[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FISCAL YEAR 2021 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 10, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-368 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky, Chairman
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts, STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas,
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York ROB WOODALL, Georgia
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio,
BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania Vice Ranking Member
ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut JASON SMITH, Missouri
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas BILL FLORES, Texas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
JIMMY PANETTA, California KEVIN HERN, Oklahoma
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York CHIP ROY, Texas
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
BARBARA LEE, California
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
RO KHANNA, California
Professional Staff
Ellen Balis, Staff Director
Becky Relic, Minority Staff Director
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held in Washington, D.C., March 10, 2020................. 1
Hon. John A. Yarmuth, Chairman, Committee on the Budget...... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Hon. Steve Womack, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Hon. David L. Norquist, Deputy Secretary of Defense, U.S.
Department of Defense...................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Hon. Jason Smith, Member, Committee on the Budget, letter
submitted for the record................................... 30
Hon. Ilhan Omar, Member, Committee on the Budget, article
submitted for the record................................... 52
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Committee on the Budget,
statement submitted for the record......................... 87
Hon. John A. Yarmuth, Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
questions submitted for the record......................... 92
Hon. Ilhan Omar, Member, Committee on the Budget, questions
submitted for the record................................... 95
Answers to questions submitted for the record................ 96
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FISCAL YEAR 2021 BUDGET
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2020
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John A. Yarmuth,
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Yarmuth, Moulton, Doggett,
Schakowsky, Panetta, Morelle, Horsford, Scott, Jackson Lee,
Jayapal, Omar, Peters; Womack, Woodall, Johnson, Smith,
Holding, Stewart, Norman, Hern, Roy, Meuser, Crenshaw, and
Burchett.
Chairman Yarmuth. This hearing will come to order.
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to this hearing on
the Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.
And I certainly welcome Deputy Secretary for DoD David
Norquist. Thank you for being here today.
I will now yield myself five minutes for an opening
statement.
Chairman Yarmuth. Defense spending makes up more than half
of all discretionary spending, so it is critical that the
Budget Committee fully understand the Department's budget
proposal and what it means for the future.
While we already have a budget in place for Fiscal Year
2021, we owe it to the taxpayers and our men and women in
uniform to take a comprehensive look at our security needs and
provide oversight of the defense budget.
To that end, I would like to welcome back Deputy Secretary
Norquist.
I am glad to have DoD back before our Committee for a
second year in a row, after a long hiatus.
We have a responsibility to provide the necessary resources
to defend this country, and that includes maintaining a
military that is second to none. However, our national security
involves more than our military. Our country has long
understood that an effective national security strategy
requires a whole-of-government approach, including diplomacy
and foreign aid to prevent war and broker peace in times of
conflict; law enforcement to keep our communities safe;
oversight to protect our food supply, our air, and our water;
innovations in science and technology to keep our edge over
competitors; programs to mitigate the destabilizing effects of
climate change and prepare against pandemics; and investments
in education and infrastructure to keep the economy, the source
of our strength, growing.
If we are to truly commit to strong national security, the
conversation needs to include all of the agencies and programs
that keep us safe. The budget levels we agreed to last year
under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 embody the undeniable
connection between non-defense and defense investments.
I thought the President finally understood this as well,
considering he signed the bill into law. Instead, he reneged on
the bipartisan, bicameral deal and once again proposed
destructive and irrational cuts to investments critical to our
national and economic security.
As a prime example, this budget cuts the funding for the
State Department by nearly one-quarter compared with the 2020
enacted level. This is irresponsible and shortsighted. And you
do not have to take it from me. The President's own former
Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, famously said, ``If you do
not fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more
ammunition.''
Diplomatic operations, international narcotics control and
law enforcement, humanitarian aid, disease prevention and
control, and education, all face destructive and reckless cuts.
While the coronavirus spreads around the world and here in
the United States, we clearly see how human health is
interconnected and a global concern. Despite this reality, the
President's budget cuts funding for global health programs by
$3 billion, or 34 percent below the 2020 enacted level.
The Department of Defense has consistently identified
climate change as a national security challenge and threat
multiplier. But the President's budget not only fails to take
the scale of the threat seriously; it does not even incorporate
the cost of climate change into the budget. At home, U.S.
military facilities, operations and equipment are vulnerable to
storms, sea level rise, flooding, wildfires, and drought. And
abroad, climate change exacerbates international instability
and stands to increase the frequency, scale, complexity, and
cost of future DoD missions. We must be ready.
Moreover, the President's budget includes major gaps
between funding and plans. This shows a lack of strategy that
will result in inefficient military spending and a less
effective military if not corrected.
To be clear, I do not support all of the provisions of the
Pentagon's national defense strategy, but setting our military
up to fail is not only wasteful, it is potentially dangerous.
Finally, this proposal defaults on the budget agreement and
sets the stage for funding battles with Congress and more
continuing resolutions. We ask our troops to perform a very
difficult job, but it is made harder if we fail to come through
on time with the proper resources in the right accounts.
Thankfully, the Senate Majority Leader indicated that he
believes in the budget we already have in place and will stick
to it.
Deputy Secretary Norquist, I realize the tremendous
responsibility shouldered by you and your Department. Securing
the safety of the American people and maintaining the best
interest of our service members is no easy job, especially when
you are operating under the direction of a President who often
gets his security briefings from cable news and puts his
personal whims above our national security.
We are all concerned by the President's politically
motivated and brazen reprogramming of military funds for the
border, for his border wall pet project. I have no doubt this
not only makes your job harder, but it makes it harder for
those who put on the uniform and sacrifice for this country
every day.
Once again, I thank you for being here today and I look
forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Yarmuth follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. I now yield five minutes to the Ranking
Member for his opening statement.
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
Thank you, Deputy Secretary Norquist, for being here today.
We are here to discuss the President's budget request for
the DoD for Fiscal Year 2021. This is the agency tasked with
defending our values, keeping America strong, free, and safe.
Providing for the common defense is, in my judgment, our
highest constitutional duty. It is a responsibility so great
that it is enshrined in the Preamble of our founding document.
Congress plays an essential role in ensuring full spectrum
military readiness and the security of the American people. We
hold the power of the purse, and it is this authority that
funds the federal government, including DoD. While we do
everything possible to work with the Department, and we take
their views and concerns seriously, it is ultimately up to the
Congress to determine how taxpayer dollars are spent on
national priorities.
This congressional will is expressed through our annual
appropriations bills, and those are the law.
As the Ranking Member of this Committee and a Member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I was disappointed that
the Executive Branch chose to substitute its judgment for that
of Congress last month when it announced that it would be
transferring funds out of DoD accounts.
I expect we will hear more about that decision later today,
but let me be clear--according to the Constitution, Congress
alone is responsible for determining funding for the national
defense.
With that said, I am now going to turn to the President's
request for the national defense budget, which is why we are
here today. After several years of funding instability, this
Administration has taken the steps to restore the readiness of
our military and provide our troops with the tools and training
they need.
With President Trump's support, Congress passed legislation
providing $685 billion for the Department of Defense in Fiscal
Year 2019, $718 billion in Fiscal Year 2020.
As a result of these increases, the Department of Defense
has been able to rebuild key areas that were neglected under
the previous administrations, such as procuring new equipment
and ensuring military readiness, critical components of a
strong national defense.
The President's 2021 request continues to prioritize
funding for key defense needs while adhering to the spending
caps called for in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019.
The Department continues to improve readiness and invest in
modernizing our military for the future. This budget makes
important investments in nuclear weapons, space and cyber. It
advances the development of critical technologies like
hypersonics, artificial intelligence, and microelectronics.
This budget also prioritizes our service members with a 3
percent pay raise, making sure we are not just investing in
weapons and technology, but also in our men and women in
uniform.
While it is critical to fully fund the needs of the
Department of Defense, we must also ensure taxpayer dollars are
well spent, and I commend you, Mr. Norquist, and this
Administration for completing its first full financial
statement audit in Fiscal Year 2018 and recently completing its
Fiscal Year 2019 audit.
Both audits are strong steps in the right direction,
ensuring transparency and fiscal responsibility within the
nation's largest agency.
Past administrations have made commitments to conduct this
type of review, but the Trump Administration is the first to
fulfill that promise.
I further applaud you, Mr. Secretary, for conducting a
comprehensive review of Defense-wide organizations we commonly
know as the ``Fourth eState,'' where you identified nearly $6
billion in savings for Fiscal Year 2021. Every single federal
agency should mirror your efforts to eradicate waste and
inefficiency.
I look forward to hearing how you were able to successfully
find these savings and your plans to continue such reviews
going forward, as well as how Congress can support these
efforts.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Steve Womack follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. I thank the Ranking Member for his
statement.
In the interest of time, if any other Members have opening
statements, you may submit those statements in writing for the
record.
And now once again, I introduce Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Defense, David Norquist.
You have five minutes to present your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID L. NORQUIST, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Norquist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth, Ranking Member Womack, distinguished
Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify in support of the President's Fiscal Year 2021 budget
request for the Department of Defense.
Before I do, I would like to take a moment to recognize the
two Marines killed Sunday in combat in Iraq. Please keep these
men and their families in your thoughts and prayers.
The men and women of the Department of Defense put their
lives on the line every day for the safety and security of the
nation. We are humbled and grateful for their sacrifice.
To begin, let's consider the state of defense at the
beginning of this Administration. DoD had been operating for
five years under destructive spending caps which left the
Department with significant funding shortfalls and resulted in
the smallest military force since 1940, key munition shortages,
low readiness ratings in key combat units, and an urgent need
to rebuild our nuclear deterrent.
At the same time, we were grappling with the new
warfighting environment, given the reemergence of great power
competition from Russia and China and the rapidly changing
character of warfare. Future wars will be waged not just in the
air, on the land, and at sea, but also in space and cyberspace,
dramatically increasing the complexity of warfare.
To address this we developed a new national defense
strategy that shifted the Department's focus to the high-end
fight. Thanks to President Trump's commitment to rebuild the
military and a bipartisan effort in Congress, over the past
three years, the Department received a significant funding
increase it needed to implement the national defense strategy.
As a result, the Department made important progress along
the NDS' three lines of effort. For example, regarding
readiness and lethality, the Department of Defense has
increased the number of ready brigade combat teams by 33
percent and raised the readiness of the Air Force's lead pacing
squadron by 35 percent.
We also restructured the Department around the new
character of warfare. Working with Congress, we established the
Space Force, elevated U.S. Cyber Command, and created the Joint
Artificial Intelligence Center.
Regarding our alliances, our NATO allies have increased
their contribution to our collective security by $130 billion
since Fiscal Year 2016.
Finally, along the third line of effort, reform, the
Secretary of Defense led a Defense-wide review that has
identified aggressive reform opportunities that would result in
over $5.7 billion in Fiscal Year 2021 savings.
The Fiscal Year 2021 budget request is the next step in
implementing the national defense strategy, and the focus is on
all domain operations. It addresses the challenges of today by,
first, sustaining readiness and keeping faith with our 2.2
million military members and their families and, second,
preparing for the challenges of tomorrow by recapitalizing our
nuclear deterrence, strengthening homeland missile defense, and
expanding our investment in critical emerging technologies,
such as hypersonic weapons, directed energy, 5G,
microelectronics, artificial intelligence, and autonomous
platforms.
At $740.5 billion for the national defense, of which $705
billion is for the Department of Defense, this budget is
different from the previous few years because the DoD top line
if flat, with no growth for inflation. This meant that we had
to make additional tough choices and major cuts in some areas
in order to free up money to continue to invest in preparing
for the high-end fight.
In closing, although defense spending is sizable, it is at
near record lows as a percentage of the economy and federal
spending. Defense spending is now at 3.1 percent of GDP, down
from 11 percent in 1953 and four and a half percent in 2010,
and at 15 percent of federal spending, down from 57 percent in
1952 and about 20 percent in 2008.
This foundation of security, however, is what makes
everything else possible. I appreciate this Committee's support
for the men and women of our Armed Forces, and I look forward
to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of David Norquist follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Yarmuth. I thank you for your statement.
We will now begin our question and answer period.
As a reminder, our Members can submit written questions to
be answered later in writing. Those questions and Deputy
Secretary Norquist's answers will be made part of the formal
hearing record. Any Members who wish to submit questions for
the record may do so within seven days.
As we usually do, the Ranking Member and I will defer our
questions until the end.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Doggett, for
five minutes.
Mr. Doggett. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your service.
I advised your office in advance last night of concerns I
have about coronavirus.
I represent Military City USA, San Antonio, Texas. My
district is adjacent to Joint Base San Antonio at Lackland,
where we have two planeloads of Americans evacuated from
exposure to coronavirus.
This afternoon or tomorrow the Trump Administration is
apparently flying additional planeloads to San Antonio of
people that have never been tested that are on the Grand
Princess cruise ship, without a very clear plan of what happens
to those who test positive once they get to San Antonio.
While I certainly want to assist all Americans, my concern
is protecting my civilian population neighbors in San Antonio,
and of course, every one of our military service members.
I realize that it is not the Defense Department's decision,
though it is, indeed, an incredible decision that the Trump
Administration has chosen not to test any of these people
before they leave California.
I realize that it is not the Defense Department's decision
but the Trump Administration's failure to get San Antonio more
than 75 lab tests as of today.
I realize it is not the Department of Defense decision but
a Trump Administration failure to provide San Antonio
additional protective medical equipment for our professional
medical people.
But my understanding is that it is within your jurisdiction
to decide whether those individuals who test positive for
coronavirus must immediately leave any Defense Department
property.
Is that the position of the Defense Department this
morning?
Mr. Norquist. So, I appreciate the question.
And, again, I understand and appreciate your support. It is
our responsibility to help bring Americans safely home and
quarantine them.
So far what the Department of Defense has been is we
function in support of HHS. We provide the rooms to their
specifications that allow us to quarantine individuals. We work
with HHS on where they go.
I know the Secretary is in discussions with HHS about the
concern that you have raised. The challenge that we face on the
Department's side is severalfold. One is we have a very large
force that we have to have prepared to fight tonight and a very
relatively small medical community upon which to rely. And so--
--
Mr. Doggett. And I understand all of that and certainly
appreciate and agree with you. My only question is: is it the
Defense Department policy as of this morning that if anyone who
I think should have been tested before they ever came to San
Antonio gets there and they test positive but are otherwise
asymptomatic and do not need treatment, are they being
compelled to leave Defense Department property immediately upon
result of positive test?
Mr. Norquist. That is my understanding of our current
policy.
Mr. Doggett. And you made reference to discussions between
different parts of the Trump Administration. Has Health and
Human Services, has Secretary Azar and his people with CDC,
have they requested that the Defense Department make an
exception to this policy for these evacuees who are positive
but not symptomatic?
Mr. Norquist. So I do not know in terms of in the last 24
hours if there has been a request with regard to these.
Mr. Doggett. I was told they did it on earlier planeloads,
and I have not gotten any results of that. That is why I am
inquiring this morning.
Mr. Doggett. I do not know that on this plane request.
Mr. Doggett. As you know, in San Antonio we are proud of
the fact that we have some of the best military medical
facilities in the world at Brooke Army Medical Center, that we
refer to as BAMC; at Wilford Hall at Lackland. Is the Defense
Department declining to permit anyone who has coronavirus from
being treated in isolation in those military hospitals?
Mr. Norquist. I do not know about those particular
hospitals. In general, we have treatment facilities for if a
DoD person is infected, but our hospitals are generally not set
up and there are congressional laws that restrict and affect
our ability to bring private citizens in, and so I would have
to defer in terms of those.
Mr. Doggett. If there is any law that you think stands in
the way of treating these evacuees that have been forced on the
city of San Antonio without good plans, without protective
equipment, without the test having been done, I would really
appreciate your office telling me what it is today.
My understanding is it is Defense Department policy, and I
respect that because I want to protect every service member so
that they are ready to defend our country.
But the problem is that moving evacuees who have
coronavirus across San Antonio to the local hospitals and other
unknown destinations, since they do not know where they are
even going to put these people once they are forced off the
military reservation, is something that risks community spread
in our community.
And none of these evacuees have been previously tested.
They may be asymptomatic, but they could well be, as has been
true of some of the earlier flights, they could be positive and
transmit this virus to others.
I would really appreciate your going back. I know our city
has appealed. I believe that our Governor as well has raised
this concern, to see if there is not a way to contain these
people in the same hotels they have been sitting in.
You have got some people that will be there today or
tomorrow who probably are positive for coronavirus if the
Administration had bothered to test them in California. They
will be there already posing whatever danger they pose.
The problem is when we start moving them all across Bexar
County from one side of town to another and the danger that
poses, and that is our great concern.
I appreciate your leadership, and I would just appeal to
you to go back and see if there is not a way to keep those
individuals there without posing any real danger to our forces.
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for
five minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Deputy Secretary Norquist, I appreciate you coming to
talk to us today about the President's Fiscal Year 2021 Defense
budget request.
You know, as an Air Force veteran of nearly 27 active
years, I applaud DoD's efforts to identify $5.7 billion in
savings for Fiscal Year 2021 and to reinvest these savings in
critical national defense strategy priorities, including
nuclear deterrence, cyber and space, and technological
developments.
However, even though I applaud and support border security
and the building of a border wall, I am concerned about the
Administration pulling funds from DoD weapons programs to fund
the construction of the wall.
In Fiscal Year 2019, the Administration used reprogramming
authority and a national emergency declaration, which I
supported, to reapportion $6.7 billion to fund the border wall.
Last month we learned that the Pentagon would be
reprogramming $3.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2020 appropriations
from various DoD weapons programs to fund the border wall.
Having traveled to the El Paso sector of the U.S. Border
Patrol, I wholeheartedly support strengthening our southern
border, including building the border wall. However, I do have
serious concerns with pulling funding from DoD weapons programs
for its construction.
I was particularly disappointed to see $360 million
reprogrammed that was to be used for additional C-130J
aircraft. The Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization
Act specifically authorized funding for four additional C-
130Js.
These additional aircraft would be invaluable in supporting
missions such as the 910th Airlift Wing at Youngstown Air
Reserve Station, which operates DoD's only large area fixed
wing aerial spray mission, forcing the 910th to simultaneously
support dual primary missions with only eight primary aircraft.
There is no question that my colleagues and I are concerned
about the diversion of military funds from these various
weapons programs to fund the border wall, but there is a
solution. We must not forget that Congress has a constitutional
duty to appropriate funding, and it is Congress' failure to
approve the necessary funding to secure our borders that has
forced President Trump to divert funding from DoD to build a
wall.
Therefore, Congress must provide adequate funding for the
border wall so that the Administration is not forced to pull
these and other valuable DoD funds.
So, Deputy Secretary Norquist, can you tell me how much
funding for DoD's budget is geared toward future conflicts?
You and I talked about that a little bit before we began
the hearing.
Mr. Norquist. So we invested significantly in future
conflicts. When you think about our budget, you sort of divide
procurement, which is readiness O&M, which is sort of the near-
term readiness, and the investment in today. You have the
procurement, which is systems in field over the next several
years.
And then you have RDT&E, which is research, development,
test, and evaluation, in this budget about $106.6 billion.
Those are really the next generation of technologies. In
nominal dollars, it is the largest RDT&E budget we have had,
but I think what it reflects is even in a time of a lower top
line, a tight top line, it is still a priority for the
Department to be ready, not just for the challenges of today,
but the important challenges of the future.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I agree.
Trying to drill down just a little bit more, what are we
doing to ensure funding for nontangibles, such as software,
interconnected networks, artificial intelligence, and other
critical weapon systems and platforms that you cannot
necessarily touch and feel?
Mr. Norquist. Right. This is a challenging area because
everyone notices the ships, the planes, but behind it you have
software, and software can have cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
It also can make the biggest difference between two planes that
look identical in terms of which one wins in the fight.
So we have significant investments both in developing our
work force, the capability to produce those types of
technologies, as well as ensuring the cybersecurity aspects of
those platforms and, in addition, working with the supply
chain.
One of the issues is helping secure the businesses that are
suppliers to DoD so their technology is not stolen.
Mr. Johnson. OK. You know, since Fiscal Year 2002, 2002,
DoD has operated under a continuing resolution 14 times. Shame
on Congress. Shame on my colleagues for not being willing to
put forth a budget proposal so that we can fix this broken
budget process and appropriate the money to DoD to provide our
national security.
So can you elaborate just a little bit? How do CRs affect
the Department's ability to plan in the short and long term?
Mr. Norquist. CRs are a significant problem. Let me walk
just through a couple of issues.
The first is they prevent new starts. So if we have a
technology that the Department recommends and the House and
Senate both agree and Republicans and Democrats think are
valuable, we cannot start it on 1 October. I have to wait.
So each year you give the other team three to four months'
head start every time you are under a CR because you are
delaying these new technologies.
The same thing with production increases. There is a
factory that is scaled to go from 50 to 100, but it has to
operate at 50 inefficiently at extra cost to the taxpayer until
the budget passes and allows them to go up to the 100 that the
Congress authorized and appropriated and the Department
supported.
The real risk to this over time is the Department gets so
used to it, it just moves its contracts to the spring and
builds a 6-month in delay because it just assumes it will not
get the budget on time.
So in a government where speed and efficiency are always a
challenge and you are trying to push, the CR pushes things to
be slower and more inefficient and wasteful.
Mr. Johnson. Sure. And we do not run families that way, and
we do not run businesses that way. We should not run our nation
that way.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, the Vice
Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Moulton, for five minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Deputy Secretary, thank you very much for the
critical work that you do to keep our nation safe and to serve
our men and women in uniform. It is incredibly important.
And I also want to commend two fellow veterans on this
Committee, the Ranking Member, Mr. Womack, and my friend, Mr.
Johnson, for really having the political courage, which is
difficult these days, to raise the constitutional issues with
what Mr. Trump has done to reprogram congressionally
appropriated funds to pay for his border wall.
I want to get into that a bit. Now, some Republicans have
said that it is the Congress' failure to adequately fund the
boarder wall that has forced President Trump to move funds to
build his wall.
Mr. Norquist, DoD has not identified building a southern
border wall as a national security priority, although it has
identified climate change as a national security priority.
Now, I am a Democrat. I believe Congress has failed to
appropriate funds to deal with climate change and climate
security. If President Obama had unilaterally moved money from
building Navy ships and C-130's and other defense priorities to
address climate change, would that be an action that you would
support?
Mr. Norquist. Sir, you know,So I think that each President
and each Congress has to work through these issues. The
question for the climate change is under what authority. The
thing that created this unusual situation is the Department of
Defense has actually been given direct authority by Congress
under Section 284 to build barriers along the wall.
Typically we would not have legal authority to be involved
in this business. It is normally a DHS mission.
I do not know with regard to climate change. We certainly
make our bases more resilient against----
Mr. Moulton. So I can agree that you have the authority to
build the wall if those funds are appropriated by Congress. But
do you believe you have the constitutional authority to move
appropriated funds from one account to another against the
wishes of Congress?
Mr. Norquist. So we have the authority under reprogramming
laws passed by Congress that allows the Department of Defense
to move money from one account to another.
Now, traditionally we have done this with the consent of
the Committees, and this is the issue that you are
highlighting, which is legally it is only a notification, and
so therefore, the Presidents have always had the ability to
move this.
But in practice we have done this as a notification, and so
that is what creates the challenge.
Mr. Moulton. And I would definitely agree with you that it
is a challenge, a constitutional challenge, which is
significant, and you agree.
Mr. Norquist. It can be, yes.
Mr. Moulton. The President has clearly identified
construction of the southern border wall as a significant
national security concern.
How would you rank the construction of the border wall
against DoD national security priorities, Mr. Norquist?
Mr. Norquist. So homeland security has always been a part
of our concern, and border security is part of national
security. So when we get asked----
Mr. Moulton. Do you rank it higher than building a 355-ship
Navy?
Mr. Norquist. We have to balance across a series of
requirements, and so in this case we were asked and directed to
support the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Moulton. Right. But you are the Deputy Secretary. Would
you rank it higher than building a 355-ship Navy?
Mr. Norquist. Let me put it to you. When I was at the
Department of Homeland Security, I would have. When I am at the
Department of Defense, I tend to balance within the Department
of Defense.
But this is why the President and others who look across
set priorities that we support.
Mr. Moulton. Well, I serve on the Armed Services Committee
as well, and Acting Secretary Thomas Modly told us that this
reprogramming plan is, quote, ``not helpful.''
Mr. Norquist. Yes.
Mr. Moulton. Not helpful. So is President Trump or the
Secretary of the Navy correct?
Mr. Norquist. So the key here, and I think this is
something that I should start by making clear to everyone. This
is not how we would have asked to do this. It is not how the
President asked to fund the wall. The President asked directly
for funds. We, the Department, had supported that.
What happened was in the law that was enacted in December,
it left the authorities with the President to make the move,
but only if it were done within DoD accounts. And so while some
people supported the wall and some did not, the compromise left
this mechanism in place.
So when it came to use, the question was to try and find
sources that supported that.
Mr. Moulton. I understand the President put you in a
difficult position, but the bottom line is that we are supposed
to follow the Constitution, and I think that should be
important.
You know, China began construction of its Great Wall in the
7th century BCE. More recently, Chinese National local
government spending has been focused on artificial intelligence
and other advanced capabilities, some of the same things that
you mentioned in your change in the focus of our budget.
You know, it looks to me that about 6 percent of the total
funding that you have dedicated to the border wall is what we
are investing in AI, and that compares to tens of billions of
dollars that China is investing in artificial intelligence.
Who is right?
Mr. Norquist. So, the Chinese have put a significant
investment. The Department is trying to grow its capability.
One of the issues is we have been investing there, but we
have to build out the capacity and the skill set to make sure
we use that money wisely.
I would certainly like to invest more over time as we grow
the skill of the work force and the projects that would sustain
those initiatives.
Mr. Moulton. Well, I would just point out that while we are
waiting for that to grow over time, China is beating us, and we
need to catch up.
Mr. Norquist. China a major challenge on these.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Hern, for
five minutes.
Mr. Hern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Womack,
and Deputy Secretary Norquist for being here today.
It is an important hearing that we are having, and I would
like to find it says the House Budget Committee's third meeting
where the Democrats insult the President's budget to no end
without offering their own budget, as they are required to do
by law.
And I just want to read this because the Vice Chairman made
a comment about the Constitution. This is what is really
defined in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives the
power of Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, and
imports, and excises. The Constitution allows Congress to tax.
So we are sitting here talking about a budget that the
President put forth his constitutional duty that the House has
not done, and we just need to remind ourselves what the
Constitution actually says.
So let's establish a timeline here. Before President
Trump's election, the Department of Defense has never performed
a full financial audit. Trump was elected, delivered on his
campaign promise, and the largest audit ever undertaken by the
federal government was completed.
In fact, you all recently completed a Fiscal Year 2019
audit as well, and President Trump likes to call this the
promises-plus. Both audits are proven steps in the right
direction ensuring transparency and fiscal responsibility
within the nation's largest agency.
The Department closed more than 500 notices of findings and
recommendations issued in 2018 audit, cleaning up our books,
and ensuring that we have a lean, transparent, and robust
Department of Defense is exactly how we achieve peace through
strength.
My questions are and I think we can all agree that the
Pentagon conducting financial audits is a positive move for a
country. So, Deputy Secretary Norquist, can you explain to the
Committee how the audit findings are driving change at the
Pentagon and provide some specific examples?
Mr. Norquist. I would be delighted to.
And, again, thank you and thank this Committee for your
emphasis and support of the audit.
So the audit has driven change in a number of ways. The
first is just in savings, right? When we did the audit, we
discovered where we do inventory. The audit is not just a
paperwork train. They go and they open warehouses. They look at
supplies. They pull out samples, and they test them.
And so we found places where there were items in inventory,
many times known to the local but not across the services
because it wasn't in the data base.
That freed up $167 million worth of supplies. Put those
back into inventory; able to close that requirement. Some of
these were items people were waiting on back order for. They
did not know that a different base already had it, and they
could have had access to it. Immediate savings there.
We have had other places where we have been able to
automate using BOTs to save manual labor as we go through this
process.
But I think part of the addition to those savings, which
are substantial as we go through the reforms, is the long-term
benefit, which is private sector firms have access to timely
and accurate data, and they use it to drive decisionmaking.
In the Department of Defense we are building out our data
analytics capability as we have this, and this lets us run
Defense Logistics Agency more efficiently, allows to make
better use of this in decisionmaking on property and other
items. So a significant benefit to the Department.
I appreciate the Committee's support. It is driving both
near-term savings and long-term reform.
Mr. Hern. Thank you.
In recent years, Iran and other enemies of the United
States have been investing heavily in building cyber defenses
and cyber attack capabilities. I saw that the President's
budget calls for almost $10 billion for offensive and defensive
cyber capabilities, which obviously is great for our nation.
In a global, interconnected world, it is becoming ever more
important to invest in safeguarding our DoD networks and
information systems. How does this budget build on the progress
made in the military cyber operations?
Mr. Norquist. So it does three things. First of all, it
strengthens Cyber Command, both their offensive and defensive
capability, and they are certainly the lead for this.
The second is it gives us visibility over our networks and
allows us to be stronger in defending.
In addition, we are working with our companies and to the
supply chain through what we call CMMC to help the vendors who
work with the Department protect the technology that they have
from China stealing it or from cyberattacks.
Mr. Hern. Thank you.
And just in my remaining minute here, could you compare the
President's budget to the current Democrat budget for this
fiscal year?
Mr. Norquist. I am not familiar with the Democrats' budget.
Mr. Hern. What?
So you know, as we go forward, I hope that my colleagues
will be as ever critical of the fact that we have not produced
a budget as they are about the President's budget that he has
produced.
There is a lot of talk about constitutionality here, as I
read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the very first power we
are supposed to be doing in Congress, and we are woefully
failing at that job.
I appreciate you being here. I appreciate all of the hard
work that you have done since you have been at DoD, and it is
what Americans want. They want good use of taxpayer dollars.
And thank you so much for all that you do.
Mr. Norquist. Thank you.
Mr. Hern. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelle,
for five minutes.
Mr. Morelle. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking
Member, for holding this hearing today.
I certainly thank you, Deputy Secretary Norquist, for being
here today.
As I think we have identified, the Defense budget is 15
percent of all federal spending, and that encompasses a vast
array of programs that the nation depends on for stability,
resiliency, and to continue to be a leader on the world stage.
So with that much of our federal spending, obviously there
is a great deal to talk about, but I would like to spend my few
moments on a topic both critical to the nation and, frankly,
important and significant to my district in Rochester, New
York, and that is the industrial base or our nation and whether
or not we can continue to meet our defense needs.
DoD relies on a wide ranging and complex industrial base
for the products and service-enabled warfighting capabilities.
The U.S. military is respected worldwide, but I am concerned
the industrial base is beginning to fall behind in the United
States, and we need to make significant investments to ensure
that the industrial base and our supply chain are prepared to
meet the nation's challenges.
I have worked with a number of DoD officials who are
focusing on this effort, and I appreciate that, and I want to
make sure we continue looking forward to meet that need.
So could you just briefly, because I do have a few
questions and I know we are short on time, but if you could
just comment on the industry base supply chain, what work you
think needs to be done to ensure we are preparing our nation's
defense capabilities.
Mr. Norquist. I think as you highlight, the industrial base
is absolutely essential. We do not build the airplanes, ships,
tanks, and planes. Private citizens and private companies
assemble those and build those for the American taxpayer. They
are essential to our success. Their quality is what makes our
force competitive on the battlefield.
We work very closely with industry parties to signal where
we are heading so they can invest in the right future
technologies. Part is helping them, as I mentioned before,
secure themselves so their technology is not stolen by
competitors.
But these investments are essential to our long-term
success and their health. And, again, competition is essential
to our long-term success.
Mr. Morelle. So are you concerned at all with the supply
chain interruptions?
Have you seen potential threats to the supply chain in the
industrial sites?
What steps is the Department taking to address those?
Mr. Norquist. So Ellen Ward from Acquisition and
Sustainment is a lead for this. They are focused on following
the supply chain, understanding both the potential for foreign
technologies or equipment, such as Huawei, to make sure that
that does not enter the supply chain.
We are also worried about the security of the companies,
making sure their information is not disrupted, but making sure
we can follow and secure our supply chain is a key part, and we
have a number of initiatives they are working on to do that.
Mr. Morelle. And I would like to continue that to partner
with folks to make sure that we continue to support that.
I also wanted to talk just a little bit about the longevity
of the skilled work force. I am blessed in Rochester, a long
history with Kodak, Xerox, Bausch and Lomb and dozens and
dozens of other innovative technology companies for decades
have prepared a high skilled work force.
But obviously, the nation's technical work force is
shrinking, particularly with retirements due to Baby Boomers
hitting retirement age.
Can you tell me about the steps you are taking along with
regard to work force development so it sort of aligns with the
supply chain and industrial base?
But it is a little different, and do you have specific
initiatives within the Department to address that?
Mr. Norquist. So we do, and let me highlight one of them
within the science and technology areas. We have a $100 million
investment in STEM because when you look at the areas where
technology is heading and the type of investments we need, we
have work force education and outreach programs to help develop
that work force, recruit that work force and keep it in the
Department of Defense because we will continue to depend on
those technologies and those skilled people.
Mr. Morelle. Finally, I know that while sensitive materials
are all made in the United States, there are some commoditized
products, I think, that come overseas in the Defense supply
chain.
Could you just comment on what impact, if any, the COVID-19
is having and what steps you are taking to address that?
Mr. Norquist. So we are looking at that. Luckily, we do not
depend on very much that comes directly out of China because of
the way the Department of Defense is structured, but we are
concerned as it spreads to other countries, allies and
partners, and what the effect of technology and production
disruptions would be.
For example, there is an F-35 facility in Europe, and so
the question is: do those production schedules stay on time?
Mr. Morelle. Yes. Do you have a task force? Have you
developed something to look at those?
Mr. Norquist. So again, Ellen Ward, Command S, she is the
one who is looking at those. She and I talked about this the
other day.
So far in most places there has been very little disruption
to date, but if this thing continues and expands, then we will
potentially see some issues, and we need to stay on top of
those.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Smith, for
five minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Deputy Secretary, for being here today.
Today marks 36 days until this Committee needs to pass a
budget. I have always thought for some time that the thought of
this Committee doing their job and preparing a budget and
passing it was a bipartisan issue.
Last week, Mr. Chairman, it was proven that it is a
bipartisan issue, and I was very pleased to see that 17 of your
Democrat colleagues and my colleagues sent you a letter
requesting that the Budget Committee does their job and
presents a budget, passes a budget.
And I would like to offer that into the record, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Yarmuth. Yes?
Mr. Smith. I would like to offer this letter that was
submitted to you by 17 Democrat Members in regard to passing a
budget.
Chairman Yarmuth. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do want to highlight a couple provisions within this
letter. I think it is pretty important.
It says, ``Producing an annual budget is a necessary first
step toward reducing the skyrocketing deficit, and that the
American people cannot afford for the Budget Committee to
abandon its responsibility to product a budget,'' end quote.
They added the American people need more than just spending
limits, that a budget provides a framework for Congress to
review our country's fiscal state.
I could not have said it better myself. This is a time that
I agree wholeheartedly with these 17 Democrats. It is
unfortunate that the last few weeks we have heard so much
criticism of the President's budget, when various cabinet
Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries have come into this room.
They have criticized the President's budget, but yet they have
not even prepared a budget for themselves.
We have the President's budget, which the President has
filed every year according to his obligation. The Democrat
majority has yet to file one budget since they have been in
power, last year or this year.
The Republicans, even though we are not in the majority, we
have a budget. So if you do not like the President's budget,
feel free to use Republican Study Committee budget. It is just
an option.
Nancy Pelosi has said it numerous times, that a budget is a
statement of your values. Show us your values.
I just repeat that same comment to Speaker Pelosi and the
House Democrats. Let's see your budget. Show us your values.
Unfortunately, I think they would probably bankrupt the
country if they showed us their values, and that is why they
are not doing a budget.
A budget also leads where an uncertain appropriations
process, where it is more likely that there will be a continued
resolution in September.
Deputy Secretary, what does a continued resolution do to
the military?
Mr. Norquist. A continuing resolution is very disruptive to
the military, and I will just use an example of a depot where
you have got a work force. They can see that there is a demand
signal coming, but they do not know whether to hire more people
and increase their capacity for the work that is coming or
whether to wait because there may be a CR, and that work may
wait three or four months.
And so the effect for the Department is disruptive, but the
disruption to the men and women out there who work in these
companies and who respond to these demands in those, they are
the ones who are not getting their jobs. And then the
Department has a delay in the maintenance of our equipment
because of that disruption in those companies.
Mr. Smith. I totally agree. By not planning ahead, it
clearly hurts our troops, and it is because Congress is not
doing their job in passing a budget, going through the regular
appropriations process.
Hopefully we can get our act together.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but since President Trump
was elected, he has invested in rebuilding our military. He has
secured nearly $2.2 trillion in funding in his first three
years in office, destroyed the ISIS caliphate bringing down its
leader and saving countless American lives in the process, and
he has stood up for freedom across the world.
Taking that into consideration, would you say that our
troops have the resources they and their families need more so
than they did four years ago?
Mr. Norquist. We are in a very different place than we were
in four years ago. The readiness of our forces is up. The
quantity of munitions they have is up. The training level is
up.
And on top of all of that, the investment and preparedness
for future conflicts are also being taken care of and
addressed.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Deputy Secretary.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters,
for five minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I did want to make some comments about this budget
proposal, but I do want to say that one shining light in this
is the funding for the congressionally directed fix for
military survivors suffering from the widow's tax.
I have worked on this for years, and I would like to offer
a note of gratitude to Chairman Yarmuth for his leadership on
this issue, which was very important to him and a priority.
Two things. One is, you know, I get this notion that my
colleagues on the other side are concerned about us not having
a budget. I would note that we went through an appropriations
process, and we came up with a deal, and the House approved it.
The Senate approved it. The President signed it, and he went
based on a phony emergency declaration and reprogrammed $6
billion on his own to a wall.
I hope my Republican colleagues will join me and will take
that outrage they have over the congressional purview over the
budget and join me and make sure that that kind of stuff does
not happen again.
This is not a kingdom. It is a divided government. Congress
has its role, and the appropriations that we made deserve to be
honored, and I hope that next time this happens that my
colleagues who express such concern about Congress' power will
stand with me to make sure that those are observed.
And then, Mr. Secretary, I also did want to note, too, that
I, too, appreciate the role of the private sector in providing
us the equipment that is so important to our mission and to our
warfighters.
I have to say that in that light, it is disappointing to
see how some of these cuts have been proposed: a Navy TAO oiler
that we need to sustain the operational tempo and have our
sailors meet their missions in the Pacific and elsewhere; a cut
cutting unmanned systems, like the MQ-9 or MQ-1, without notice
to the company, by the way.
At the same time the Army is trying to develop the future
of our capabilities, but we do not have that yet, and so today
we need to continue that continuity, and it does a great
disservice to the partners we have in the private sector that
these continuities are not maintained.
And as far as I know, the 12th century technology of a wall
is not reflected in the quadrennial defense review or any other
military priorities.
I did want to ask a question though about ships. I agree
with the President and others that we need to obtain a 355-ship
Navy, but it is not just getting to 355. It is about getting
the 355 with the right ships, ones that combat our adversaries
with new technology and lethality.
How do the cuts in this budget assure success and assure
that efficiency is driving the process instead of what appear
to be politics?
Mr. Norquist. So, first of all, there are two sets of
trades going on within the shipbuilding budget. The first is
the Navy leadership, both military and civilian, looked at the
challenges with getting the current fleet to sea and realigned
additional money on O&M and to maintenance and repair so that
the fleet they have is ready to go.
That required them to make some tradeoffs with regard to
ship construction, as did the fact that because we do not have
inflation in the budget, we are down about $13 billion. That
has created some tight tradeoffs.
What we are looking at going forward with the Navy, and the
Secretary has directed me to lead a study working with the Navy
and others, is as you point out, what is the right shipment.
Is it necessarily the case that we keep building the exact
same designs we have today or as technology evolves and the
ships of the future and changes evolve, how do we survive in an
Anti Access/Area Denial that we may see in the Pacific?
So we will be doing that analysis. We will run them through
war games and simulations between several different designs and
be able to present that and go through that in the spring or
early summer.
Mr. Peters. I look forward to that. It is nice to have
dreams of new technology being used for the national security.
In the meantime, we have actual missions to complete, and I
think the abruptness with which some of these changes are made
is not of best service to the nation and to our warfighters.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett,
for five minutes.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Thank you, sir, for being here.
I know you have already answered this, but if you could
just break it down a little further, how does the instability
of the budget process affect the DoD?
We have done 14 continued resolutions.
Mr. Norquist. So I think one of the things to look at is it
is maybe a way to understand it. When I have meetings, we had
one year where we had the appropriation on time, and I had a
meeting, and people said, ``You do not need to tell us what to
do under CR. You have to tell us what to do if it actually
happens on time because so few of them had exposure to it.''
In fact, I looked over my work force, and a number of them
have never really got the exposure to what a normal process
looks like, that you and I and others who have been in this
business used to take for granted.
The challenge then becomes the system builds that delay
into its process, and think about it. We bring on 270,000 or
some new people each year to the Department of Defense who
require training. This disruption on when the training is going
to occur, on the funding levels, those all create effects
throughout the organization.
And you want to make sure that the Department is keeping
pace with the challenges. So when there is an increase in
production for a system, we do not want it to wait three, four,
five months.
And so those types of disruptions to our planning are bad.
Those are disruptions to the depots and the work forces out
there are disruptive, and again, also it just consumes time and
energy of people focusing on the incremental contracting when
we could have more efficiently contracted in one single step
for the entire year.
Mr. Burchett. I am wondering how that would affect my folks
back home, our Reservists at McGhee Tyson Airfield in weighing
what they have there.
Mr. Norquist. Well, one of the things that I think happens
to the Guard and Reserve that is particularly destructive is we
often do not get a CR for the whole time. We get it for a few
months, and then another month, and then another week.
Well, on those Saturdays is a Guard mobilization training,
and it is Friday afternoon, and we have to tell the Guard do
you show up on Saturday or not. We do not know if there is
going to be a shutdown.
Well, for those who drive any length or distance, they are
driving while the government is not knowing whether it is going
to be open and may drive several hours to their training and
then be told to turn around and drive back home.
So the multiple CRs in a given year has a really disruptive
effect on the Guard and the Reserve when they are trying to
show up for mobilization dates.
Mr. Burchett. OK. How could we as Congress be more helpful
in ensuring that the Department is successful in their
financial transparency?
Mr. Norquist. So I think with regard to the funding, the
CRs getting to regular appropriations on time.
With regard to transparency and the audit, there are a
couple of things that really make a difference.
First of all, it has been the vocal support of the Congress
for the audit. I came back to the Department of Defense in part
because the President had committed to audit the Pentagon for
the first time, and I wanted to be part of that.
We would not have been there without you and other Members
of this Committee who have emphasized the importance of that.
The second thing is there are investments in the budget,
and they are not in the dramatic areas. They are in business
systems, to get rid of all the older business systems and
replace them with modern, compliant ones.
Often those do not fare as well in a budget process because
they are not dramatically or interesting, but they are
important to the efficient operations of the budget.
So those sorts of factors matter as well. Any of those
areas is a big step forward, and again, as always, timely and
robust funding is helpful.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for
five minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, can I ask you a question? Last year did we
pass a 2-year budget?
Chairman Yarmuth. We did pass the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2019, which provided for two years of budgeting.
Mr. Scott. And are we in the second year of that budget?
Chairman Yarmuth. We are considering the second year of
that budget right now.
Mr. Scott. We have already passed the budget.
Chairman Yarmuth. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us today.
I have a strong interest in shipbuilding, obviously from
being from Southeast Virginia. The Virginia class submarines,
we expect to build two this year. The budget only includes
enough money for one.
How are we going to get to a 355-ship Navy if we are
cutting the budget for shipbuilding?
Mr. Norquist. So the challenge we have, as I discussed
before, is twofold. One is the Navy invested in the operating
maintenance to keep their fleet going, and we have the flat top
line which drives it down.
So that creates some initial challenges. The Virginia class
submarine, let me just be clear, is a very valuable submarine.
It is the type of system that we have invested in in the past
and intend to continue to buy well into the future as a key
platform for the Pacific fight.
But as we start to head to 355, we need to look at not
necessarily the submarines, but in other areas. What is the
right mix of platforms to be ready for that future challenge?
Mr. Scott. Well, one of the ways we save money is to make
multiple ship purchases so you can save money. Have contracts
been signed for two ships this year?
Mr. Norquist. I believe there is a contract signed, and it
is like a nine-plus one. I forget the mechanics of it that sets
up the multi-year.
Mr. Scott. And the shipyards are acquiring materials and
parts and things like that on a multi-ship basis. Are they not
assuming that there will be two ships?
Mr. Norquist. I am not familiar with the use of the
contract. My understanding was there was an expectation there
was an option in one year and the other years were two a year,
but I would have to defer to our acquisition experts in the
Navy.
Mr. Scott. In terms of the infrastructure at our public
yards, about three years ago we developed a shipyard
infrastructure optimization plan. Maybe I missed something, but
I did not see any major projects as part of that plan in the
budget.
What is the plan to actually fulfill the optimization plan?
Mr. Norquist. Let me check with the Navy and get you the
answer on that for the record.
There is one thing I would like to highlight though if you
could. I understand the importance of how do you get to where
we want to go in the Navy.
One of the reforms that we have introduced in the budget is
normally when you spend money in the Navy, you obligate it, and
not all of it is disbursed. You may have a contract, not
necessarily a shipbuilding contract but one that you get under
price. You were able to end it early. You are not happy with
the vendor's performance. You cancel it. That money just
normally goes back to Treasury.
What we have proposed for the Navy is that money goes into
ship construction, Navy, so that the Congress can authorize it
for additional ships.
Our view is twofold. One is it is an important future for
the nation, but the other is it encourages better behavior of
individuals in their spending, in the Navy, if they can
understand that the dollars they save are going to the Navy of
the future.
So I would ask you to look at that provision. We would
appreciate your support, but we think it is going to help
strengthen and expand the capacity of the shipbuilding yards.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
You are aware that Norfolk, Virginia is vulnerable to sea
level rise.
Mr. Norquist. Yes.
Mr. Scott. What is the DoD's latest assessment of the
challenge of sea level rise to Norfolk?
And what are we doing about it?
Mr. Norquist. So, again, I do not have the specifics of
Norfolk, but we have looked along the East Coast and other
areas at what resilience we have to put in for bases so when
there is high water and storms we do not lose many of our
bases, particularly the Naval ones, which are right along the
waterfront, and being able to make sure they survive storms and
high water areas.
And so we have worked on those, and each of the new
construction efforts has to meet the standards, the enhanced
standards, for that resilience.
Mr. Scott. Are you doing something about the present
infrastructure?
Mr. Norquist. I understand that we are in those areas.
Mr. Scott. OK. And you asked the question on budget
challenges that you talked about because of the coronavirus.
You talked about the soft supply chain. Are there other
challenges that may be occurring because of the virus?
Mr. Norquist. We will have to see in terms of--we have
taken appropriate measures at the Department of Defense. A lot
of this is basic hygiene. It is hand sanitation. It is keeping
distances. It is teleworking if you need to have that set up.
We are going to have to look and see if it begins to expand
and spread, what we need to do to keep those production
facilities up and running and what measures are additional ones
we need to take.
Mr. Scott. And how that will affect the budget?
Mr. Norquist. And how that will affect the expenditures in
the budget, right.
Mr. Scott. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Meuser, for five minutes.
Mr. Meuser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Deputy Secretary.
I will yield 30 seconds or as much time as he needs to
Ranking Member Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I just want to make a point of clarification. I might have
misunderstood. Mr. Chairman, we have not passed a budget
resolution out of this Committee. We have not passed a budget
out of Congress. We did not pass one last year, and there is no
plan to pass one this year.
Out of desperation we passed a spending plan, but we have
not passed a budget. I just want to make sure that members and
those across America that might be looking at this understand.
This Committee has not passed a budget.
I yield back.
Mr. Meuser. Thank you.
Deputy Secretary, a colleague seemed to insinuate a little
earlier that we are sacrificing our Navy for border security.
Are we sacrificing our Navy for border security?
Is it one or the other?
Mr. Norquist. It is not one or the other. We are investing
in both. We have a responsibility as Department of Defense to
support and protect the nation across a range of threats.
DHS has the lead, and we are in support on border security,
but we support on homeland, and we are making investments in
shipbuilding. Both of these are our priority.
Mr. Meuser. Has the size of the Navy grown under the
current Administration versus the previous Administration?
Mr. Norquist. Yes. The size of the Navy has grown. I think
it started on 275. It is up to 290. It is on its way to 306.
Mr. Meuser. While we are also increasing border security.
Mr. Norquist. Correct.
Mr. Meuser. You were CFO at Department of Homeland Security
under Tom Ridge. And would you say that 100,000 undocumented
people entering our country illegally every month is a threat
to our country?
Mr. Norquist. The migration waves that they saw before they
started the construction of the wall in this Administration
were dwarfing the numbers that we had seen. Even bipartisan
Republicans and Democrats who had worked at Homeland were
commenting on the fact that, yes, it is a tangible emergency.
I went down to the Rio Grande Valley, met with the border
patrol agents there. Their comment to me with regard to the
wall was, ``It works.'' They see the manifestation and its
effect, and they are very appreciative both for that, as well
as for the men and women of the National Guard who have
deployed down there and supported them. They referred to them
as a game changer.
Mr. Meuser. Even though the illegals and the number of
undocumented people that were crossing our border back when you
were the CFO was far less, a very bipartisan bill passed known
as the Secure Fence Act, which seemed to make a lot of sense to
both Democrats and Republicans at the time.
Yet any sort of fencing or border security today seems to
catch the wrath in a very partisan manner.
Mr. Norquist. Correct. During the previous time, we had
significant interest from Congress, bipartisan votes for the
Secure Fence Act, expecting the Department of Defense to
continue and invest in hundreds of miles of border fencing and
barriers along the Southwest border.
Mr. Meuser. The American people or anybody with a memory
gets very confused over that.
So I have got this question for you please. How does this
budget request ensure that U.S. maintains its competitive edge
over China and Russia, particularly in space and cybersecurity?
Mr. Norquist. So this budget does a significant investment
in space and cyber. One of the things we have to realize is the
emphasis China is placing on technology. They are looking into
these two new demands.
So one of the things we talk about is everyone used to
think the military fights on the air, land, and sea. You have
the Army, Navy, and the Air Force.
And what we have seen from our adversaries and rivals is an
emphasis on space and cyber as a way to break down our
capabilities.
The standing up of the Space Force was an essential step in
not just increasing the funding, but providing the training,
the doctrine, and the structure behind understanding what the
conflict will look like in space and how to prepare, as was the
elevation of Cyber Command.
We have invested in both of those. Some of the space stuff
is on the classified side, but these have been priority areas
for this Administration throughout its tenure because of the
shift to the new domains and the ability to make sure we can
function across all domains.
Mr. Meuser. Excellent. The President recently signed with
the Afghanistani a peace deal which will phase down troops in
Afghanistan, as you know, after two decades of strong U.S.
presence. How much will this peace process, and perhaps other
drawdowns, save Department of Defense?
The Administration targeted diplomatic reforms that would
help to strengthen certain areas, and all the while drawing
down in the Middle East and areas where we feel we no longer
need that presence.
What sort of savings can you anticipate?
Mr. Norquist. So it depends on how far the process goes. I
think that what we have seen is what we have going on, is the
best path to a lasting peace in Afghanistan is a negotiated
political settlement among the Afghans. This makes that
possible.
If that continues to go well, you know, we are headed down
to 8,600. We could go further below that if this goes further.
There are potentially billions of dollars' worth of savings
that we would achieve through reduced need for operations,
reduced need for a presence. That all depends on how this plays
out properly.
And you know, we are using a condition-based process, but
this Administration has put an emphasis on being able to
emphasize and reprioritize to the China front and to Russia,
and these are supportive of that vision.
Mr. Meuser. Thank you.
Chairman, I yield.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms.
Schakowsky, for five minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Deputy Secretary Norquist.
I have been long interested in the cost of private military
contractors, and in a 2017 report by the Department's Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation Office, it found that DoD's
civilian employees usually cost less than private military
contractors.
An additional study by the Sustainable Defense Task Force
estimated that the Department could save over $20 billion per
year by scaling its contractor work force by just 15 percent.
So I am just wondering your view of this and what steps, if
any, that the Department is taking to assess contractors and
cost savings.
Mr. Norquist. So this is an important area to look at, the
balance between what we have in terms of federal employees and
contracted support, and it depends, again, on the mix of skills
that you need.
I will just use a simple example, one from my previous job,
which is in the audit. Originally in the federal government we
had very little in DoD audit experience. All of the experience
was on the contractor side. So we relied heavily on vendors who
understood the accounting standards and experience.
Over time we have reduced that dependence on them and
increased the number of federal employees.
Ms. Schakowsky. Is that a goal?
Mr. Norquist. The end of the shift is not a goal. The goal
is to make sure that if it is a function best done by the
federal government, a perennial function that is something you
need stability in, we then do it with federal employees.
If it is a specialized skill, something that rotates in and
out, you do not have constant demand, we tend to look to
contractors because under those formulas, they are less
expensive.
Ms. Schakowsky. Do you think you have the balance right
now?
Mr. Norquist. On the audit side, I think we still have a
bit to go. In the others, it depends on each program. It is
something we always have to relook because you cannot assume
that the balance you had last year or two years ago or five
years ago is the right one going forward.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, on another subject, according to the
Department's 2019 report on effects of change in climate, the
Department of Defense said this, quote, ``The effects of
changing climate are a national security issue with potential
impact to the Department of Defense mission, operations, plans,
and installation.''
And the National Security, Military, and Intelligence
Panel, a second time, on Climate Change, which is made up of
current and former defense and intelligence officers, released
a report last month that found, quote, ``Each region of the
world will face severe risk to national and global security in
the next three decades,' ''' unquote as a result of global
climate change.
So I want to ask you what the Department is doing to adapt
current and future operations to address the impact of climate.
If you could just give me even just one example of what the
Department is doing to address this.
Mr. Norquist. Sure. So I will give you two. The first is on
the systems we field, on weapon systems, we have to be able to
operate in everything from the desert to the arctic. So with
temperature swings, we have to build systems that have that
range of capabilities, deploy them and function in Alaska and
bring them down into a desert area.
The second is the facilities and the bases. And so when we
have bases, they get affected, you know, by hurricanes or other
storms. We need to make sure that they have the level of
resilience necessary to survive the storms that they are
facing. That minimizes the damage and the repair on the other
end.
So there has been a significant focus on those standards
and bringing facilities up to those standards.
Ms. Schakowsky. And what can Congress do to support the
Department's effort to combat and adapt to climate change?
Mr. Norquist. I think when you look at the investments we
make in our facilities, those are always valuable, and when you
look at the range of technologies that we are trying to build
to be able to operate in this, it is important for those
investments as well.
Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. So are you seeing a decrease in the amount
of carbon emissions within the Department of Defense?
And what kinds of things can you do to actually help reduce
global warming?
Mr. Norquist. So the Department looks at a range of energy
sources and tries to develop a breadth of them, and again, we
tend to focus on the resilience, which is what is our ability
to keep the facility up and running when it needs it. How do I
have those power supplies?
Now, some of them if you use natural gas, then of course
you had a very different amount of carbon or zero that you are
producing compared with other sources.
We look at those ranges of technologies and we attempt to
adopt them in the way most heavily we focus on the facilities.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank you.
And I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Norman, for five minutes.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Deputy Secretary, for coming and for testifying.
I would just like to emphasize what Congressman Johnson
mentioned earlier. This Committee has not passed a budget, has
not even come close. Here we are asking questions and some
criticizing what the President's budget is when we have not had
anything to put on paper to compare it to.
Whether it is a family unit, a business, you have a budget.
You have numbers. We just have failed to do that. So I hate
that that is the case.
Second, we are in the middle of a coronavirus. I have heard
criticism about funding for a wall. My friends on the left
continue to want to let everybody, anybody anytime in this
country, which is really hard for me to believe with the things
we are facing on the health crisis in this country,
particularly now, but they still hold the opinion, let
everybody in regardless of any type of security problem, which
they think really falls way under our climate crisis that they
say is above everything.
So thank you for coming today, and let me ask you. You
know, the congressional budget process is broken. Since Fiscal
Year 2002, the Defense Department has operated under 14 CRs.
This is terribly unstable, and it is unsustainable.
You elaborated on it some. Can you go into further detail
on how tragic this is for what you are trying to do, not the
least, the leases that the military signs that are having to be
completely redone and recalculated?
Mr. Norquist. Sure. So I talked originally about you cannot
do new-starts. So let me give an example of a system called
iVATS, which is a set of goggles the Army has developed which
uses modern technology and greatly enhances the ability to both
train and to perform their mission.
The Army did this under an accelerated plan using
authorities Congress gave us because Congress said, ``We want
you to innovate. We want you to move quickly. We do not want
long, bureaucratic processes.'' And so they acted on that.
And they have gone through very rapid prototyping. They put
it the hands of the soldiers. They have gotten the feedback.
They are set to move those into the next stage where there is
some procurement that is involved in this production.
But if there is a CR, they are going to need to wait, and
they are going to need to wait until we get to the other side
of the CR, even with the capability that the men and women of
the Army find tremendously valuable and would like to be able
to expand on.
And you have that when you have the Columbia class
submarine, which would also be a new start. You have got
factories waiting on increases in production for things that
the Department thinks they need, the Congress thinks they need.
We are trying to increase the production.
That factory is going to be told to wait. Well, anyone
knows if you have built a factory to go from 50 to 100 in
production and you hold it at 50, you have absorbed overhead
cost. You have potentially hired people that are not able to
work on the lines. You are wasting money.
And so the challenge we have is these are very disruptive
and disruptive effects on the Department of Defense. They are
disruptive to the men and women of the Armed Forces. And it is
disruptive to the men and women in the private sector who are
working in support of the Department and trying to do so
efficiently but cannot get a clear business signal from us of
whether we are moving or not moving.
And that sort of stop and go creates tremendous disruptions
throughout the organization.
Mr. Norman. So even though the Department of Defense is
affected, it is a chain supply of those supplying the necessary
weapons and materials. They cannot plan because they do not
have a timeline. Nor do they have the dollars to try to figure
out what they are to produce.
Mr. Norquist. I went down to the Anniston Depot, and I
asked them about their workload and the fact that we had things
headed into maintenance. We had a backlog. We needed them to
ramp up.
And in all seriousness the person there looked at me and
said, ``Well, when will you have an enacted budget? And when
you get it, how much will it be for?''
And the answer is I do not know.
Then he says, ``Then what do you want me to ramp up to?''
Because it is not just the fact you are under a CR. You are
under a CR, and you do not know what your next number is going
to be.
Now, the Department may have a top line and there may be
some clear agreement, but the funding level for that program is
unknown to everybody involved, and so, therefore, they live in
ignorance until the time of enactment, and that is disruptive,
right?
Those are the sorts of things that the clear signal, these
are costs that we impose on ourselves through the process that
we use.
Mr. Norman. And I think we all can agree China is our No. 1
threat. This just puts us further behind, if we are behind,
than we already are?
Mr. Norquist. To the best of my knowledge, they do not have
CRs in China.
Mr. Norman. Correct. Well, thank you for your service.
Thank you for appearing today.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Horsford,
for five minutes.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing to discuss the President's 2021 Defense
budget.
And thank you, Deputy Secretary, for being here.
I have four military installations in my district, Nellis
and Creech Air Force Bases, the Nevada Test and Training Range,
and the Hawthorne Army Depot. President Trump has rerouted
billions of dollars in congressionally approved funding for
military projects throughout the country to build his
unnecessary and ineffective border wall.
Can you guarantee that none of the military installations
in my district will have its funding stripped to pay for the
border wall?
Mr. Norquist. So my understanding, I do not know if any of
them were affected by last year's. There is nothing to say on
the 2808 for this year. So we are still awaiting clarity on
what is going to happen there.
Mr. Horsford. I would appreciate any advanced notice as it
impacts the mission critical objectives that each of these
installations play.
Additionally, the Defense Department identified 401 sites
as having a known or suspected discharge of toxic chemicals
known as PFAS in drinking water or groundwater. Creech Air
force Base was included in that list because firefighting foam
that was being used had seeped into the water contaminating it
with its chemicals.
This particular issue impacts my constituents and so many
other veterans that have served our country.
Deputy Secretary, let me tell you about one of my
constituents. His name is Kelly Charles. Kelly is 55 years old
and was stationed at Camp LeJeune in North Carolina between
September 1984 through May 1986, serving as a Marine.
The reason that location and timeframe will never be
forgotten by Kelly is because it is the origin for his
development of thyroid cancer as a result of being exposed to
contaminated waters.
I frequently see Kelly and his wife when I am back home
meeting with veterans that reside in my district. Kelly told me
the day he was diagnosed with thyroid cancer was a gut check.
It was on his 27th wedding anniversary with his wife and the
day they were going to drive to Colorado to be with family for
the Christmas season. Kelly was saddened by the news because he
knew he would have to tell his children as well.
He went to see his endocrinologist the next month after
being diagnosed with thyroid cancer and discovered it had been
spread to his lymph nodes. When he went to get his thyroid
removed, he also had to get a surgical procedure to remove 50
lymph nodes and a 2.5 centimeter tumor that has spread
tentacles down to some of his shoulder nerves.
As a result of these health complications and surgeries,
Kelly has constantly had to monitor his health. He has had to
take a pill that takes the place of his thyroid gland. He has
daily brain fog. He is experiencing anxiety issues, and that is
just to name a few.
So as I am sure you are aware, in 2012, the Caring for Camp
LeJeune Families Act was signed into law so that veterans who
served at Camp LeJeune for at least 30 days between January
1st, 1957 and January 31st, 1987 can have all of their health
care expenses, excluding dental, taken care of by the federal
government.
But we must make sure that we are taking the necessary
actions to prevent our service members, like Kelly Charles,
from being exposed to contaminated waters. Protecting our
military men and women abroad is extremely important, and
protecting them here at home is equally as important.
So, Deputy Secretary, what is the Defense Department doing
today to address issues of contaminated water on military bases
throughout the country?
And how does your budget reflect the commitment to end the
exposure of dangerous chemicals to our servicemen and women?
Mr. Norquist. So thank you, Congressman, for bringing up
this very important issue and the attention on the health and
serious consequences.
This is a matter of great importance to the Secretary of
Defense, Mark Esper. When he came in and was sworn in as
Secretary of Defense, his first act was to stand up the task
force to deal with the PFAS/PFOA. He did that when he first
came in. He recognized and shared your concern about the
importance and it is his reliance and his emphasis on we need
to take care of our military members and their families.
As a Department we are doing several things. First and
foremost is we are stopping the non-emergency use of these
chemicals. We want to make sure we protect the water supply. We
are restricting those uses.
We are making sure we are treating and testing wells around
the installations. We are treating the water so that other
people do not drink unsafe water. We are investing in new
technologies to let us get past this.
But as you point out, this is a serious issue. The
Department takes it very seriously, and it is a high priority
for the Secretary of Defense to address this.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on this
issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Holding, for five minutes.
Mr. Holding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Norquist, good to see you.
As you may know, North Carolina considers itself the most
friendly state to the military, and we have the third largest
military presence in the country. Our state is home to Fort
Bragg, which is the largest installation by population.
We also have Camp LeJeune, New River Air Station, Cherry
Point, Pope Air Base, Seymour Johnson Air Base, and Sunny Point
Munitions Facility, which I believe is the largest munitions
facility in the country.
At Fort Bragg, we have the 18th Airborne Corps and the 82d
Airborne Division and the U.S. Army Special Operations Command.
So when the President calls 911, he is calling North Carolina.
And like you, I never want our men and women to be in a
fair fight. I want them to have the best training, the best
intelligence, and the best equipment in order to overwhelm any
enemy at any time on any battlefield.
And a key to this success is their readiness. So if you
could speak a bit about readiness and this budget's impact on
military readiness.
Mr. Norquist. So I appreciate the question, and the
readiness is essential. When you talked about the units you
have there, many of those are units that have to be able to go
on very short notice, and so their readiness levels need to be
at the highest level.
And so one of the things that we have emphasized over the
last several years as we have turned this around is, one, the
training, making sure these units have training on schedule at
the high level that they need to achieve a level of
proficiency, which is unlike what any other force in the world
is going to get so when they walk on the battlefield, everybody
knows that they are the best.
The other part is to make sure they have the most up-to-
date equipment and they are trained on it. So as you point out,
so there is never a fair fight. That is not what we are
interested in. We are making sure they have it right.
This also gets to making sure that we have the proper
numbers. So as I pointed out before, the end strength of the
military had gone down dramatically. I think we were the lowest
we had been since 1940. We added 38,000 people.
Some of those people went into units to fill them out so
they were closer to the 100 percent they need to be. Others
like the Air Force went to be maintainers. Part of their
challenge in readiness was keeping their planes up and running
because they did not have maintenance personnel. So they added
4,000 maintainers to try and drive it.
Those are some of the key elements because readiness is
really a series of things, as you understand, and we have
invested in each and every one of those across the service to
make sure that our military is capable of fighting tonight and
goes to the battlefield with the better force and the better
training at the field.
Mr. Holding. Thank you.
And I would just like to mention that as you look at our
military installations and presence around the country and you
consider any realignments, we in North Carolina would welcome
more military.
Mr. Norquist. Thank you.
Mr. Holding. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms.
Jayapal, for five minutes.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Deputy Secretary, back to the Committee to
speak on the President's $740.5 billion military budget.
The sheer size of the budget demands a level of
accountability, I think, that we have to take very seriously.
Our nation's defense budget is already larger than that of the
next seven countries combined and comprises nearly 35 percent
of the world's total military spending.
When you came before this Committee last year, we had a
conversation about the audit, and I think we agreed on the need
for fiscal responsibility, and I appreciate your efforts around
this.
As you know, in 2010, Congress passed a requirement within
the NDAA that gave the military essentially an extra seven
years to comply with the requirement that every federal agency
has to conduct an audit. But we gave the military an extra
seven years to clean up the books and get ready, is how it was
described by I think it was Grassley, and we set a deadline of
September 2017.
In December 2017, your Department began the audit process,
and when you came before the Committee last year, the Defense
Department had failed that first ever agency-wide audit with
only five of the 21 individual audits receiving a passing
grade, even after seven years of preparation.
This year only seven came back clean, a figure that you
actually predicted during last year's hearing.
Is it acceptable for two-thirds of a $740 billion agency to
fail an audit?
Mr. Norquist. So it is not where we want to be, and I think
you and I share both a passion for this issue and a frustration
with how long it took to get here.
One of the things that I agree with you on is this notion
of getting ready for an audit without actually having the
audit, I do not know about you, but I have never understood. I
have never been able to say to GAO, ``Please wait to do your
audit until we are ready.'' Right?
In addition to which you do not have the ability to know if
you are ready without the auditors there. So my prior
experience in Homeland Security had been when the auditors came
every year. We knew our problems, and we knew whether or not we
had fixed them.
So I think the biggest change we did was move from this
notion of we are going to keep spending money to get ready, and
the answer is bring on the auditors. Bring on the bad news, and
the truth is a lot of times people are averse to the bad news.
And my answer is, no, we are not going to get better until you
bring the bad news.
Let us know who is good. DeCA got a clean opinion, our
commissary, this year. That is a great step forward. We have
other agencies that need to keep going.
Now we have got a list of those weaknesses, and we can
continue to work through them.
So I think it is unacceptable to be here. Part of that is
the nature of the systems that we built that were never
designed for the audit standards. We are now switching over to
ones that are.
You do not want to pour a ton of money into one-time
efforts that potentially get you there for one year and follow
that. We need to be able to have sustainable solutions, better
systems, more reliable processes.
So, again, thank you and the other Members for your support
of this, but that is what we are driving toward.
Ms. Jayapal. No, I really appreciate that.
What is your prediction for how many individual agencies
are going to pass their audits this year?
You were right last time. What is the prediction?
Mr. Norquist. So I look for one to two every year to keep
moving forward. I think we should in five to seven years see
the vast majority of them with clean opinions.
Ms. Jayapal. You think it is going to take seven years to
get a clean audit for a $740 billion agency?
Mr. Norquist. So it took 10 years for the Department of
Homeland Security. Now, each year you saw the number of
agencies with a clean opinion come down, but the Coast Guard
held up the process for, I think, just five years on the Coast
Guard alone.
So the Department does not get a clean opinion until
everybody gets a clean opinion.
Ms. Jayapal. And let me just say I know you share the goal
here, but I am frustrated by the idea that we would only get
two more individual agencies every year, which you said one to
two.
Mr. Norquist. Right.
Ms. Jayapal. That seems unacceptable to me. If a major
corporation that was worth $740 billion was not able to tell
its shareholders where the money was going, that CEO would be
out immediately. We would not give them seven years to get
ready and then another seven years to, you know, actually come
back and be able to say how they are spending the money.
This is taxpayer dollars that are going into an agency that
continues to either not be audited or to fail audits, and it
feels like there should be an urgency, especially from somebody
like you, who I do believe we share this, and urgency and a
push from your level to say, ``You know what? Two agencies
every year is not sufficient. We have to ramp this up, and we
need to get a clean audit for the entire Department within,
say, two years.''
Mr. Norquist. Right.
Ms. Jayapal. It just feels unacceptable.
And so I am just asking you to please be more aggressive
and to tell me how you are going to get us better than one or
two, and you are somebody who agrees with us.
Mr. Norquist. Right.
Ms. Jayapal. So I just need to hear something more from you
on that, Deputy Secretary, and how you are going to push for
more agencies.
Mr. Norquist. So trust me. This is something I always keep
an emphasis on and push on because of our shared concern here.
Do keep in mind we are different than companies. First of
all, they were built from the beginning to pass an audit and we
were not.
The second is----
Ms. Jayapal. Which is an issue in itself.
Mr. Norquist. Which is an issue, but the other part is
because of the way we get provided money, our audit goes back
and can touch 2015 contracts because those contract--in fact,
they can go back almost 10 years because if you think of a
construction project, the money is available for five years for
award and then available for five years, and that is legally
separate money from this year's appropriation.
So the auditors can pull that and say, ``I want to see the
invoice from 2011,'' and we have to provide it, and so some of
the questions these agencies have are, ``How much time do you
want me to spend finding documents from 2011 or should I just
accept the fact that that year is going to be a irrelevant year
and focus on getting 2020 correct?''
So some of this is we have got to get the legacy
documentation issues have to flow out, and I am trying to be a
little judicious in taxpayer's money, not to launch people on
futile efforts if the answer is and I tell them, ``Are you
going to be able to get it cleaned up then year after year? OK.
That is what I want.''
How can you do it so you can sustain it. We will worry
about the history part later, but I think this is an area I
share. Do not worry. I will keep focusing on it.
And let me just highlight for the Members here every time
you bring this up, it is valuable, was the opening of our
hearing with the Armed Services Committee. The Chairman opened
by mentioning the audit. I do not forget to tell that when I
talk to people inside the Department to make sure they
understand your interest and their support.
Ms. Jayapal. That is good. Well, we will keep being helpful
in that way.
Mr. Norquist. Thank you.
Ms. Jayapal. And I would just say that perhaps the best way
to really respect the taxpayers' dollars is to not continue to
increase our defense spending until we can show that we are
using this money properly and have a full clean audit.
Thank you for your work, Deputy Secretary.
I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, for
five minutes.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Chairman.
And, Deputy Secretary, thank you.
I am going to followup very quickly on the previous line of
questioning. I agree with that. I think most of us do, and I
appreciated your response about you all are not designed to
pass an audit. I think that is a partial explanation.
I have got to say, you know, the bad news and good news.
The bad news is you are bad at audits. The good news is you are
good at protecting national security, killing bad guys, and
bringing the world stability, and I think that is important to
recognize.
But, again, we have to get a little better on that.
I think one of the challenges that I would imagine sitting
in your chair is the range of issues that anyone of us might
ask. We put you in the hot seat.
I am going to do that a little bit today, and I mean many
times they are technical or local oriented, and I am going to
do that as well. There are 1,000 questions I could ask you, but
I think this one is, again, important to my district, important
actually to our national security.
And that is the Dugway Proving Ground, which is a national
asset. It is in my district. It is designated as a major range
and test facility base, and it is the home of the West during
Desert Test Center.
The team at Dugway are really, really good at what they do.
They provide that critical capability to test a wide variety of
defensive and protective equipment, and for those of us in the
military who had relied on that equipment to protect us in a
biological or chemical attack, I think you understand, or even
radiologic or even explosive, you understand the importance of
that.
It is uniquely qualified. If you have never been there, it
is one of the most isolated, frankly, kind of lonely places in
the United States, but that is what makes it perfect.
It is enormous. It is varied landscape. You know, you can
test in desert. You can test in mountains. It is very realistic
training.
Now to my concern. I am very concerned that your budget
eliminates all funding for the readiness level of technology
upgrades to West Desert Test Facility, and particularly to the
Biological Test Division.
What it comes down to is this. The Department's rationale
for cutting the funding seems to be that this program does not
directly support an advanced national defense strategy, and you
are turning it over essentially to the Army, which is not
equipped or budgeted to do that.
Again, share your thoughts with me on this. Why are these
concerns misdirected?
And if they are, why?
And if they are not, how can we address it?
Mr. Norquist. So I will need to look into this particular
realignment. I think when we have met with the services, they
have all emphasized the importance and the value of our test
ranges and the need to be able to conduct testing and when we
have some programs that allow each service to test on others'
ranges and make sure they are able to take advantage of the
technology.
I am not familiar with this particular realignment from one
group to the Army. I will look into this one.
But in the end of the day, we understand the role that test
ranges play and the importance of making sure the equipment we
have delivers and performs as we need it do so.
Mr. Stewart. Well, let me add just a little bit of detail
that I think will maybe help you as you look into that.
Again, as in MRTFB, as I have described, public law, which
I could go into and tell you the number, but I am sure you will
be able to find that, it provides direct stewardship for this
national treasure to be supported by OSD.
And yet, again, the budget request seems to place an onus
on the Army, which is by law a DoD responsibility.
So would you look at that and get back with us? We would
appreciate it.
We are concerned that this misalignment is going to have
negative impacts on our ability to defend our soldiers.
Mr. Norquist. Congressman, I would be happy to look into
that and get back to you.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Thank you.
And with that, Chairman, I will yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Ms. Omar,
for five minutes.
Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Norquist.
Mr. Norquist. Good morning.
Ms. Omar. I had an amendment in last year's NDAA inquiring
for a report on the process of overseas bases and operations.
It was due on February 15th, but I have not received it from
your Department.
I am wondering if you know when we should expect to see
that.
Mr. Norquist. So I will go look and find out what the
status of that is, Congresswoman.
Ms. Omar. I appreciate that.
I want to continue discussing the high costs found in your
DoD budget proposal. I am sure you are quite aware that the
United States outspends the rest of the world in military
spending.
Mr. Norquist. Yes.
Ms. Omar. Under this Administration, the military spending
has increased to near historic highs with the majority of
funding being used to modernize our nuclear weapons and missile
system.
At what cost? You will see in the first figure that the
lack of federal investment in our infrastructure has continued,
has contributed to the United States failing behind other
nations.
The other graphic is a recent headline that shows how
health and education outcomes have declined in the United
States compared to our global peers as well.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the University of
Washington study and this article into the record.
Chairman Yarmuth. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Omar. Given the Pentagon's constant funding increases,
it seems clear to me that we do not need to spend more money on
our overflowing arms stockpile. We instead need to start
investing in our human capital for the benefits of both our
national security and greater society.
Are you worried that the drastic cuts proposed to non-
defense spending could affect our national security?
Mr. Norquist. Congresswoman, I am going to let the other
Secretaries speak to their budgets because each of them was
part of designing those.
Ms. Omar. Should we be reinvesting in domestic programming
that directly contribute to the health, education, and
development of the American people in order to strengthen our
security here and abroad?
Mr. Norquist. So we have programs inside Defense to make
sure and protect our security. I leave it to this Committee and
others to work on what the proper ranges of the domestic
agencies are.
Ms. Omar. Do you have any concerns that our long-term
national security could be at risk if we do not invest in the
physical, mental, and financial wellbeing of our youngest
generation?
Mr. Norquist. So we always have the issue in the Department
of Defense on recruiting, and so we emphasize trying to bring
in the right skill sets and the right recruits, and we focus on
doing that.
So making sure we have a well-prepared population to do
that is always important to the Department of Defense.
Ms. Omar. How do you expect a future leader will be able to
fill your role one day without sufficient government support at
home?
Mr. Norquist. So I think one of the things that we always
continue to look at in the Department of Defense is making sure
that we, as we bring in young men and women into the military,
that we have the right programs to train them on the equipment
and technologies they need to be able to perform.
One of the things you brought up is the difference between
what we spend on the military and then other countries. What
other countries like China predominantly use conscription, and
so they do not have to pay their people very much to have them.
One of the values of our freedom though is that we believe
a volunteer force is more effective. It is more expensive, but
then the freedom of other individuals to not have to serve in a
conscription is very important to our country as well.
So there are differences in how we fund, and we want to
keep the fight as an away game, which means we pay and have the
cost of the lift to keep it overseas.
Ms. Omar. One of the great differences between the amount
of money China is spending and the amount of money the United
States is spending is China does not have to spend on the
number of overseas bases like we do here in the United States.
And I know that our job here in this Committee is to look
at our budget as a whole, and if we are to think about putting
together a budget that has our values and principles intact, we
should really think about what it means for us to fully
invested in educating our population, in caring for their
health, and investing in proper infrastructure, and protecting
ourselves here domestically as we do internationally.
So thank you so much for being here.
I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, for five
minutes.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chairman.
I thank the Secretary for being here.
When you were here last year, I think I opened noting that
we were approximately $22 trillion in debt, and we are mounting
about $100 million of debt per hour.
Are you aware of what the debt is today?
Mr. Norquist. I think that the deficit is $23 and a half
trillion.
Mr. Roy. Yes, total debt----
Mr. Norquist. I am sorry. Debt. The total is $23 and a half
trillion.
Mr. Roy. Yes, about $23.4 trillion. We are racking up about
$110 million of debt an hour.
You know, this quote has been used a number of times by a
number of folks, but former Secretary, General Mattis, agreed
that the national debt was one of our greatest national
security threats.
Do you agree with that? Do you agree that the extent to
which we are spending far more than we able to pay for is a
potential negative impact to our national security in the
future?
Mr. Norquist. Yes.
Mr. Roy. With respect to interest, for example, I think it
is projected that we could have interest, and it depends on all
of the assumptions, right, based on interest rates, based on
growth, based on spending, but you know some projections have
us at $819 billion by 2030. I think that is the CBO's
projection. OMB's might be different based on its numbers.
But that puts us at getting close to one to one if we are
spending as much interest as we are on national defense. And,
you know, again, is this something that you believe that
Congress needs to move up in terms of our readiness and our
ability to defend the United States of America abroad to get
our fiscal house in order?
Is that something that is front and center for national
defense strategy?
Mr. Norquist. So when you think of national defense
strategy, you need to think of both security and solvency, but
you need the military to protect the country that allows for
the investments in the economy and free navigation of the
water, but you need the solvency to be able to continue to pay
your bills and achieve your goals.
And so both of those have to be done in balance. It is one
of the challenges. It is one of the reasons and focuses of this
Committee is those exact types of those strategic tradeoffs.
Mr. Roy. Well, thank you for that.
And speaking of that, could you comment on what your
perspective and the Defense Department's perspective is on the
numbers put forward in the Democrat's proposed budget?
Mr. Norquist. Are you referring to something out of this
Budget Committee?
Mr. Roy. Yes.
Mr. Norquist. OK. Again, I am not familiar with that
document.
Mr. Roy. Right, because it does not exist, yet we are
sitting here talking about the President's budget with some of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle making criticisms
of that budget, but yet we have not taken up the work of doing
that in this Committee or in this body, which strikes me as
puzzling.
Now, I will say I do appreciate Congresswoman Jayapal's
focus on the audit. And so you said it is helpful. So let me
add to the helpfulness by suggesting that it would be very good
for us to move the audit through more expeditiously and not
just getting a couple more per year. So please pass that on as
well, that that is uniformly agreed to in this body, which is
not often something we can say.
But I think we definitely want to see that.
Mr. Norquist. I have appreciated the bipartisan support,
and on more than one occasion when I have had someone who is
less enthusiastic than I think they need to be, I offer to
arrange a meeting with them with one of the Members of Congress
so they can explain if they think this is not important. And it
usually helps solve the problem.
Mr. Roy. Well, indeed, and I think it is critically
important, and I do appreciate that, and I appreciate your
attention to that, and anything we can do to push on that even
further, just at the highest levels it is something that is
critically important.
I do want to say something about this point on the 35
percent of the world's defense spending, seven times the next
highest or, you know, more than seven times the most recent
level of seven countries' spending.
Where are we though today relative to China, Russia, and
some of our national threats in terms of our ability to deal
with multiple threats around the world?
And how important is it that we have the level of defense
spending that we are talking about to defend the interest of
the United States at home and abroad?
Mr. Norquist. So I think what we have to look at is the
behavior of those countries and the challenge and the risk they
pose.
So what you have with China is while the U.S. supports a
free and open Pacific that recognizes the rights of each
country and promotes stability, the Chinese are continuing to
harass Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia and disrupt those
rights.
They are investing in their navy. They are expanding the
size of their force. They are investing in long-range missile
strike technologies designed to create direct threats to the
U.S. Navy.
And then in Russia, you have similar things. You have a
country that has, you know, invaded the Crimea, has occupied
parts of several neighboring countries.
Mr. Roy. Right.
Mr. Norquist. Each of them presents a very different
threat, one more land-based, one more sea-based. Both of them
away games, which is much preferable to having threats coming
straight here, but they are extending the range of what they
can do into the United States.
Mr. Roy. Well, thank you for that.
I think it is important for us to keep the defense
spending, and as I note that the President's budget has defense
spending going up modestly over the next 10, 15 years, and that
is important.
The last point I will make, and I know I am winding down my
time, Mr. Chairman, is that with respect to the coronavirus
situation, I just want to note that we had sent letters to DoD
that have not been responded to. We sent them two and a half
weeks ago with respect to the people moving to San Antonio, to
Lackland, to just ensure that San Antonio is being considered
in how we are handling those who are being cared for at
Lackland.
So I would appreciate a response on that, and that San
Antonio be, you know, consulted in terms of how our medical
facilities in the community are going to be used or assumed to
be used when we have individuals who may be exposed and may
exhibit symptoms at Lackland.
Mr. Norquist. Congressman, I will make sure that the letter
is answered. I know we have done briefings to the Hill on a
weekly basis, but we will make sure we answer the letter.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee
for five minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair.
I thank Deputy Secretary Norquist for his presence here.
Not wanting to take up all of my time, but give me a brief
answer to the gentleman's question from Texas, and that is what
are the Department of Defense's protocols for the medical care.
Is it military medical care that is being utilized for
individuals at a quarantine or are you using civilian medical
care?
And are you then intending to reimburse those civilian
resources that are going to be used even though persons are
quarantined on the bases?
Mr. Norquist. So the individuals that we are talking about
in the quarantine are not DoD personnel, and they are not
people who are employed or supported by the Department of
Defense. They are American citizens.
Ms. Jackson Lee. No, I am well aware of that.
Mr. Norquist. So we do not have legal authority to
reimburse somebody for their medical care because they are not
somebody we----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you just have accepted them as a non-
involved host. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Norquist. Correct. We get reimbursed by HHS to provide
basically a housing arrangement where they can be quarantined
that meets HHS' standards.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And then so if there is need for medical
care of these individuals, who is engaging with that on the
base?
Mr. Norquist. So HHS works with either the local community
or in some case they have been flown to other facilities based
on what is the right place to provide them the appropriate
level of medical care.
Sometimes it is local communities. Sometimes it is not, but
I defer to HHS on how they make those decisions on the----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you are a landlord, if you will, and
you are being paid by HHS.
Mr. Norquist. In this case, yes. We provide those
facilities to house them while they are in quarantine.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And secondarily, have you established a
protocol for active duty military that may--we understand there
is one and there may be another one--that may be infected by
the coronavirus?
Mr. Norquist. Yes, we have processes that we deal with when
somebody inside the Department of Defense is identified. We go
through the proper quarantine, and we follow the CDC standards.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I see that the budget has gone from about
$738 billion to $740 billion. Where is the money? Has the money
already been snatched as it relates to the building of the
wall?
Mr. Norquist. So the Fiscal Year 2021 budget request, it is
not our expectation and we do not foresee that there will be a
requirement to do border wall construction in 2021. We believe
that what the President is planning to do will meet his
requirement in 2020 and prior years. So we do not anticipate a
need or foresee one to realign any of the funds and we are not
asking for any in 2021.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, in this instance, the President
never asked anyone, as you well know. He just presumptively and
willy nilly snatches money away from people.
But obviously this is a very big budget. So are you telling
me that you have already expended dollars for the wall in the
last fiscal year, 2020?
Mr. Norquist. So in 2019 we funded money for the wall under
authorities 284 and 2808, and in Fiscal Year 2020, this year,
we have realigned funding under the authority of Section 284,
and that is the money that we are currently looking to execute
this year in support of the border wall.
Ms. Jackson Lee. It has not gone yet, but you are still in
the----
Mr. Norquist. I do not know if it has started to be
obligated yet, but it has been realigned.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am frustrated, Mr. Chairman, as to
whether, just speaking into the record, frustrated by the fact
that we cannot find a way to, in essence, withdraw that power
for the Defense Department to reprogram those dollars without
the authority of the U.S. Congress.
Let me ask. Is the spread of the coronavirus a national
security risk in your perspective?
Would you say that the non-defense investment to combat the
spread of such diseases and prevent a pandemics are part of our
national security?
Do we look at it in that manner?
Mr. Norquist. So I think it is important for the security
of the homeland that we properly address this. I think that the
President and interagency team have taken strong steps with
first limiting the flights, doing screening, establish
quarantining.
We will have to see how this disease continues to spread as
we try and buy time as they work on vaccines and therapeutics
to address it.
But it is a serious issue, and we are taking it seriously.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you put it in the category of a
national security issue, particularly as it spreads so quickly?
It can spread so quickly.
Mr. Norquist. It can become one if it continues to spread,
yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I have been working consistently on
another matter, triple negative breast cancer, the number of
women that you have in the United States military. Would you
look into tracking the funding for that?
It obviously deals with treating active duty military
women, and it is a more deadly form of cancer. I have been
working on that for more than a decade. I would like a response
back on working with me on funding of that area and working
with women members of your military, active duty, in terms of
triple negative breast cancer.
Mr. Norquist. Congresswoman, I would be happy to work with
you on looking into that issue.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And just as a followup, do you think it is
a better investment in stopping the coronavirus or working on a
wall that has shown no value?
Mr. Norquist. So when I talk to the border patrol agents on
the southwest border and asked them about the value of the
wall. They were very clear. The individual I talked with in the
border patrol said it works, that it has made a significant
difference in there.
We as a nation have to balance our ability both to secure
our borders and secure the health of our people, and those are
some of the tradeoffs that we make across the country.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Chairman, just one question.
When OMB withheld Ukraine assistance funding last summer,
did anyone at OMB or the White House tell you why they withheld
these funds?
Mr. Norquist. I am not familiar with that. My understanding
is that we received documents from OMB asking us to wait, and
then we received documents telling us to go, and then we
released the money accordingly.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So they did----
Mr. Norquist. I don't have anything further to add in terms
of the cause or what was being----
Ms. Jackson Lee. No explanation at all.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Chairman Yarmuth. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Crenshaw, for five minutes.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Deputy Secretary, for being here.
Just a quick question. In the face of a global pandemic
would you rather have less border security or more border
security?
Mr. Norquist. You are always better off with more border
security.
Mr. Crenshaw. Do physical barriers contribute to border
security?
Mr. Norquist. They very clearly support border security.
Mr. Crenshaw. Going back to the audit we were talking
about, I want to go into a little bit more detail on that. The
DoD was able to complete the first ever audit, found about $5.7
billion of efficiencies present.
Can you talk a little bit more about what that process was?
I have heard it called ``the Night Court,'' where we are
looking at unexecuted funds and seeing how we can reprogram
those.
What does that process look like? How do you decide where
to reprogram them?
Mr. Norquist. Sure. So what you are talking about, I
believe for the $5.7 billion is called the Defense-wide review,
a meeting the Secretary and I chaired, and what we did is we
walked through the part of the defense budget that is not
assigned to the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, what we call
the fourth eState.
And what we looked for was not the sort of things that were
bad or wasteful, but less important and something we would give
up in order to be able to invest in the higher end fight,
hypersonics, artificial intelligence, moves in the right
direction.
So we looked at programs that had been started decades ago
where the funding level was steady, and the answer is is it
still necessary, and in some of those we brought those funding
levels down.
We looked at foreign military sales. We charge other
countries for the overhead cost, but we did not charge them for
the full overhead cost. So the answer is, well, this is an area
where, you know, if they are buying the weapon, they should pay
the fully loaded cost. So we have come to Congress with an
authority change to do that.
We finished some of the transfers that were to DLA that
drive efficiency in the way they operate. We are rightsizing
some of the medical treatments facillities.
Not easy choices, but you know, we have a flat topline, and
we have got to find reforms internally, and this is what the
taxpayers expect us to do in order to be able to meet the
future challenges.
Mr. Crenshaw. And then next year's budget, I understand,
you aregoing to a zero-based budget review. What do you expect
to see in that process?
Mr. Norquist. Sure. So what the Secretary did when he was
in the Army was called Night Court, and he went through and he
did a zero-based review of the Army budget.
He has asked for the Air Force and the Navy in this cycle
to do the same thing, which really goes back to look at each of
the items, even things that have been steady-state in the past,
and ask are those still the highest priority, not are they
useful, but are they the highest priority compared to the
things you are not able to do now, and if they are not realign
the money.
Mr. Crenshaw. One concern I have, especially from my own
time in the military, is frivolous end-of-the-year spending.
What can we do to get a handle on the spending sprees that go
on, not just in the DoD, of course, but throughout government
at the end of the fiscal year?
What incentives can we put in place that commanders feel
obligated to give that money back to the Treasury?
Mr. Norquist. Right. So what happens in the federal
government and in Defense is when you get to year-end, you have
this odd use it or lose it, which you have $100. If you spend
it by 1 October, you get what you bought it for, but by 1
October if you have not, it goes away altogether.
This is not how you and I handle our salaries. We do not
get to the end of a calendar year and take all of the money we
earned and hand it back into our employer if we did not spend
it.
This creates some very bad incentives for people to spend
money at year-end. It adds to things being put in inventory
that we do not have awareness.
We have a proposal in the budget, which is an authority
that other federal agencies have, which say to someone if you
do not spend it, your organization gets to have 50 cents on the
dollar next year.
And our idea is if you are looking at year-end and what you
are looking at is not as valuable to you as 50 cents on the
dollar next year, we would rather you not buy it, and I think
that sort of incentive which some of the other federal agencies
have is a step in the right direction to drive down that
wasteful spending.
Mr. Crenshaw. Is that a new idea or have you implemented
that yet?
Mr. Norquist. It is a new idea we have proposed in this
year's budget to go into. We would ask for this Committee and
others' Members to support that provision.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK. Can you send us more details on that?
Mr. Norquist. I would be happy to, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. That would be great.
In my limited time, I want to talk about acquisition
processes. And what have you guys done to improve acquisition
processes and make them more efficient over the last couple of
years?
And do you believe we are in a good place yet to really
take advantage of the new cutting-edge innovation?
It is not often being done by the bigger defense
contractors, but by smaller companies. Are we able to quickly
take advantage of that?
Mr. Norquist. We are working on it. So let me get to your
first question, which is we had in the past a long acquisition
process, but Congress made some changes. They split our
research office from our acquisition office. They gave us
authorities to streamline some of these.
We in the last few months have issued the guidance to
implement those. We have mid-tier acquisition, as an example,
rapid prototyping. Those are some of the new processes that
allow us to move in a more expedited manner.
Those were very successful. We appreciate it.
The Army's iVATS program is another example of doing this.
There is more to be done. You know, we need to do more and
we continue to do outreach to smaller companies that do not
have traditional experience, but we are still a hard partner to
deal with, and we have a lot that we bring, and trying to
reduce those and facilitate that transition is key.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Panetta,
for five minutes.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity.
Deputy Secretary Norquist, welcome, and thank you for
taking the time to come here.
As we talked briefly, I wanted to mention a little bit
about my district on the central coast of California and many
of the installations there, from the Navy postgraduate school,
Defense Language Institute, Fleet Numerical Naval Research Lab,
Camp Roberts, Fort Hunter Liggett, and a few others that are
there.
Obviously, you know, very concerned with making sure that
they continue to contribute to our national security and have
the resources to do that.
But I have to say one of the ways that they do do that is
with the Office of Economic Adjustment, OEA, which you have
heard of quite a bit, which I do believe supports the readiness
and resiliency of those types of military installations in
defense communities around the country, not just on the central
coast, by furthering the priorities of the national defense
strategy.
The OEA has provided tremendous value to many local
installations by responding to defense job losses, reductions
in defense economic activity, tax base reductions, mission
needs for increased public services and infrastructure, and
local missions being impaired by civilian activity as well.
And some of the programs of interest include the Community
Investment Program, Military Installations Sustainability
Program, the Downsizing Program, that type of program which
assists states and local governments in response to DoD force
modernization, whether it be through BRAC or other processes.
And you know, recently, as you know, Secretary of Defense
Esper recently completed the Defense-wide review, and he did
that to obviously improve the alignment of time and money and
people for the NDS priorities.
The DWR was a comprehensive examination of DoD
organizations outside of the military departments, and one of
those was the OEA.
Now, as you know well, in the Fiscal Year 2020 reenacted,
the funding for OEA of almost $450 million; I think it was
449.6 million. Yet this President's budget cuts more than $418
million from OEA. Correct me if I am wrong.
Now, given the significance of OEA and how important it is
not just to our districts, but clearly in Congress by
allocating them as much as we did in Fiscal Year 2020, was that
understanding accepted in this A, considering the significant
amount of cuts for OEA?
Mr. Norquist. So, first of all, we do not normally request
450 million. I think we requested much smaller than that. Most
of those are adds put in by Congress.
From the number we had, what we did in the Defense-wide
review is we looked at the types of things we were funding, and
I forget the exact number for OEA and brought that down in
order to free up that money for artificial intelligence,
hypersonics, and others.
But as you point out, this is an area of congressional
interest. There are frequently adds put in on it to address
concerns that Congress had. Those would still continue, of
course, as Congress directs us to do those.
Mr. Panetta. OK. So what you are saying is that even though
Congress had that number, would you say a majority of that
number was congressional interest?
Mr. Norquist. Yes.
Mr. Panetta. OK.
Mr. Norquist. It was not in the President's budget. It was
in the enacted budget.
Mr. Panetta. Understood, understood. How much did the
President want to cut OEA last year, not this year but last
year?
Mr. Norquist. Most of these are initiatives and projects.
So it is not like it is a steady state, you know, where you
have a certain number of people over a certain number of years.
We fund the small staff that runs it. These are particular
initiatives to assist a particular base. So usually once the
funding is done, my understanding is the initiative is done.
So each year you have to decide what you want to do
separately for that year.
Mr. Panetta. Understood, understood. Well, just know that
we will continue to fight for OEA based on the importance to
our district.
Mr. Norquist. Understood.
Mr. Panetta. And look forward to funding it appropriately.
Thank you again for being here.
I yield back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Woodall,
for five minutes or 10 minutes depending on whether Mr. Womack
returns.
Mr. Woodall. I thank the Chairman.
Deputy Secretary, thank you for being here, and thank you
for taking all of our questions today.
I want to go back to some of the suggestions that the
Defense Department spending has just been running amuck. I have
only been in Congress for nine years. More often than not,
spending has gone down in your Department as opposed to up. I
do not want to conflate the DoD budget with the VA budget, of
course. Veteran spending has gone up each and every year, and I
think that is something that we share on both sides of the
aisle.
Defense Department spending as a share of GDP is more
likely to go down during the time I have been in Congress than
to go up.
As a Budget Committee Member, I want to see that balanced
budget. I appreciate you knowing right off the top of your head
where our national debt is because that is also a national
security issue, as we have discussed.
As we try to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and
certainly good supporters, great supporters of our men and
women in uniform, talk to me about that balance between
spending too little and spending too much.
I appreciated you making the point with Mr. Panetta that
the President and DoD are setting what they believe are
national security priorities. If the Congress wants to go a
different direction, they are welcome to spend money----
Mr. Norquist. Right.
Mr. Woodall [continuing]. any way the Congress wants to
spend money, but the President's budget is focused on national
security.
Tell me about that balance between spending too little and
spending too much.
Mr. Norquist. So what we look for is we understand that the
importance, fundamental importance, to the Department of
Defense, everything else that the country does and the
government does. What we do every day works under the
assumption that you can safely ship things across the ocean,
that you have access to that, that we have free trade, that we
do not have threats immediately on our border, that we are able
to work with a network of allies, that other countries are free
and independent.
All of this depends on a strong military. The ability to
deter other countries from engaging in conventional war
provides us an unbelievable level of peace and stability. It
drives them to, you know, either unconventional or terrorist
operations. It drives them to cyberattacks, but that is because
it is keeping them from a conventional war.
That ability drives the success of the U.S. economy. It
makes everything else in the federal budget possible. It allows
the government to have the revenue it does.
You want to size that right. You get it wrong, placing
second in a war is bad. It is catastrophically bad. So you want
to make sure you get that right. But it is not something that
just automatically needs to be higher. So when we look at
defense, what is necessary to meet the mission that we have
been given?
Right now we are at 3.1 percent of GDP. That is incredibly
low compared to where we have been in the past. We think in the
future we need to be careful not to fall too far, that we keep
that level up, but if we can provide the security, then we have
done our mission properly, and what we have to do is look
across the range of near-term and long-term threats to make
sure that we do not fail the American people by providing the
freedom and the security that they depend on.
Mr. Woodall. Yes. It is much more likely that my
constituents will identify with your terrorist mission than
identify with keeping shipping lanes open. So much in the DoD
budget that folks do not realize is there.
There was a time the Corps of Engineers would have been the
only group large enough to do major construction projects. It
may not be true in 2020.
We did not used to think about the DoD as a place for top-
notch medical research, but now the congressionally directed
medical research program is growing each and every year.
Tell me about those what I would call ancillary missions to
the national security mission that you laid out.
Mr. Norquist. Right. So the Department of Defense, because
of the range of things we do, we end up with a medical lead
sometimes. Think about it. Our forces are deployed all around
the world. There was a time in history where a disease killed
more people in the military than combat or anything else. So we
are used to what do we need to do to be able to safely deploy
troops into the Middle East, into Africa, into parts of Asia to
make sure they are protected.
And we do research on those, and we maintain the records,
and in some cases, we have some of the best data bases, and we
are working very closely with CDC and others to make sure that
our research is available to them and our research individuals
are available.
Likewise, we have large populations which we provide
medical support. They get not on the same scale as private
sector, but we have niche areas in which we have an expertise
because of the types of injuries we are trying to solve, and
that provides a benefit to other communities as well.
Mr. Woodall. So as the President is going through trying to
prioritize spending across those categories, whereas as it
relates to OEA, the President might say, ``I do not find this
to be a core mission.''
Mr. Norquist. Right.
Mr. Woodall. ``If Congress wants to fund it, Congress can
fund it.''
Now, when it comes to the Corps of Engineers, when it comes
to nationally directed medical research, those have been places
that I have seen the Administration place priority.
Mr. Norquist. Right.
Mr. Woodall. That is a shared vision?
Mr. Norquist. Right. And the Secretary's view, to get this
point, is you are better off with agencies that come forward
and say, ``I am willing to and believe these are lower priority
to invest than something else,'' than someone who comes forward
and says, ``I have to have everything and then something.''
Right?
The answer is you expect us to do due diligence over our
budget and to make prioritization choices. You may not agree.
You may change them. That is fine. They may adjust OEA. That is
fine.
But you expect us to scrub them, say these are the things
we think we need to stop, these are systems that we need to
retire, and this is what we need to invest in, and we can
defend and explain why we are doing that.
Mr. Woodall. I know that transparency is welcome on both
sides of the aisle.
Thank you very much for that.
Mr. Norquist. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman did not get 10 minutes
today, only five. His time has expired.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for 10 minutes.
Mr. Womack. I thank the Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Norquist. Sorry. I had to unplug. We had
the SOUTHCOM Commander in his hearing over on the
Appropriations side, and I felt obligated to spend some time
with Admiral Fowler over there.
My principal question is in regard--and I think this has
already come up today, and I apologize if it has--the
reprogramming of dollars for the border wall, which I support
building that wall.
I have been on record as saying that since the time I have
been here in Congress. However, it looks like that this year
the bill payer is the National Guard for the most part. You
took all of the NGREA money, the Humvee modernization money, C-
130Js, and so on.
As I explained in a previous hearing, as a Guardsman I
remember the days when I was an armor officer and jumping off
the back of an M60A3 (TTS) tank, knowing that if I ever
deployed to a combat theater and fell in on a tank, it was not
going to be the M60A3; it was going to be the M1. And so I use
that example to support my argument that we said around the
turn of the new millennium to our National Guardsmen that we
plugged into the war fight right after 9/11, my battalion being
one of the first out, that they were no longer going to be
treated as a hand-me-down force; that we were going to make
sure that they were manned properly, that they were trained
properly, they were equipped properly so that when they left
their home station and went to pre-deployment training, that
they were going to be falling in on the equipment that they had
been training on, and that they would see in theater.
This is a step backward from that, in my strong opinion,
and it's not just the fact the NGREA account has been zeroed
out or that the Humvee modernization has been zeroed out. Maybe
the most important issue at play here is the message that we
are sending to our citizen soldiers.
I think it is a step backward, and I think if it is a 1-
year issue, that may be one thing. I am concerned that it could
become the bill payer for other things, and I want to make sure
that there is somebody up here advocating for the men and women
that are scattered across this country doing something else
today, but this weekend will be training to go fight for their
country.
And I think it is a terrible message that we are sending to
our men and women in the Reserve component structure.
So I want to ask you really why, and let me just add to it.
As I understand the discussion, the question was put by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the National Guard leader,
General Lengyel, the question of whether there was a strategic
issue with the transfer of these funds.
And I understand that General Lengyel looked at it and said
there is not. It is not that we are going to lose a war by
losing these funds.
But remember the National Guard has another mission as
well, that sometimes we are too quick to forget, and that is
they have got a state mission. And some of this equipment is
extremely important and vital to the accomplishment of their
state missions, which will happen every single year.
So to you, Mr. Norquist, can we get some assurance that we
are not going to go back to the National Guard year over year
and take these funds for other purposes and continue to make
them a bill payer?
Mr. Norquist. So, first of all, we value the National
Guard. It is not our intent or expectation that would happen
with regard to the wall. We do not foresee that next year.
But I think the important thing is and let me address sort
of the why because there was no intent to create any impression
on the Guard. We value the Guard. We understand the role of
their mission.
So let me just walk through a few of the items. So, for
example, the Humvees, the Army is transitioning to the Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle. So when asked about that funding, we
went to the services.
Is this something that we asked for in the budget? Is this
something that when you ask for money above and beyond the
budget--and each of the services had--was it in there? Is there
something that you need for the future?
The Army said, ``We are moving away from the Humvee. We are
headed to the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.''
With regard to the other National Guard equipment, we had
put in the budget request for about four and a half billion for
the National Guard for equipment. Congress funded it. We
supported it. That is not affected.
There is a congressional add that has happened over the
last several years, this one of about $1.3 billion. So we
looked at that, and we said, ``Is that urgent? Is that
important?''
And what we saw was the congressional adds for the previous
two years, there was still $1.5 billion that had not been spent
yet. So there is still one and a half billion this year for
additional Guard equipment.
So it was not more of the emphasis on the priority of the
Guard. With some of the ship choices and others we said, ``Is
it money we need today and this year, or is it something that
is going to follow later after this year's funding has been
spent?''
Mr. Womack. Well, to be fair now, that NGREA spending is a
3-year obligation, correct?
Mr. Norquist. Correct. Normally, they normally spend mostly
in the first year, but you have up to three, right.
Mr. Womack. So is it not unfair to take a snapshot in time
and claim you have got all of this unfunded revenue sitting
there that can be used for these other purposes?
And, again, I go back to what I have said in the beginning.
If it is a 1-year anomaly that we are talking about here, I
believe our Reserve component structure will salute smartly and
charge the hill.
But I want to be on record for sure and I want somebody to
be able to stand up and tell me that this is not anticipated in
future years, i.e., when this Congress plugs in more money for
NGREA in Fiscal Year 2021 and beyond, that it is not going to
be looked as low hanging fruit to reprogram for other purposes.
And that is because our National Guard and Reserve
component, as you have already admitted, is a vital part of our
operational force today.
Mr. Norquist. So to answer you specifically, this is not
anticipated in future years. I will make you that commitment.
I think what I would highlight is for any program that had
an entire year's worth of funding unspent in a new year, we
would be looking at that program. This is not a Guard-specific
thing.
If I had other programs that had that large of a carryover
balance, we would be looking at them as potential sources in a
mid-year reprogramming or something else because it is
atypical, right?
But I think your key point is is this a one-off because of
obligation rates or something unusual, or is this a deemphasis
on the Guard. This is not a deemphasis on the Guard. The Guard
is critical, valuable. The Secretary recognizes their
importance, and we will make sure they are properly supported.
Mr. Womack. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back.
I now yield myself 10 minutes for questions.
Once again, Deputy Secretary, thank you so much for being
here.
I am kind of curious about some of the comments made by my
Republican colleagues about criticisms of this budget. I really
have not heard many criticisms of the budget. I have heard a
lot of very good questions and serious questions, and you have
treated them as legitimate and serious questions.
You mentioned in your statement, you referenced the 79 F-
35s that are in this budget. That has been a project which has
been controversial, to say the least, taken a long time, lots
of revisions in cost and so forth.
Could you give us an update on how that project stands now,
what we can expect the cost to be, and so forth?
Mr. Norquist. So the F-35 program is now on track to I
think it is rolling off its 500th aircraft. So it is well into
its production. It is producing one of the or probably the top
aircraft in the world, and it provides us incredible
capabilities.
The cost per aircraft is continuing to come down as we get
further into the process, down to I think just under $80
million a copy.
And one of the things that we are focusing on in our team
and working with them on is the sustainment cost, right? We
have gotten the program. The quality is getting there. The
price is coming down, but we need to make sure that the
sustainment cost because this is going to be the core aircraft
in our fleet is something we address.
And so that, I think, for exactly where we are going in the
future and focusing on, keeping and driving down the
maintenance and sustainment cost for the platform will be a
focus area for us.
Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you for that.
Recently the courts ordered work stopped on the Joint
Enterprise Defense Infrastructure Project, also known as JEDI,
which is a $10 billion cloud computing contract for the
Pentagon, and that was because of a legal challenge brought by
Amazon.
As anybody who has read the news knows that the contract
was originally awarded to Amazon, and then it was basically
taken away from them and awarded to Microsoft after the
President made comments about the Washington Post and Jeff
Bezos, the owner and chief stockholder of Amazon and the owner
of the Washington Post.
Now, I have no idea what went on within the Pentagon in
that process, but I am concerned that the President's comments,
tweets, and so forth that were aimed at Amazon creates
questions in the public's mind as to the credibility of the
process.
First of all, how important is that project for the
Pentagon and the Pentagon operations?
Mr. Norquist. So first of all, let me say two things. The
project is very important. When you think of what a cloud
computing does, imagine if every time you wanted to add an
electrical appliance you had to put in extra power generation
system beside your house, your building. That slows it down.
The artificial intelligence does the same thing. Instead of
buying a server, I plug into the system, and the cloud ramps up
the capability. So it acts like a power plant providing lower
or higher electricity, lower or higher computing power.
And when you think about it, the demands of the future
systems we are fielding are essential.
I would like to correct one thing though, which is in the
press they acted as if there was already a winner and they
thought a particular firm would win. That was never the case.
The evaluation process was done. Amazon was not selected.
Microsoft was, but it was not as if there was a reversal in the
decision. They were simply one of many competitors and in the
downselect.
And I would emphasize so that the public understands we
have a rigorous acquisition process. The people who evaluate
these proposals are divided into separate groups. Each one only
sees a segment of it. So they do not know how their scoring
affects the overall winner.
Generally their names are not released so people do not
know who to go and influence. They are held to strict criteria.
In fact, the court case with the judge is over the particular
application of an evaluation criterion. It was not about the
President. It is about the criteria.
A fair comment. We are working through that, but we have
professionals who do this, Uniform Military and career
civilians. I would like to say I have confidence in the
process, and when I was asked, I did not know who the winner
was, but I was asked can we go forward with the award.
I met with the IG's Office because I had promised Congress
I would, and I said, ``Before we award, you have been doing an
investigation. Have you seen anything that would cause you to
advise me not to go forward with the award?''
And the IG said, ``No, I have found no reason for you not
to go forward with the award.'' And so we did.
And so I just want to reassure people. We followed a
diligent process. It was rigorous. It was done appropriately,
and we have confidence in it.
Chairman Yarmuth. Is there a DoD policy in place forbidding
Pentagon officials from making public comments about bids for
contract?
Mr. Norquist. I do not know what the official policy is in
terms of commentary, but generally, we have a strict process in
terms of how we receive and evaluate awards, and we segregate
people from those who are allowed to work on the evaluation
process and those who do not.
Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you for that.
I want to turn to South Korea for a minute. So South Korea
has been paying us a billion dollars a year roughly to support
28,000-plus troops in that country, and that agreement has now
expired. We do not have an agreement in place, and it has been
reported that the President is asking for $5 billion
compensation from South Korea as opposed to one billion, a
fivefold increase.
Two questions. What would be the impact of and what would
happen if the South Koreans refuse to pay the $5 billion?
I know that there are roughly 9,000 Korean employees
working at our facilities to help support our troops over
there. So it potentially could be very disruptive to that
economy.
And does the President's budget contemplate a $5 billion
payment from the South Koreans?
Mr. Norquist. Sure. The State Department is the lead on the
negotiation, and I think we look forward to working with the
South Koreans. The President has been very clear. He wants
other countries to increase their investment in their own side,
and we support that.
In terms of the negotiation, I defer to the State
Department on the latest plans or what the backup plan would be
if one of them was not enacted.
I will have to get you for the record what assumptions are
built into our budget. I do not know that off the top of my
head.
Chairman Yarmuth. I would appreciate that very much.
That is actually all I have. So once again, I thank you for
your presence here, your responsiveness, as you have done two
years in a row now. We appreciate that very much.
And if there is no further business, this hearing stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]