
priority modernization program efforts (for next generation combat
capabilities, including long range precision fires and integrated air
and missile defense). 4. Measure progress toward strengthening
alliances and partnerships, e.g., fiscal savings from burden sharing
with allies and partners, and the level of interoperability with key
allies and partners.
Return on investment to the American tax payer is measured by Army
readiness levels to meet National Defense Strategy requirements. Once
the Army selects metrics, it will leverage the Army Campaign Plan to
review and assess progress toward its strategic goals and objectives.
Mrs. Luria. What percent of global combatant commander requests for
brigade combat teams did the Army meet this year?
General Milley. The Army met 100 percent of the global combatant
commander requests for brigade combat teams.
Mrs. Luria. 1. At the end of this fiscal year, what metrics will
you use to look back and say the Air Force accomplished its objectives
in line with the five priority missions in the National Defense
Strategy?
2. What metrics will you use to look back and say you provided a
good return on investment for taxpayers.
3. Can you provide me with the list of all metrics you will use?
Secretary Wilson. The Air Force uses a complex variety of
analytical and assessment tools and metrics to evaluate our ability to
achieve the priority missions in the National Defense Strategy. We do
comprehensive assessments that show how our investment portfolio aligns
to specific NDS strategic guidance and priorities. This not only lets
us better articulate our budget priorities but it lets us prepare to
better address key future shortfalls.
To help us better understand operational effectiveness in both
current and potential future scenarios we evaluate operational
performance (lethality) and risk using a variety of tools and metrics,
including robust all domain war-games, modeling and simulation, and
statistical analysis methods. We assess our ability to execute specific
campaign objectives and mission requirements in support of the National
Defense Strategy, that in turn helps us identify where additional
investment may be necessary. As the November 2018 National Defense
Strategy Commission recommended in their report, the AF continues to
work very hard to ``. . . link objectives to operational concepts to
programs and resources.''
Mrs. Luria. Are you familiar with the 2014 Independent Review of
the DOD Nuclear Enterprise? That report recommended quarterly meetings
with the Secretary of Defense on required corrective actions which the
Secretary started in 2014. Are these meeting still occurring? If no,
have all of the corrective actions from the two independent reports
done in 2014 been corrected?
Secretary Wilson. Yes, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
and the Services continue to address the list of recommended actions
from the 2014 Independent Review of the DOD Nuclear Enterprise. Within
the Department, this activity is referred to as the Nuclear Enterprise
Review (NER). Overseeing this activity is the Nuclear Deterrence
Executive Review Group (NDERG), which is chaired by the Deputy
Secretary of Defense and meets twice per year to consider progress on
reconciling the 130 recommendations included in the NER. To support
this effort and to ensure progress between NDERG meetings, the
Department leverages two subordinate level meetings: the Nuclear
Deterrence Working Group (NDWG), which meets every two weeks, and the
Nuclear Deterrence Senior Oversight Group (NDSOG), which meets
quarterly. However, only the NDERG possesses the authority to close NER
recommendations and closure is only considered when the owning Service
provides data-driven evidence indicating the recommendation has been
resolved. In 2014, the NDERG was tracking 130 recommendations as part
of the NER. Since that time, 70 have been closed and eight are in the
process of closure. Additionally, the NDERG will consider several
recommendations for inclusion on an enduring list of metrics that will
be continuously monitored by OSD and the Services through assessments,
inspections, and the NDERG process.
Mrs. Luria. 1. In your statement you said the Air Force need is 386
operational squadrons. You also compared this to the height of the Cold
War where the Air Force had 401 operational squadrons. Why doesn't the
advancement in technology on our airframes today reduce the number of
operational squadrons instead of being so near Cold War levels?
2. The Navy's new requirement for ships is about half peak Cold War
levels so I am very interested in the data behind this number. We don't
have the time here but I would like a separate briefing on exactly how
you arrived at that number.
3. What percent of global combatant commander demand for strike
aircraft did you meet last year?
4. For tanker aircraft?
General Goldfein. The National Defense Strategy provided the
foundation for the Air Force's 386 operational squadrons, which
include, among others, space and cyber missions that were absent during
the Cold War. We would be happy to provide a CLASSIFIED briefing that
provides the detailed analytical foundations for the Air Force's 386
operational squadron requirement.
Advancements in technology have certainly increased our Service
capabilities, however foreign governments have also leveraged
advancements in commercial and military technologies as well, while at
the same time many have increased their national investment in military
capability. We have to prepare for the current and anticipated future
threats we will face in accordance with the National Defense Strategy
priorities.
We would be happy to provide details global combatant commander
demand for Fighter/Attack (``strike'') and Tanker aircraft over the
past year in a classified environment.