[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2021
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
_________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana, Chairman
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KEN CALVERT, California
TIM RYAN, Ohio HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
DEREK KILMER, Washington JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
PETE AGUILAR, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Rebecca Leggieri, William Adkins, David Bortnick, Matthew Bower,
Brooke Boyer, Jenifer Chartrand, Walter Hearne, Paul Kilbride,
Hayden Milberg, Shannon Richter, Jackie Ripke, Ariana Sarar, and
Sherry L. Young
Subcommittee Staff
_________
PART 1
Page
United States Strategic Command .............................. 1
United States European Command................................ 27
National Guard and Reserve.................................... 49
Fiscal Year 2021 United States Navy and Marine Corps
Budget Overview............................................. 179
United States Space Force Organizational Plan................. 263
Defense Health Program........................................ 299
United States Southern Command................................ 387
Fiscal Year 2021 United States Army Budget.................... 409
United States Central Command................................. 469
United States Africa Command ................................. 489
Testimony of Members of Congress.............................. 511
Statements provided for the Record............................ 581
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-815 WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia TOM COLE, Oklahoma
BARBARA LEE, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota TOM GRAVES, Georgia
TIM RYAN, Ohio STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
DEREK KILMER, Washington MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, Utah
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
PETE AGUILAR, California JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois WILL HURD, Texas
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ED CASE, Hawaii
Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2021
----------
Thursday, February 6, 2020.
UNITED STATES STRATEGIC COMMAND
WITNESS
ADMIRAL CHARLES A. RICHARD, COMMANDER, U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND
Opening Statement of Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. We are at the appointed hour, and I am going
to call us to order and in a moment recognize my good friend,
Mr. Calvert, for a motion, but because this is the first
hearing we are having this year, many of us may have a new
staff person, associate staff person, many of us have new
fellows, and would want to make sure that everyone gets
introduced, because all of the Members at the dais understand
who actually does the work.
I would like to start by introducing Kyle McFarland, who is
now on our staff. Many of you may have met him, but just on the
chance you have not, he is the person you want to call.
Additionally, and I would turn it over for a moment to Mr.
Calvert, we have a new clerk on the committee as well.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
recognize our new defense clerk for the minority, Johnnie
Kaberle. Most of you know Johnnie. She has been up here on the
Hill for a long time working defense issues in one way or
another, and so I know that she is excited to be here and we
are excited to have her. So Johnnie. Here is Johnnie.
Mr. Visclosky. I have a new fellow, Major Steven Cash from
the United States Air Force. If he would stand up. Great. There
you go.
And, Betty, we will just, I think, go around for those
Members who are here.
Mr. Calvert. You know, Mr. Chairman, if I could just for
one second, I forgot to introduce my new fellow--shame on me--
Major Will Hendrickson from the United States Marine Corps.
Mr. Visclosky. All right. Will, thank you. Betty.
Ms. McCollum. So I don't have anybody new, but anybody who
has ever been an intern here, I would like to introduce a
former intern of mine, Ben Peterson, who now has I think, 20
years.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes. I would like to introduce my fellow
from the United States Army, Cody Rush. Captain Cody Rush.
Mr. Cuellar. I want to introduce my new fellow, Mr.
Aguilar.
My new fellow is Major Will Chang, Air Force. Thank you for
being here. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Great. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Nobody new. Wendell White on my team behind
me.
Mr. Visclosky. Great. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Well, thank God I don't have anybody new. Maria.
I live in fear of having to introduce someone. I am very lucky
to have her.
Mr. Womack. I am delighted to have my military fellow,
Natalia Gruenbaum, a West Point graduate, military police
officer, and terrific soldier, terrific. Thank you, Natalia.
Mr. Carter. My new Army fellow is Wes Dempster, Captain.
Great guy.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Diaz-Ballart.
Mr. Diaz-Ballart. I am honored to have Senior Master
Sergeant Lucy Stockett, U.S. Air Force.
My fellow will take on your fellows any day.
Mr. Visclosky. And I do not want to prolong this, but in
fairness, if there are any new fellows on this side of the
room, if you would just state your name and the Member you are
working for, please, so we get to know you.
Mr. Vinacco. Good morning. I am Mike Vinacco. I am Ms. Kay
Granger's fellow. I am an Air Force major.
Mr. Cho. James Cho, United States Air Force, intelligence
officer working for Congresswoman Bustos.
Mr. Visclosky. Do you want to sit here with the adult table
or what?
Mr. Cho. I am comfortable in the back.
Mr. Valiaveedu. Good morning. Roby Valiaveedu, United
States Air Force fellow for Representative Kirkpatrick.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you. Great.
Ms. Wallis. Emily Wallis, U.S. Navy, with Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Visclosky. Great.
Ms. Gauthier. Liz Gauthier, I am a Navy civilian supporting
Representative Lowey.
Mr. Visclosky. Great. Thank you. And I believe we are done.
And, Admiral, thank you----
Oh.
Mr. De la Cruz. Santiago De la Cruz, with Congressman Ryan.
Mr. Visclosky. You are not from Ohio, are you?
Mr. De la Cruz. I am not from Ohio.
Mr. Visclosky. That is okay.
Admiral, thanks for your indulgence. We will get started.
I would recognize Mr. Calvert for a motion.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move that this portion of the hearing today, which
involves sensitive material, be held in executive session
because of the sensitivity of the material to be disclosed.
Mr. Visclosky. Today we welcome Admiral Charles A. Richard,
the commander of the United States Strategic Command.
Admiral, thank you very much for being here. And I want to
extend my thanks to you and all of the men and women who serve
under your command.
You have one of the gravest responsibilities of anyone in
the United States government if called upon, and we all hope
that day never comes. It is your mission to execute the
deployment of nuclear weapons.
The leadership of the Department of Defense has affirmed
repeatedly that modernization of the strategic deterrent is the
Department's number one priority. We know that effort will be
costly.
We also know that the Department has outlined an ambitious
program to modernize our conventional forces to meet the needs
of what is referred to as great power competition.
While the administration appears to be fully committed to
modernizing our nuclear systems, I must also stress my concern
that the administration has not demonstrated the same
commitment when it comes to arms control.
Modernizing our strategic deterrent is part of ensuring
that a nuclear war is never fought, but so are arms control
efforts.
Measures such as new START Treaty help to eliminate
uncertainty and thus improve stability between nuclear armed
powers.
Arms control is not a product of starry-eyed idealism, but
of hard learned lessons from the cold war.
To paraphrase what the late Senator Richard Lugar said when
asked about his support for new START, the Senator said: ``I am
trying to take warheads out of Russia so they don't hit
Indiana.''
Also, I appreciate the return on investment from arms
control treaties. The development, production, deployment, and
maintenance of nuclear weapons is incredibly expensive.
Treaties are essential to keeping those costs in check.
Arms control is not just a philosophical matter for this
committee. For example, at the Department's insistence, we have
appropriated nearly $188 million in fiscal years 2019 and 2020
to recapitalize the aircraft that carry out U.S. missions under
the Open Sky Treaty.
To date, very little of that money has been spent, and it
is unclear whether the administration intends to abandon the
treaty.
Putting aside the question of whether it would be wise to
remove ourselves from Open Skies, the committee has an obvious
interest in ensuring that funds are spent for the purposes for
which they are appropriated.
Before I turn to Admiral Richard for his opening statement,
I would like again to turn to Member Calvert for any opening
statements that he would like to make.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Admiral Richard. I appreciate you taking time
to come talk with us since this hearing informally begins, so
let the last budget cycle, for our chairman, I want to begin by
saying what an honor it has been to serve alongside him all
these years. He has been a great partner and friend. I look
forward to working with him in the months ahead before he rides
off into the Indiana sunset.
Mr. Visclosky. When you can see.
Mr. Calvert. Yes. When you can see. If those steel mills
are working properly, they will--never mind.
Admiral, thanks again for taking the time to discuss with
us some very serious issues involving our national security.
Nothing is more critical to our defense than our ability to
deter and respond to adversaries armed with nuclear weapons. I
will be asking about our latest threat capability, and it has
caused great concern up here, the continued development of
hypersonic missiles by China and the reported fielding of them
by Russia in December. As you know, these missiles are nearly
impossible to shoot down with current technology.
Given that current plans don't call for us to have such a
missile operational until at least 2022, such a weapon could
significantly degrade our strategic advantage over the next 2
years, especially if it is armed with a nuclear warhead.
I will also be asking about transitioning certain
responsibilities to the Space Force and the impact to our
readiness across both organizations. I am curious to understand
how friction is being mitigated during the time of transition
and what steps are in place to ensure no degradation to mission
occurs.
Finally, I look forward to hearing your candid assessment
of where we stand in relation to potential adversaries when it
comes to our nuclear modernization efforts.
Thank you for your service, Admiral, and I look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Calvert. Admiral,
the floor is yours.
[The written statement of Admiral Richard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Clerk's Note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
be printed due to the classification of the material
discussed.]
Wednesday, February 27, 2020.
UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND
WITNESS
GENERAL TOD D. WOLTERS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, COMMANDER, UNITED
STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND
Opening Statement of Chairman Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. We will come to order. This morning the
subcommittee will receive testimony and an update on U.S.
military activities in the European theatre. Before we get
started, I would like to recognize my friend, the ranking
member, Mr. Calvert, for a motion.
Mr. Calvert. I move that those portions of the hearing
today which involve classified material be held in executive
session because of the classification of the material to be
discussed.
Mr. Visclosky. So ordered. Thank you very much, Mr.
Calvert.
I would like also to remind our members any materials
placed in front of you marked classified should be left at your
chair at the conclusion of the hearing. We do welcome our sole
witness, General Tod Wolters, Commander European Command and
NATO Supreme Commander. General, welcome to your first
appearance before the committee today. We appreciate you being
here to share your expertise.
Many of the countries in your area of responsibility have
been our steadfast allies for decades. From the Arctic to
Israel, your area of responsibility comprises the core of our
support for the past 70 years. However, to maintain even the
oldest and strongest of alliances, it takes a constant effort,
and even then, there will be differences of opinion.
A case in point is the past year, the 29 allies of NATO
reached an historic agreement on a military strategy to address
Russia and the international terrorism. Nevertheless, some
important European leaders have publicly challenged that
premise that a strong NATO exists, but there is an argument,
and an agreement, and its effective implementation will cost
money.
As we discussed yesterday, the fiscal year 2021 budget
request for the European Defense Initiative is 31 percent less
than at its peak in fiscal year 2019. And while that decline
was forecast in prior budget requests, it comes at a time when
the overall economic conditions in Europe are best described as
tepid. From that vantage point, I would seek your perspective
on how our allies will interpret the decrease in EDI as many of
them are increasing their military budgets to meet NATO burden-
sharing requirements.
I would also like you to give us an update on the threat
Russia poses, not only to the United States, but to our allies,
its scope, and what the United States can effectively do to
manage the risk.
And finally, I would also like you to share with us the
quality-of-life issues for each of our servicemembers under
your command, and what we might do to better remedy the
concerns they may have.
With that, again, I thank you for appearing before the
committee today, and would recognize Mr. Calvert for any
opening statement he has.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chairman Visclosky.
Welcome, General, to your first appearance before this
subcommittee. We appreciate your service, and that of all the
men and women under your command. We are committed to working
with you to ensure that EUCOM remains postured to support U.S.
global operations, reassure partners and allies of our
commitment to their security, and ensure that NATO can credibly
deter Russia aggression.
This hearing takes place against the backdrop of a review
by Secretary Esper of our combat commands, with the goal of
ruthless prioritization by the Department in support of great
power competition with China and Russia. In this regard, I hope
you will tell us whether key readiness concerns have been
addressed, such as with respect to rapid deployment in a crisis
and a counter-air capability against the growing Russian air
and missile threat.
Similarly, I would appreciate an assessment of our ability
to deter Russia aggression in the Baltic states, including
through effective crisis management, intelligence sharing, and
countering Russian information warfare and hybrid attacks.
Finally, Moscow appears to be playing an increasingly
active role in the Balkans, perhaps hoping to derail the
region's integration into Europe and undermine the resilience
of democratic institutions in Southeastern Europe. It would be
helpful to know how EUCOM, your interagency partners, and
allies are working together to reduce space for Russian
interference in the region.
I want to conclude my brief statement by thanking you once
again for your service, look forward to your testimony.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
General, you may proceed. Your written testimony is entered
into the record. It would hopefully like to give members two
rounds. So if you can summarize your testimony, we would
appreciate that very much. And we will get started.
[The written statement of General Wolters follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Clerk's Note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
be printed due to the classification of the material
discussed.]
Tuesday, March 3, 2020.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE
WITNESSES
GENERAL JOSEPH L. LENGYEL, CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES LUCKEY, CHIEF OF THE ARMY RESERVE
VICE ADMIRAL LUKE McCOLLUM, CHIEF OF THE NAVY RESERVE
LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID G. BELLON, COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE
LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICHARD W. SCOBEE, CHIEF OF THE AIR FORCE RESERVE
Opening Statement of Chairman Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to
order.
This morning, the committee will receive testimony on the
posture of the National Guard and Reserve components in their
fiscal year 2020 budget request. This will be a two-panel
hearing. Panel one recognizes the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau. Panel two will recognize the Reserve component chiefs
from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserves. I
would encourage all members to stay for both panels.
Our witness for panel one is General Joe Lengyel, Chief of
the National Guard Bureau. We are pleased to welcome the
general, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
General, welcome back to the subcommittee for your fourth,
and I bet from your perspective, thank goodness, final hearing
as chief.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. As you are retiring later this year, all of
us really do wish you the best of luck and do thank you for a
very good life of service to this country.
This subcommittee has provided the Reserve component with
significant resources through the National Guard and Reserve
Equipment Account, an appropriation which is not included in
the President's budget request, as well as additional funding
for the counterdrug operations, Humvee modernization,
helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft and more. We are looking
forward to hearing about the importance of this investment in
the 54 States and territorial Guard organizations. However, we
would like to cover all aspects of funding for the Guard and
Reserve today, to include your request for funding in the
military personnel and operations and maintenance accounts.
With that, again, I thank you for appearing today. We will
ask you to proceed and present a summarized statement in a
moment. But first, I would recognize Mr. Calvert for any
statement he has.
Opening Statement of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chairman Visclosky.
And I would like to welcome General Lengyel back to the
subcommittee. Since this will likely be your final appearance
before us prior to your retirement, I want to join my
colleagues in thanking you for your nearly 40 years of service
to our Nation. And I know you and Sally are probably looking
forward to getting the heck out of here and heading back to
Texas, so happy travels.
I also know that I speak for all the members and staffers
who have worked with you when I say we will all miss you. You
have done a fantastic job.
As we gather here today, our Nation is even more dependent
on our more than 450,000 citizen airmen and soldiers more than
ever.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I close my opening remarks.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
General, your full statement is in the record. You may
proceed. Thank you very much.
Statement of General Lengyel
General Lengyel. Thank you.
And good afternoon, everyone. Chairman Visclosky, Ranking
Member Calvert, and distinguished members of this subcommittee,
it is an honor for me to be here today on behalf of the men and
women of the National Guard. For nearly 4 years, I have served
as Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and I am both proud and
humbled by the service of our National Guard.
Today's 450,000 Guard members are the most professional,
dedicated, and capable soldiers and airmen I have served with
in my 40-year career. We do tremendous things every day to
support our country in the war fight, in the homeland, and
building partnerships around the world. Our men and women of
the National Guard do not serve alone, and I would like to take
this moment to thank the families and the employers of those
who support them. I would also like to thank the members of
this subcommittee for their continued support of the National
Guard. This includes especially your support of the National
Guard Reserve Equipment Account which helps ensure our long-
term readiness, lethality. It helps modernize our force, helps
fund our domestic critical duties items, and helps sustain and
build the National Guard capability.
In the past year, the National Guard served on every
continent, in every combatant command, in 70 countries. As we
speak here today, more than 40,000 members of the National
Guard are deployed or on duty somewhere at home or around the
world. Our men and women of the Guard have seen combat, what we
are ultimately trained and equipped and prepared for. We are an
operational force providing strategic depth to the United
States Army, the United States Air Force, and now the United
States Space Force.
As America's primary domestic military response force, the
National Guard remains engaged here at home. On any given day,
approximately 10,000 soldiers and airmen are serving homeland
defense, homeland security, and domestic operations here at
home. As State and local governments find themselves under
attack by cyber assailants, the National Guard's nearly 4,000
cyber warriors are ready to respond at the request of
leadership in their States. As our communities find themselves
battling wildfires in California or floods in Missouri or
earthquakes in Puerto Rico, the National Guard continues to
live up to our motto of always ready and always there.
The National Guard supports the Department of Homeland
Security along our southwest border. Today, approximately 2,500
National Guard members from 21 States are assisting our
partners as they help secure the border in Arizona, California,
New Mexico, and Texas.
Our success in both the warfight and the homeland is a
result of our unique partnerships at all levels: international,
Federal, State, and local. Key among these are the relationship
we built through the State Partnership Program. These States
and nation relationships facilitate security cooperation based
on mutual trust and cultural appreciation. Today, with this
important program, we now have 84 partnerships, with more on
the way. This directly supports a key tenet of the National
Defense Strategy of strengthening alliances and building
partnerships.
The National Guard has accomplished much over the past
year, and I am proud of our soldiers and airmen who have boldly
taken on every challenge they have faced. We are truly a 21st
century National Guard. We have evolved much since 1636. We
have transformed even more since 9/11. We are a unit-based,
unit-equipped, surge-to-war Reserve component. We must adapt,
change, and prepare for the future. We must continue to make
strides in readiness, investing in our people, and continuing
to innovate.
Readiness means we must be competitive in every domain.
Traditionally, that has meant land, air, and sea, but today,
competitive domains includes space and cyberspace. Since 1995,
the Air National Guard has supported the Air Force in the space
domain, from monitoring missile threats to providing space
intelligence. As space missions transition from the Air Force
to the Space Force, it is imperative that the National Guard
remain aligned with the active components we support. The Air
National Guard is aligned with the Air Force, the Army Guard is
aligned with the Army, and I suspect we need a Space Guard
aligned with the Space Force.
Furthermore, we must continue to invest in our greatest
weapon and most valuable asset: our people. We must give them
the training, the equipment, the full-time support they need to
seamlessly be inoperable with our active components. We must be
able to recruit, retain the right people, and have the 21st
century National Guard that reflects the communities where we
serve. We ask much of our servicemen and -women today, and I
ask for your continued support on your behalf.
Chairman Visclosky, I wish you much health and happiness in
your upcoming retirement, and thank you for your years of
service to our Nation. Ranking Member Calvert and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for your opportunity to testify to
you today. I appreciate your support of the National Guard, and
I look forward to all of your questions.
[The written statement of General Lenygel follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Visclosky. General, thank you very much. As I may have
told you when we met, some people inquire as to why I decided
not to run for reelection. And I told them if you are not going
to be around next year, it is not worth coming back.
General Lengyel. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Normally, I defer my questions, but in this
instance, I would like to ask the first question, and then I
will turn to Mr. Calvert, and I would have a short statement.
Congress started appropriating funding for the National
Guard and Reserve components through the National Guard and
Reserve Equipment Account in 2001 as a response to the
decreases in Guard and Reserve equipment funding, even while
procurement budgets increased for the Department. For the past
19 fiscal years, Congress added this appropriation in an
attempt to ensure the equipment needs of the Guard and Reserve
components are met and readiness levels can be achieved.
Additional funding for aircraft or vehicles has also been
provided in appropriations bills with the funding specifically
noted in the bill or report for a specific Guard or Reserve
component.
Last month, no news to anyone on the committee, the entire
fiscal year 2020 appropriations of $1.3 billion for the account
funding for the Humvee modernization, as well as funding for
aircraft specifically appropriated for the Guard and Reserve,
was transferred from the Department of Defense to the
Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of building a
wall. The Department did not consult with Congress prior to
this transfer.
In testimony last week to the House Armed Services
Committee, the Secretary of Defense defended the decision to
use funding specifically appropriated for the Guard and Reserve
by relying on his Chair of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley,
for his analysis. General Milley said he was asked to analyze
the move and concluded national security would not be severely
impacted. In short, he said: What I said was that this
reprogramming of $3.8 billion was not a significant immediate
strategic negative impact to the overall defense of the United
States. Quoting General Milley further: It is a half percent of
the overall budget, so I can't in conscience say it is
significant.
The two problems I have with that is I think $3.8 billion
is a huge amount of money. I think $1.3 billion is a huge
amount of money. And maybe one half of 1 percent is not much
out of $5. It is a lot of money out of $700 billion. The
question I would have, essentially, is were you consulted? What
programs and purchases were intended to be procured? And what
is going to be the impact of the transfer of these funds,
General?
General Lengyel. Chairman, thank you for the question. It
is an important question. If I could say, was I consulted, I
would tell you the answer to that question would be no. I was
not consulted prior to the decision being made to transfer the
funds. I was asked about it prior to the funds being
transferred, and the comment you referenced to General Milley
there about--and we were asked do we disagree with this
statement. The Chairman said this will not seriously compromise
the military capability of the DOD to defend the United States
at the strategic level. And when he further explained, that
means we lose a war if we don't get this money.
Does anyone in this room think that taking this amount of
money exceeds that threshold? I did not think that it exceeded
that threshold.
But I will tell you. The NGREA account is incredibly
important to the National Guard and Reserves. This year, for
us, it was $790 million. That is $790 million that is less--
that we will spend less on predominantly two things. In the Air
Guard, we predominantly use this money to make our platforms
more lethal, more modern, more survivable than they would
otherwise be if we do not have the NGREA funds to do it. In the
Army Guard, we buy predominantly critical dual-use equipment
with NGREA money. Things that we--it is our only source of
money, really, to buy things that only the National Guard does,
things that buy us things for domestic operations, things like
buckets for helicopters that put out fires, things like
communications systems for our chemical, biological, or
radiological nuclear sets that are predominantly in the Guard,
things that are communication suites, test sets for men and
women of the Guard to do training on. These are things that
would never be bought for us, for the Army Guard, by the United
States Army.
And on the air side, they are things that are done for
platforms that usually the Air Force no longer has. So older
model F-16s which only reside in the Guard, C-130H models which
only reside in the Guard and Reserve, systems that would not
meet the threshold for Air Force modernization activities.
So this money is very important to us, and over the next 3
years, between now and 2023, we have a very good history. As
you, in fact, in 2001--I take NGREA back to the early 1980s,
predominantly. 1983 or 4 we began getting NGREA, and it made
our platform more lethal, more able to go to war, safer for men
and women to fly in combat. And so this money that we don't
have, at the very best case, it gets deferred a following year.
Things that we were going to do, such as modernize our threat
warning systems, modernize our infrared systems on our F-15s,
new avionics in C-130s, those types of things will now wait a
year, at a minimum, and that assumes that this committee
continues to support us further with the NGREA funds down the
road.
So I was surprised that they took the money, and it is
going to have a near-term materiel impact on our Air Guard for
sure, and it will affect our commodities that we are going to
have to deal with the domestic operations portfolio in the Army
Guard for sure as well.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert.
REPROGRAMMING OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Calvert. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, I support the border security, the so-called
wall. However, this reprogramming activity is troublesome. I
think that all of us, I don't care which side of the aisle that
you are on, if this kind of activity is to continue, we are
going to, as Members of Congress, lose control of the
appropriating process. And I preface this by also saying that
there is money in the fiscal year 2020 and the fiscal year 2021
bill to more than adequately continue to build the border wall
through this year and next year.
So I have never been really told by, you know, various
folks why this had to be done in the first place. And how we
found out about it, at least how I found out about it was a
Wall Street Journal reporter running up behind me to let me
know that this was taking place, which was not a great way to
communicate. So I just wanted to let the chairman know that I
agree that this kind of reprogramming has to end.
I mean, there is going to be a future President at some
point, maybe President Sanders, who may want to create a
national emergency and move money into Health and Human
Services. Who knows? I mean, that is not for the White House to
determine; that is for Congress.
So anyway, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. I am done with my questions.
Mr. Calvert, if you have any questions that would be fine.
GUARD AND SPACE FORCE
Mr. Calvert. No. If you are ready for questioning, I will
move on to that, yes. Okay.
General, I know that we are expecting a report in a month
or two detailing how the Space Force will incorporate the
Reserve and the National Guard force. And as you know, the
Guard has about 1,500 personnel, many of which are in my home
State of California because of our interaction in space,
especially in Los Angeles, El Segundo area. In many ways, I
have always felt the guard complements the mission of the Space
Force. And in areas where you have private industry attracting
the best talent, the Guard is a great way for these patriotic
folks to serve their country at the same time as staying
involved in the businesses they work at. And understanding you
can't get ahead of the report, what role do you see the
guardsmen playing in the space mission?
General Lengyel. Sir, thank you for the question. I think
that, you know, as I said in my remarks, the National Guard has
been in the space mission for a long time. We have been doing
mission in space for the United States Air Force for 25 years,
since 1995. There are space units in seven States, and the
territory of Guam now is standing up a space unit.
So I believe a couple of things. One is I believe that one
of the things that is best about us is we are aligned, and what
we do so well is we mirror the culture of our parent service.
So there is only one standard to be a soldier in the Army,
there is only one standard to be an airman in the Air Force,
and there will be a standard to be a space warrior in the
future Space Force. And I believe that it is important that the
space capability currently in the Air and National Guard should
move into the Space Force at the same time that all the other
space capability that is in the Air Force, when it moves to the
Space Force. We can't do that unless there is a component for
us to move into.
And thus, you know, for over a year, I have been advocating
for the creation of a Space National Guard component. I know it
is still under discussion. General Raymond is looking at the
U.S. Space Force and how to build this 21st service
organization, and I support that.
But we have been looking at the Reserve component construct
for a year, and the Air Force has done an internal study
analysis, an Air Force A-9 that examined various options, and I
believe that the creation of a Space National Guard is well
postured for all the things that you say. As space moves into
the commercial sector, it will posture itself, and there will
be opportunity there to leverage that commercial sector and
build Reserve units.
And the other thing given about the National Guard is we
are the only Reserve component deployable force structure in
the space business. We have units that are unit-built, unit-
equipped that have deployed to the Middle East, that have
deployed into the Pacific that do missions in the space domain.
No other Reserve component does that.
So as I look forward to structure moving from the Air Force
and the Air National Guard as well, I would like to see it
move, and I think it should move, into the Space Force so that
we can recruit people. They become space warriors just like all
the other space folks. They can have the doctrine, the
personnel, the training opportunities of all other space
warriors. So that is my recommendation as we continue to
discuss what the Space Force will actually finally look like.
UNFUNDED LIST FOR THE GUARD
Mr. Calvert. Good. Thank you for that answer. One other
quick question, General. I know that the Guard does not
historically submit unfunded priority lists, and maybe you just
want to get the money you lost on the reprogramming, but could
you walk the committee through what those would be for this
fiscal year, if you had your druthers?
General Lengyel. From an equipment standpoint or personnel,
I have a--you know, as you know, many of the programs in the
National Guard are funded with adds from this committee. You
know, I think that, you know, future requirements for C-130
platforms are there. Future requirements for advanced radars
for F-16s would be on an unfunded list for us. You know, I
think that as we look across other things that I have portrayed
that are important, full-time support for the Army National
Guard, additional money for counterdrug, additional money for
FSRM to build our facilities, all of those kinds of things are
on my unfunded list. And if you are asking me for an unfunded
list, then I can create one and give it to you on the record,
take it for the record and give a more accurate appraisal.
Mr. Calvert. I would welcome you to do exactly that. Thank
you.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. The gentleman recognizes Ms. McCollum in one
second. But in my introduction, I was remiss. I met with the
Defense Minister from Estonia this morning, and he was very
complimentary to you and the Guard for the work as far as
helping with cybersecurity. Also, I hate to say it in the
gentleman's presence, he was grateful and thought it was a very
strong relationship as far as the State partnership with
Maryland as well as the country of Estonia, so I do thank you
for that as well.
Ms. McCollum.
PFOS CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
I am going to ask you some questions for the record on
groundwater remediation of PFOS chemicals and the Reserve
component installation. So we know the EPA still needs to adopt
a standard PFOS groundwater remediation, but the appropriators
did include $127 million to the fiscal year 2020 defense bill
to begin addressing PFOS chemical contamination. It includes
$100 million specifically for the Air Force, as you are the
largest user of firefighting foam that contains these
chemicals.
So I would like to get a better idea of the scope of PFOS
contamination on both the Guard, and I will be asking the same
thing from the Reserve as well. So I am going to be asking you
to give us an update on the scope of contamination that you
have been able to record, what States are particularly impacted
the most, if you are having any issues with the Air Force in
terms of ensuring that the fiscal year 2020 funds for
remediation are available to the Reserve component for this
issue, and what you would do with additional funding if you
were to receive it beyond the fiscal year 2021 for the Air
Force's environmental remediation. So I will ask you to do that
for the record.
EXPANSION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS
I have two questions. I am going to give them to you both
at the same time, kind of piggybacking on what the chairman was
just talking about with State partnerships. This is important
to many of us in this room. We care deeply about our Guard
partnerships. My State of Minnesota has been partners with
Croatia for over 20 years. I was there when we welcomed them to
our State. It is a great relationship. The Guard also does an
exchange with Norway on a regular basis. So it is important
that we keep expanding State partnerships, especially into
Africa, especially when the Chinese have deep engagement in
that continent.
So I would like you to give us an update on the expansion
of the National Guard State partner program in Africa. My
understanding is Ethiopia is the next country on the list. I
think that makes good sense, having spent a lot of time in
Africa. So that is my first question.
NATIONAL GUARD AND CORONAVIRUS EMERGENCY
My second one is just kind of if you could give our
committee a brief update on how you think the National Guard
can work with us as we deal with this coronavirus emergency. We
are starting to see the impacts on public health systems. Last
week, in Washington State, Governor Inslee declared a state of
emergency, which gives him use of the National Guard. I had a
conversation with Governor Walz, a former National Guard member
himself, and we were talking about, you know, if the Guard was
to be able to be used, nobody does logistics better than the
Guard. And as hospitals are having to prep for ICU rooms with,
you know, strained resources, no one knows how to move things
and get things built. So those are my two questions, and the
PFOS is for the record.
General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am. We have been doing a lot of
work on PFOS, and I am happy to give you all that data for the
record, and we will get that to you ASAP.
Regarding the State Partnership Program, so it is 84
countries currently. And as you mentioned, there are a couple
that are still--that are just now coming to be filled, two of
them in Africa. Egypt, along with Ethiopia, will be. Africa now
has, as you may know, 15 partnerships, which is up
substantially over the last several years. So I think that, you
know, currently, that program is funded in the budget at about
$16 million, and what we need is about $29 million so we make
sure we have enough activity, meaningful activity, between the
States and the partnerships that are ongoing.
I just got back from a trip in the South Pacific. There is
two brand new partnerships there that I just visited, Fiji and
Tonga, as parts you mentioned, Chinese, and the hotel I stayed
in had a Chinese flag flying over the hotel as I was there.
They were thrilled to have the partnership. They were thrilled
to have the engagement. The training and engagement with their
State partner, which, in both cases, is the State of Nevada, is
a superb tool for our engagement in the South Pacific and in
the region. In Croatia and Norway, the two relationships with
Minnesota, have proven over time to be extremely valuable as
well.
So was there anything else on the State Partnership
Program? In the near term coming up is Ethiopia. They have yet
to have a partner approved, and same thing for Egypt, although
that is getting close to having a partnership.
With respect to the coronavirus, the coronavirus--so
obviously, we are taking that very seriously, and at the
National Guard, we are doing the things that we always do. We
are planning, we are coordinating, and we are communicating. So
planning means we are looking internally for us across the
equipment, the personal protective equipment activities that we
have or the equipment just in case some units need it, and
there is some, and we do have some, should some National Guard
units become engaged in a contact scenario with people that
happen to be infected.
The coordinating piece is working closely with the
Department of Defense COVID-19 Task Force that is working with
DOD, HHS, NORTHCOM, and all of the players involved in trying
to assess the scope and scale of this activity and what it is
going to require of us, to include looking across the
enterprise for places where, should they need, there is housing
available or ability to have people quarantined in States and
the like. We are just looking at those things now. None are
being used anymore. We just finished using a station in Camp
Ashland, Nebraska, where we had 57 people there who were being
held till their virus was--or their quarantine time was up.
So I think we will continue to do those kinds of things.
And the coordinating piece is, as we do, is where the National
Guard could be used. As you mentioned, nobody does logistics
better. Nobody does command and control better. Transportation.
There are many, many things that National Guards can be used
for in their States that can help governors and State and local
officials deal with what might happen as a result of the COVID-
19 virus.
So, yes, we are engaged. We are involved. We are
communicating with the States and the Adjutant Generals. So
far, Washington State is the only State that has called me and
said, our governor has alerted us that said we may put people
on a State Active Duty status for logistics and planning kinds
of activities, but I suspect there will be more as this tends--
as this unfolds.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Cole.
MC-12 MISSION
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, General, I want to join everybody on the committee
and thank you for 40 years of wonderful service to our country,
but I see your wife sitting behind you, so I want to thank her
for 40 years of wonderful service supporting you so you could
do your mission. And your family, I know that is not possible
without their help, so thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I am always pretty careful when it comes to
these Guard and Reserve issues because I am sitting to the left
of the Kentucky National Guardsman of the year for 1960 and a
member of the Kentucky National Guard Hall of Fame, and I am
sitting to the right of a 30-year guardsman who was a Colonel
and Commander to our forces in the Sinai, so----
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Cole, if they were so sharp, they would
have Tahiti partnership program.
Mr. Cole. I will be suitably humble in my questions.
I have got two, one parochial and one actually my good
friend from Minnesota just touched on. And with some of the
difficult budget decisions that you had, we have seen a cutback
on the MC-12 mission, which is an ISR platform. For my friends
that don't know, there happens to be one of them located at
Will Rogers Air National Guard Base in Oklahoma City, the 137th
Special Operations Wing. They have done really incredible work,
I mean, great work in Colombia. They just provide the
capability that we can quite often give our allies that don't
have these kinds of platforms, and, you know, played an amazing
role in a number of places. Some of them we can talk about
publicly, some of them, quite honestly, we can't. But we have
got a lot of great pilots there. We have got a lot of great
aviation support units there. We have got terrific facilities
there.
So obviously, as that mission gets scaled down because the
platform is being retired, we are concerned with what is going
next there, if anything. So do you have any thoughts on that?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. Well, I will tell you that I
agree with everything you said about the 137th SOW. They are
respected. They are a great platform. They have done incredible
work in SOUTHCOM, in AFRICACOM in particular, for two combatant
commands that kind of beg for capability to do their jobs. The
137th SOW is an incredible platform.
I would say that I think that there are funding issues, as
you mentioned. The Defense Wide Review, they do a lot of the
work for Special Operations Command, and Special Operations
Command does fund the contract logistics support to maintain
that aircraft. And in the course of this year's budget, they
eliminated that funding for the contract logistics support. So
we are in the process now of looking at going--until we can get
that extended, until we find a replacement mission, because the
Air Force is short of pilots, you know, and we need to retain
the aviation skills of the people in that unit. So we are
trying to extend to the point that we can, yet to be determined
if we can. The SecDef approved that money to be gone, so we are
working with the Air Force and with Special Operations Command
to find a replacement mission for the 137th, if that is what it
comes to.
Mr. Cole. Well, I appreciate that very much, and just want
to flag that we want to work with you on that. Again, platform
is one thing. The real essence of it, honestly, is the quality
of the personnel in terms of the maintenance and the pilots
themselves and what have you. So it is an asset, I think, from
a personnel standpoint. As you point out, we are pilot short
now. We don't need to be losing these kind of capabilities.
Second question, just quickly, and you have already
answered part of this, but this is more--I share my friend from
Minnesota's concern with coronavirus. Because I noted from
working on the supplemental, I haven't seen anybody talking
about how to replace anything we expend out of these accounts
on that, or your facilities are slated for backup if we were to
have a problem and all the HHS facilities got up--filled up. We
don't know that that would happen, but you would be pressed
into service very, very rapidly.
So I am glad you are planning on it and thinking about it.
I think you are very wise to be looking a little further ahead.
I would just urge, Mr. Chairman, and certainly to you, General,
we are going to have a supplemental at some point. I know we
are negotiating it. My guess is there might be more than one at
some point. These things are just hard to anticipate, given
that it is a brand-new virus. Please don't be shy about getting
your accounts filled back up if we end up pressing them into
duty, because we don't know we need to be robbing Peter and
paying Paul here. We have already done a lot of that to you,
quite frankly, as my friend, the chairman, pointed out. Does
not need to happen on this particular national emergency. We
may well need you, but we shouldn't be taking other things from
you, particularly as much as we are asking you to do.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Ms. Bustos.
NATIONAL GUARD FUNDS FOR EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And really appreciate your time with us today, General. And
since this is your last hearing season, I want to thank you for
your stewardship of the Guard and thanks to your family as
well.
Since 9/11, our Nation has asked much of your soldiers and
your airmen, guardsmen deployed to support Operation Enduring
Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, New Dawn, Inherent Resolve, and Freedom
Sentinel. Over 700 guardsmen's lives have been lost, 5,000
wounded in action. So we will continue to rely on the Guard to
execute our National Defense Strategy as we focus on near-peer
competition.
To be successful, however, our Nation must ensure that our
guardsmen train and deploy with the same equipment as their
Active Duty counterparts, and you talked about this a little
bit when Chairman Visclosky started this out. So you said that
you were not notified in advance that the Department of Defense
would spend over a billion dollars that Congress had already
appropriated to modernize the Guard and instead divert that to
the border wall construction instead, speaking of robbing Peter
to pay Paul, I guess I will use that same phrase as Mr. Cole.
What worries me, and I am going to be very specific to my
congressional district that I am fortunate enough to serve, but
our air guardsmen maintain and fly the older C-130H models in
Peoria. And those are the--as you know, those are the Vietnam
war era airframes that the Active Duty Air Force doesn't fly
anymore. And the NGREA funds were supposed to have provided
critical survivability upgrades to those older C-130H models.
On top of that, now Congress has been notified that DOD will
use the money that we appropriated to acquire new C-130J models
for the border wall also.
And I guess, General, the fact that you weren't notified,
and I am guessing that means that folks in Peoria, this caught
them by surprise as well, and I guess I am wondering, these
are, you know, obviously very important people that we are
lucky enough to have in our Nation and serving our country.
Just kind of what message do you think would be important for
me to take home the next time I meet with these folks about
this? You had mentioned, at minimum, it is a 1-year delay in
all of this, but kind of play that out a little bit, if you
could.
General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am. You know, I will start off
again by saying NGREA is a critically important source of
income, money. It is our only procurement source to upgrade
some of our legacy platforms. It is the only one that we have.
And so what I will tell you is, you know, it is a unique source
of revenue, of income for us to use because we don't have a
program line for it. We only get it at the good will of the
Congress year after year after year.
One of the reasons they took it was they said, well, it
wasn't being obligated. It wasn't spent at certain rates that
procurement money is normally spent at. We never have spent
NGREA dollars at 80 percent in the first year. It is impossible
for us to do it. One, we never know how much we are going to
get. Two, rarely do we get it at the beginning of the year. CR,
CR, CR, so it comes late in the year. So we are unable to get
it on contract and spend it in time. So it is not unusual at
all for us to have low levels of obligation rates.
But we spend all of it within the 3-year period. 99.95
percent is spent within 3 years. You can go back to 1994, I
think, was the last time we missed it, and we just missed it by
a tad, but 99. is all spent.
And that money, we have special--the Air National Guard and
Air Force Reserve Test Center in Tucson allows us to not only
buy things less expensively but innovatively. We are able to
work with industry for our platforms to make fast, quick
upgrades to our systems that the Air Force, frankly, doesn't--
they can't do. Their acquisition system isn't built to do
things like that. Only we can do it in the Guard. So all of the
things that you mentioned.
And it is hard to quantify the impact of delaying it a
year. I don't know who is going to be flying a C-130 that may
have needed that defensive warning system on it. These
airplanes will still deploy. They will still go around the
world. They will still be flown in combat and in harm's way.
And does 1 year make a difference to some airman who is going
to fly in that C-130 that slipped a year to be upgraded? Nobody
in this room knows that.
So I just--you know, the many things that we have done to
upgrade the C-130s at Peoria or the other 13 combat-coded C-130
units that are in the Air National Guard, you know, it is a
significant impact to us. And I have conveyed that to the
Secretary and to the Chairman. And just to be clear, they did
tell me they were going to do it 2 days before they sent the
reprogramming, but I was not consulted, you know, in the
decision of what pots of money to take in order to pay for the
border wall.
Mrs. Bustos. So with 2 days advance notice on this, it is
not like you could say absolutely not, this can't happen.
General Lengyel. Well, I don't have the power to say
absolutely not, this doesn't happen. I don't control the money.
Mrs. Bustos. And if you had, I am guessing that probably--
General Lengyel. If I did, I would have pushed back
substantially on it.
Mrs. Bustos. Yes.
General Lengyel. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you.
General Lengyel. A very important pot of money, and my hope
is that this was a 1-year blip. So if it is a 1-year instance,
then I would tell you that we are going to be able to recover,
but--it is going to hurt, but we are going to be able to
recover. You know, take $800 million out of modernization, you
are going to feel it. But the money came from, you know, things
that were going to be important to the National Guard.
Mrs. Bustos. If it is 2-year blip?
General Lengyel. It makes the materiel risk worse, you
know. That is where I told the Chairman this is where I see
there will be strategic impact. You know, just go back 10
years. You have given the National Guard almost $7 billion to
upgrade our equipment. There is strategic combat capability in
$7 billion in the equipment that we have in the National Guard.
So if we were to lose it for a long period of time, I would say
I might meet that threshold that the chairman gave us. So,
unknown. It is a hypothetical question, but it is very
important revenue for us and for our platform and for the
people who fly them.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, General, and again, thanks for your
40 years of service.
General Lengyel. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Rogers.
C-130JS
Mr. Rogers. General, I join my colleagues in saying our
profound thanks for your 40 years of service to your country,
essentially your lifetime. We thank you for your dedication and
your quality that you bring to this chore.
Speaking of the C-130s, as you know, I have been involved
in efforts to modernize your fleet and supported the
procurement of two squadrons' worth of 130-Js over the last
several fiscal years. I know that the basing process for these
aircraft is being led by the Secretary of the Air Force in
close consultation, supposedly, with the National Guard. Can
you tell us the role that you and the Air Guard have played in
the basing process for these 130-Js? And do you feel that you
and the Air Guard have been appropriately consulted about that?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir, I can. So, you know, I can't
remember the month that it was, but it was sometime, I think,
in the fall. We sent out to the field, the community of
interests, in the C-130 community, here is the criteria that is
going to be used to look at the 13 combat-coded C-130 bases
that are out there. The Air National Guard was instrumental in
developing what that criteria might be in terms of creating
some sort of a matrix to determine who was the most valued--or
the most appropriate candidates to be looked at.
The Air Force basing process always does that, and they
will then winnow that list down to a smaller number. That list
will be released sometime in the next month or two, in the
relatively near term, from 13 to some lower number, seven or
eight bases, most likely. And then each one of those eight
bases will get a--a team will go and visit those bases and take
a more detailed analysis of each location. And they will look
at costs involved to transition the aircraft. They will look at
ranges. They will look at training. They will look at the
readiness units--of the units there. And then they will compile
all of that data that will come back into the Air Force
process, which we are a part of, as Chief of the National Guard
Bureau and the Director of the Air National Guard will be a
part of that to make a recommendation to the Secretary of the
Air Force of the primary and preferred alternatives for who
will get the C-130Js based in the near term.
So that is the way the process will work, and the Air
National Guard is right involved with the total Air Force to do
the analysis with it.
Mr. Rogers. Do you feel like you have been treated fairly
in consulting with the Air Force?
General Lengyel. I do.
Mr. Rogers. Now, these are Air Guard planes, right?
General Lengyel. The planes that are to be stationed that
are out there were bought for the Air National Guard by the
United States Congress. They were adds.
Mr. Rogers. And yet the Secretary of the Air Force is
charged with making the decision.
General Lengyel. Yes. Well, I think that, you know, we are
still part of the Air Force. We still have to operate from the
Air Force. We get our money from the United States Air Force.
So it makes sense to me that the Secretary of the Air Force has
civilian control of the military and would run a process that
is repeatable, defendable, and fair such that everyone can have
a shot at getting the C-130s. I think it is a good process. I
have watched it for many years, and I think that it keeps
everybody honest throughout the system.
Mr. Rogers. When will the decision be made?
General Lengyel. I think the three bases that will get C-
130Js in the near term should be announced sometime this
summer.
Mr. Rogers. This summer?
General Lengyel. This summer.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, General.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Ruppersberger.
ADVANCED ELECTRONICALLY SCAN ARRAY (AESA) FOR F-16S
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First thing, I echo your comments about moving the $1.3
billion from the National Guard to the border wall. Makes no
sense. Secondly, thanks for mentioning the Maryland National
Guard, about 500 in Estonia. They have been there for years,
and I have visited them----
Mr. Visclosky. That is in your district----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, you know, it is a good thing, but
you might not have voted for me, so I am not sure. Or run
against me. That is even worse.
But, you know, Russia has attacked them so much, Estonia,
that they are totally paperless. And as a result of being
paperless, they are really working well, and Russia doesn't
have as much influence as they used to, so that is a good
thing.
I am going to talk to you about--we dealt with this last
year when you appeared before our committee, as far as the F-
16, the advanced electronically scan array, AESA, radar
upgrades as a top priority for the Air National Guard. I am
pleased that Congress heard that request and added $75 million
explicitly for these important upgrades.
How many Air National Guard F-16s still require these
radars, and is it still a priority to fund the continued
procurement of these radar upgrades, if so, and why?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. And I thank this committee for
the $75 million that we got last year that gave us 30 more
radars. Last year, I testified that we needed--that we had 261
F-16s that I thought were going to need AESA radars as we
proceeded down the road. AESA radars, as you know, the initial
buy was 72, which only converted a few radars, eight radars in
nine different locations. It makes it difficult to manage,
deploy, logistically use these aircraft with different types of
radars.
So, you know, I do think that more need to be modified.
With the 30 that we did last year, we are down to 231 left that
don't have AESA radars planned. Now, some of those in the end
game may age out and be retired, so we wouldn't probably want
to buy all 231 radars all at once, because in the late 2020s or
2030s, some of those aircraft could be retired.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah. They probably should.
General Lengyel. But, clearly, a continued drumbeat of some
30 or 50 radars a year would be helpful to the----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me ask you this. How do these radars
keep the homeland safe, and are the older F-16s that you
addressed without this capability still viable? You said you
are going to retire some.
General Lengyel. They are viable, yes, sir. And, you know,
they not only increase the capability of the platform to detect
and engage threats that may be fired at the United States or
fired at their own platform, but the AESA radar is a great
detector. I mean, it also provides some significant defensive
system capability for the platform when it has it. So it
greatly enhances the combat capability of the F-16 when you put
an AESA radar on it.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Ruppersberger. The other question I have, my district
is home to the National Security Agency and the CYBERCOM 175th
Cyberspace Operation Squadron, and on a reoccurring basis I
hear concerns of agency and military leaders about the
recruitment, and most importantly, the retention of our
cybersecurity workforce. What initiatives have you started to
recruit and retain this vital skill in the Army Reserve? And
maybe I should ask that question in the next round to your Army
Reserve.
General Lengyel. That is General Luckey in the Army
Reserve. We are doing pretty well in our cybersecurity in the
Air National Guard, as we have a large footprint of cyber
warriors. But as with anything, getting and maintaining and
keeping our people is getting harder to do. So the ability for
us to have money to pay retention bonus, reenlistment bonuses--
I asked for $100 million last year to do that--and keeping our
talent is one of the hardest things that we now do in the
National Guard.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome.
General Lengyel. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Carter. Good to see you. I like that term Texas
associated with you.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
FULL TIME SUPPORT FOR THE GUARD
Mr. Carter. Nobody likes what happened with the wall.
Although I support it, I don't like it being taken away. And
what worries me most with my association with Fort Hood is that
we are always trying to be more lethal and more ready every
time we deploy. And I know that sometimes you have a shortage
of either training or equipment issues that are special to the
Guard and Reserve, and I want to know if there is anything that
is interfering with the lethality of our force and their
ability to be a deployable-ready force. And, if so, tell us
what you need.
General Lengyel. So, sir, I would tell you that the
Adjutant Generals, the 54 Adjutant Generals in the States and
territories tell me that the one thing that is most important
to them to build and sustain readiness in their force is the
appropriate level of full-time support in our formations. For 4
years, I have attempted to raise the percentage of full-time
force in our Army National Guard, and I have been patently
unsuccessful.
So, you know, I will tell you that--give you an example. A
company of 130 people is supposed to have four full-time
people. It is supposed to have an admin, a training, a supply,
and one other NCO in there that is supposed to maintain the
readiness of the unit, the readiness NCO. And in most cases, we
will have two of the four. And so it is--one, it is hard to get
people to take those jobs because they are doing the jobs of
four people. So that when that company of soldiers comes in to
train for the weekend, they have the right equipment, the right
range of schedule, the right training, all of the things they
need to be called ready forces.
And so for 4 years, you know, we are about 11,000 full-time
soldiers short in the Army National Guard to get us to 80
percent of what the Army says we need in this operational force
that we are. And so I have asked for incrementally a thousand a
year. So give me a thousand, and I will show you how that
builds readiness, and then you can fund the nextthousand. But
it is not cheap. It is $100 million.
Mr. Carter. So what are you limited to right now?
General Lengyel. Pardon me?
Mr. Carter. You said you need to recruit a thousand new
people in the Guard this year.
General Lengyel. I need the authorizations to hire a
thousand full-time support.
Mr. Carter. And what is your authorization for right now?
General Lengyel. Right now, we are at about 57,000 people,
57,000.
Mr. Carter. But if you wanted to get a thousand this year,
what would we have to do? Authorize it?
General Lengyel. Can I provide you the number? Yes, we
would need to authorize it and fund it.
Mr. Carter. The authorization bill.
General Lengyel. Right.
Mr. Carter. All right.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Aguilar.
FUNDING FOR UNBUDGETED ACTIVITIES
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, General. General, as of this last week, we have
been told over 2,500 Guard personnel are supporting Operation
Guardian Support along the southwest border. We have been told
that it will extend through September of 2020. However, the
administration hasn't budgeted for these activities. How long
can you sustain these unbudgeted activities, and what is the
plan to help the personnel accounts recover?
General Lengyel. So, yes, sir. This is an important
question. So, you know, of the reprogramming activities that
have occurred thus far, one that hasn't is the ability to put
back into our personnel accounts the money we are spending on
the southwest border with the National Guard troops that are
there. Last year--or this year, we will spend about $320
million, currently coming out of our own accounts, to fund the
National Guard men and women who are on the southwest border.
We need reprogramming action, and we have sent to the OSD
comptroller a reprogramming action to tell her we need to get
$285 million of that back from some other source or the
National Guard will be required to make changes to what we are
doing, i.e., a drill in the Army National Guard costs $100
million. So if we don't get that money put back into our
accounts where we can use that money for training, we will have
to cancel a drill weekend in September or in August or in, you
know, the last 3 months of the year, if we don't get that $300
million approximately put back into our account. So it is a--
that request is with the OSD comptroller, and, you know, I am
trying to get it over here before next summer, because the
closer we get to the end of the year, the more I get worried
that we have to no notice make abrupt changes to our training
plan for the year.
BORDER OPERATION
Mr. Aguilar. You heard comments from the chairman and from
members of this committee about the transfer and reprogramming
authority, as well as those activities, and I think we all have
concerns about that. And I know last year, when military
construction accounts were raided, there were concerns about
backfilling those as well, and I think that this body still has
concerns about backfilling and what future behavior that leads
to.
What are you hearing from guardsmen and women at the border
operation itself? Do they understand their mission? What is
their morale like with respect to this mission at the southwest
border?
General Lengyel. So generally, I think--I have been down
there. It has been about 4 months or so since I have been to
Texas and seen the actual activity going on on the southwest
border, but they are motivated. They find the mission
meaningful. They enjoy the opportunity to contribute to the
security of the southwest border. I saw no one there that--you
know, and right now, we have all volunteers there. We haven't
involuntarily mobilized anyone on the border. So no one is
being pulled out of school or jobs or away from family that
don't want to be there. But I found, broadly speaking, they
enjoy the work, they find it meaningful, and they are glad to
have the opportunity to be there.
And we have amended, thank you, the benefits that they
actually get to have TRICARE activities taken care of and some
9/11 GI Bill benefits taken care of for these men and women, so
it is a better situation for them than it was in the past.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Womack.
FUNDS FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD
Mr. Womack. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
the hearing.
And thanks to General Lengyel for your service, for what
you meant to the Guard. Our Guard is better as a result of your
leadership, and I appreciate that. I am a better Congressman
because of your leadership, so thank you for the relationship
we have had.
I don't want to kick too much on this whole issue of taking
the money out of the Guard accounts, but I am not going to let
the moment pass, because I remember the days when I was jumping
off of the back of an M60A3 TTS tank when the Active Component
was training on the M1 Abrams. I remember those days. I felt
like a second-class soldier, because I knew if I was called up,
I wasn't going to be on an M60A3 TTS; I was going to be on an
M1. And it was probably even worse back in Hal's day. I mean,
the horse cavalry, I mean, they were----
Mr. Womack. But there is not a person sitting in this room
today, as an elected official, that doesn't represent a
National Guard unit that doesn't remember the day when we
didn't train on what we were going to fight with and how far we
have come as a country, indeed, going all the way back to 9/11
and we started plugging this National Guard and Reserve force
component structure into the warfight. We made them operational
soldiers, and we promised them, we promised them that you were
no longer going to be treated like that. You were going to be
given the equipment that you were going to fight with.
And so just count me as one of the people not real happy
with the fact that we have made the National Guard a bill payer
for this country at the expense--and you can say it is a year,
but there is not anybody in here that can argue with a straight
face that this is a 1-year deal. And this Congress ought to
step up to the plate and fight it, in my opinion.
Humvee modernization. How long have we been--I mean, we are
in the middle of that right now. How much more do we have to
go? I mean, these vehicles have been through a lot of conflict.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Womack. They need repairs.
General Lengyel. They have. And, you know, we have had
significant and regular adds to modernize our Humvee fleet in
the Army National Guard over the past several years and
certainly since I have been the Vice Chief or the Chief, and we
have made enormous process--progress. So the ambulances have
all been upgraded. The TOW missile variants have all been
upgraded. You know, they are in the process now of, you know,
continuing to modernize the fleet, the JLTV is a bit down the
road, but to make sure that we have the right fleet.
All of the adds that we get, whether it is C-130s or
Humvees or NGREA money, is critical to the force structure, the
equipment, the things that we have to not just fight the war,
but the things that we have, in many cases, to do our jobs here
in the homeland as well.
Mr. Womack. And worse than that, in my opinion, it is the
message that we are sending to our citizen soldiers in our
communities, people that we go to school with, shop with,
worship with, these folks that have put their hand up like
everybody else and said I will go. Again, we have made a
promise to them, and we robbed from that promise, I think. And
the sooner we can get this money back and give some more
certainty to our Guard and Reserve forces, the better off I
think we will be.
I just don't like sending a message to them that we are
going to relegate them back to second-tier status, because that
is not the message we want to be sending to people that have--
you know, you go in the Rayburn foyer, and there is a whole
bunch of names in there. And I promise you, there is a whole
bunch of them that came out of the National Guard that are up
there on that wall giving their life for their country. So
anyway, thanks for letting me rant just a minute.
SPACE FORCE
I want to pivot to Space Force. I think this is another
oversight. In everything we do where the Guard is involved, we
bring value to the fight. And I would say that we probably
bring as much value, if not more value, to the potential Space
Force as we do in any of the other components. Well, we have
that inherent ability throughout the civilian sector, and
obviously we have guardsmen. In my State, as you know, I have
got a----
General Lengyel. 153rd Intel Squadron, yes.
Mr. Womack. Exactly. I have got an intel squadron. So in
Joe Lengyel's perfect world, how would this Space Guard be
aligned and arranged within the Space Force?
General Lengyel. Okay. So if you are asking my personal
opinion, I would tell you that, you know, I think that I spend
a lot of my time as I talk about space trying to dispel myths
about what we are trying to do. Some people think we are trying
to create something that is going to be 54 in every State,
territory, and District of Columbia, because we have air and
Army units in all 54. That is not--there is no proposal from
anybody to do that.
What I mentioned earlier was, you know, I have advocated,
at no cost, to just create a Space National Guard in law so
that somebody can be in the Space Force and the Space National
Guard of the United States and the Space National Guard of
their States. That is what we do in the National Guard. We are
under the command and control of the State leadership. So that
there would be a component created such that the space
capability that currently resides in the Air National Guard
would move over and be part of now the Space Force. I think
that is important.
The Space Force is going to train, plan, doctrine. It is
going to have its own culture. It is going to have its own
uniform. The men and women who are in our space enterprise
right now are worried. They are like, hey, how come no one
wants to create this component, you know? And I say, hey, they
are just trying to get it right. Hang on, they are going to get
this right in the end. But, you know, as people decide, for
whatever reason, to go work for SpaceX or Blue Horizon or some
commercial space entity, as people are prone to do, they won't
see the Air National--or the Space National Guard as a
possibility to continue to contribute their military service. I
think that is an important part.
So ideally, when we have this component built at the same
time such that, hey, the Title X force, they are already there.
There is a Space Force, and they can just move them when the
Air Force wants to. Right now, there is not a component to move
the Air National Guard into a Space National Guard. So at some
point in the future, I think they should do that. And so that
when--ideally for me, they should go the same day. Everybody
takes off Air Force, puts on Space Force. That is about the
cost of it.
I have people on my staff right now that are doing the
space mission. I don't need a bigger staff in NGB to manage
this. No States need any more generals to manage this in the
States. The people are there. They are funded. They are paid
for. They have equipment. We just need the ability for them to
be part of this new service as the Space Force stands up. I
think they will get there sooner or later.
EFFECT OF A CR ON THE GUARD
Mr. Womack. I have one more quick question, and that is,
while we are in the appropriations markup season now and we
have all these great ideas as to how we are going to get this
done and get it done real fast and get it done on time, there
is probably not anybody in here that really believes that, that
we are going to have a conferenced bill ready to sign before
October 1. So we are going to be on a CR, and that CR probably
is going to be kicked into who knows when. What effect does
that have on you?
General Lengyel. The CR always has the same effect it does
on us in terms of, well, we can--it devastates programs that
live on congressional adds, for one thing, like State
partnership programs that we are going to have events and we
don't get the money because we don't have a budget. That hurts.
It hurts our men and women who--you know, a CR, we all think it
is a good idea that it ends on a Friday. Generally, they end on
Fridays. Well, the men and women who were going to go to drill
weekend on that Saturday, they don't know whether to travel to
their Guard unit or----
Mr. Womack. They may be en route.
General Lengyel. They may be en route. And all of a sudden,
they say, sorry, we got it, or we didn't get it. It costs us
money because if we have to cancel drills or training events
that we have prearranged contract to build readiness things,
like medical evaluations, dental evaluations, or food support
for major exercises that we were going to run, we lose all that
money. And so it is money that is gone, and we don't get it
back because we can't change it.
So it really disrupts our ability to train, and it jerks
around our force. I mean, the men--you know, our most valuable
weapon system are the 450,000 people that wear the uniform. And
in these days with a good economy and other choices, it is
getting harder and harder to make them choose to continue to
serve. So I don't like it when we don't give them
predictability. That is what they need. They need
predictability.
Mr. Womack. Absolutely. Thank you, General, for your
service to your country. Thank you.
General Lengyel. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
CUTS TO VITAL AIRCRAFT UPGRADES
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, thank you for being here. I represent Tucson and
southern Arizona, and it includes part of the border. The
presence of the National Guard in Arizona is really important
to us. I just want you to know how much we appreciate your
being there. And there are men and women who are our neighbors,
and we want to make sure that they have the resources, the
equipment, everything they need to do their job.
And so I really have some concern about this plan to cut
vital aircraft upgrades. My question is specific to what is
this going to do to the Guard's F-16, KC-135, RC-26, and MQ
fleets, especially in terms of the Guard's ability to be ready,
be responsive, and its crucial contributions to our joint force
mission success.
General Lengyel. So, ma'am, there is programs involved
with, I believe, all of those platforms. F-16s in particular
have missile warning systems that because this money is gone,
will either get deferred or delayed before they put it on
there. The KC-135, we are creating systems that give enhanced
situational awareness to the crews in the cockpit. It gives
them the ability to see planes and systems and threats that are
around them. That will get delayed or deferred. Other things
such as the RC-26 and MQ fleets, if I could give that--take
that for the record, I could tell you what those were, but----
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. That is fine.
General Lengyel. You know, many of these things are
invented at the test center in Tucson. Right there.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Yes.
General Lengyel. And the ability to identify the need to
identify contractors that can take commercial, off-the-shelf
things and we can integrate them into our platforms quickly, it
all happens right there. So it is definitely an impact to the
force.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you so much. You know, this is a
personal interest of mine because of my district and our
proximity to the border and how much we rely on those men and
women for protection. So just know that you have got my
support, and we will do everything possible to help you out in
that regard. Thank you.
General Lengyel. Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don't
know if I need to yield any time to Mr. Rogers to respond to
the Colonel, but I don't think so. I think there will be later
opportunities for that, right?
Mr. Womack. Consider the source.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. General, you have heard a lot of our
colleagues here thank you for your service, but you know
something, it is genuine and it is heartfelt, and we all feel
that way.
General Lengyel. Thanks.
SPACE FORCE
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So just let me add my voice to that as
well.
And I believe it was the mayor who talked about Space
Force, and I was going to ask you about that. You explained it,
what sounded like a really logical explanation, so if it is so
logical and so simple, why is it not happening?
General Lengyel. Yes. Sir, that is a good question. I mean,
frankly, there is some--you know, they want to make sure they
get the Space Force right. That is what I will say. I think,
you know, General Raymond has got an opportunity to look here,
and, you know, they are trying to investigate and see can they
create something that is even better than what we have now at
the 21st century National Guard. I mean, we have honed
ourselves pretty well, I think, over the years. We very little
resemble what we were in 1636 or pre-9/11. So I think they want
to make sure that they get it right.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Is there a lot of communication, General?
Because, you know, there are a lot of folks that you have that
are, in essence, you know, private sector, right, that have a
lot of----
General Lengyel. There are.
Mr. Diaz-Balart [continuing]. Expertise that doesn't
potentially exist anywhere else. And so are they communicating
with you? Are they aware of some of these special assets that
your folks have that, frankly, nobody else may have?
General Lengyel. I think they are. I think broadly
speaking, we have good support amongst the Air Force and the
Space Force. And most people will tell you the phrase of ``I
can't imagine the Space Force without the National Guard.'' You
know, I think--but they are being careful and they are going
slow.
And some people--sometimes the Guard can be seen as a hard
organization to work with. We have got States, and they don't
understand it as well, so it is my job to convey how this
works, make them see the benefits of the dual-use nature of our
force, the ability for governors to task us for COVID virus or
fires or floods or earthquakes or cyber. People thought, when
they created the cyber force, that you didn't want to put it in
the Guard because there was not a State mission. Well, they
have used the Space Force already to fight fires and to fight
floods and to expedite resources and recovery. So I think part
of it is just, you know, beating the drum and making sure they
understand the value of it.
125TH FIGHTER WING
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, if I may, just another
question about the 125th Fighter Wing. It carries, I think, a
unique role, and just because of its geography, right, a
critical national security role. Obviously, a lot of us, you
know, want to make sure that they are equipped with the most
advanced fighters available. You and I have had this
conversation, I think, on more than one occasion, but just your
thoughts about the prospects for, you know, the latest, best
fighter.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. The possibilities of them being there.
General Lengyel. Right. So as you know, the F-15Cs that are
there and getting old and getting older faster, and so that the
Air Force is in the process of looking quickly to replace them
with either F-35s or a newer version of the F-15, EX, they call
it. And so the Air Force will go through a basing process, much
like I talked to Chairman Rogers about in terms of the C-130H.
Same sort of mentality and methodology that we will go through,
and there is a lot of things that will make Jacksonville
compete very strongly, I believe, for F-35s.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, General.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Ryan.
REPROGRAMMING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Womack got me all fired up there. And I just want to
say that I have been here 18 years. Many of you have been here
much longer than that. This assumption of Presidential
authority has been happening for the last couple of decades,
and here we find ourselves in a situation where our
appropriated money for our priorities that we pass through
Congress and you are not even acknowledged in that process, is
extremely frustrating. And we have seen the diminishment of
authority that Article I created so that the people govern the
country, and whether it is congressionally directed spending,
whether it is what Members of Congress get paid versus the
judiciary or versus the executive branch, this is consistently
happening. Here is the end of the road. And like the gentleman
from California said, they already have money to do the wall.
And the European Command was in here the other day and
talked about 44 projects in European Command, and we are
talking about battling against Russia and interference in
elections and the drills that need to happen there and
protecting our own equipment. Forty-four projects in the
European Command are not going to get built because of this. I
am upset too because in the Reserve, we have C-130Js. We put
money in for four of those. Money for two of them are gone, and
we are all dealing with this.
And I just wanted a little therapy session here myself. If
everybody else was getting one, I figured I might as well, you
know, participate in it. And it is very, very frustrating for
us who sit here every single day. Mr. Chairman, we see the
threats from China. We see the threats from Russia. We see the
complexities around the world. We see the Iranian enrichment in
Iran. We see what is happening in Syria. You know, this is what
we do all day long. This is what you do. And to just have this
money go out the door without any consultation to you or us is
extremely frustrating.
SHORTFALL OF FIGHTER PILOTS
And so to kind of piggyback on some of the other questions
here, we were talking about the Air Force and competition and
keeping the talent that we need. And we know that the study
that the Defense Department showed us that said the Air Force
is hurting for about 800 Active Duty pilots and 1,150 Reserve
pilots. The shortfall is most acute within the fighter
community. An estimate from the Rand Corporation states that
the Active Duty pilot deficit will grow to 1,607 by 2023. And a
report by Rand concluded that increasing aviation incentive pay
to increase retention was more efficient than expanding the
training pipeline to sustain a given pilot inventory.
We know that there are--I think the estimate is about
30,000 pilots are going to retire from the commercial airlines
in the next 6 years, and so we will be in direct competition to
try to hire pilots and get them into the military.
So can you speak on how you assess giving the parity in
aviation incentive pay will help and cut the long-term costs
and maintain the readiness of the force, something that we are
all very, very concerned about?
General Lengyel. Yes, sir, I can. I think the only good
news for me in that story is you can be an airline pilot and a
pilot in the National Guard. That allows us to retain talent
and do it.
With regard to incentive pay, I would tell you this. There
has been a discussion, which I support, of, you know, when you
are a member of the National Guard, if you fly 1 day, you get 1
day's worth of flight pay. This applies to the Army as well,
not just the Air Force. You know, and I think that there is an
argument to be made that, you know, it doesn't matter how many
times you fly in the Active Component, you don't have to fly at
all. You still get your flight pay for the full month.
So I think to retain not just our Air Force pilots but our
Army helicopter, our Army aviators, we should look at the way
we can, and there is a bill here, but how do we get a full
month's pay for--if you have the skill set to be an aviator or
some special skill that gives you an incentive pay, we should
look at the ability to give it to you for a full month as
opposed to just 1 day.
Some of it is the money. Some of it is people can be
incentivized with affiliation bonuses to join the Reserve
component. Some of it with specialty pay and bonuses can be
incentivized to stay. But no doubt in my mind that it does
help, and we are seeing a lower number of people affiliate with
us when they leave the Active Duty than we used to. We are
seeing more people leave at the mid grade, captains and junior
officers, when their term is up than there used to. I think it
is just more lucrative and not required in some cases. And
because we are an operational force, they are working harder.
So we have to take every avenue to look across the spectrum
to see what we can do to retain our specialty, our aviators in
particular.
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that. Let me add my voice as well to
thanking you for your years of service, and to your wife and
your family for all of the dedication and commitment you have
shown this country. You have been a delight to work with over
the last few years, and continued success in your retirement.
General Lengyel. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ryan. If you are like all the other people who were in
government and now out of government, they are the ones
smiling, walking around the hallways now. You can pick them
from a mile away.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Crist.
LARGER PRESENCE OF THE GUARD IN FLORIDA
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for holding
this hearing.
And, General, thank you for your service to our country.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crist. Forty years is a long time.
General Lengyel. It is.
Mr. Crist. You don't look old enough to have served 40
years, but God bless you obviously.
General Lengyel. It is really 39. It is close to 40.
Mr. Crist. There you go. I don't have a lot to ask you. But
even though Florida, and Congressman Diaz-Balart is well aware
of this as I am, we are the third largest State in America. We
have almost 22 million citizens. But Florida ranks 14th in
total guardsmen and 49th in guardsmen per State resident. As
you know, when one serves as governor of the State, as I was
privileged to do, you also serve in another role, you are the
commander in chief of the Florida National Guard, in my case.
And I have seen firsthand how important the guard is, you know,
how treating disasters--and, you know, Congressman Diaz-Balart
and I many times will be together. We started out together, in
fact, in the State senate in 1992, and we have been through a
lot of hurricanes in Florida and a lot of fire in the Sunshine
State, and without the National Guard being able to help us
protect our beautiful State, we would be in a bad place.
And that also extends to other States who will contribute,
you know, some of their guardsmen and women when there is a
natural--you know, huge disaster in any State in the country.
It is a great partnership, and we treasure it.
And so the concern I have, I guess, is that, you know, when
Florida may be recovering from a disaster of any type, there
may be other governors who might be somewhat reluctant to
readily dispatch their guardsmen or women, because they might
have their own disaster to deal with. That is pretty
understandable. So is there a way to get a 22-million populated
State a justifiable number of your colleagues in a better way?
Please, sir.
General Lengyel. Yes, sir. And I will tell you, we look at
that all the time. We look at the ability. We have States that
have a structure that they can't recruit to.
Mr. Crist. Right.
General Lengyel. Demographics have shifted, and it is
incumbent upon us to look at that to make the hard decision to
move structure to where we can recruit to it. And so I can tell
you that we look at that regularly, routinely. And States with
excess capacity to recruit we will attract as mission comes up.
So I can tell you it is something that we look at, sir, and I
think it is a great point.
Mr. Crist. Thank you. I appreciate that very much.
Should the coronavirus or another large scale event require
a national response, I fear governors will do what they just
may do because they care about their citizens so much. So if
you can help me--us, forgive me--find a way to address this, it
would be greatly appreciated. And I want to extend and
associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues on this
committee in thanking your family, and your wife in articular,
for sharing you with the United States of America.
General Lengyel. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Mr. Visclosky. That will conclude this panel.
General, we want to thank you for your life of service. You
are the kind of person that been deathly serious about your
work, but you are gracious as well. God bless you. Thank you.
General Lengyel. Thank you very much. Thank you all.
Mr. Calvert. One last comment. I suspect some of them are
no longer along the southern border.
General Lengyel. Right, they were.
Mr. Calvert. And when I say--it is not the coronavirus, it
is COVID-19, for those of us who live in the city of Corona.
Remarks of Chairman Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. I welcome our second panel, the Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserves.
I would encourage people to continue to participate in the
hearing process.
Our second panel this morning consists of the leaders of
the Reserve components, Lieutenant General Charles Luckey,
Chief of the Army Reserve; Vice Admiral Luke McCollum, Chief of
the Navy Reserve; Major General Bradley James, Commander,
Marine Corps Reserve; and Lieutenant General Richard Scobee,
yes, Chief of the Air Force Reserve. I am sorry.
We are pleased to welcome these four distinguished general
officers as witnesses today, and while we thank each of you for
your service, we want to especially recognize Lieutenant
General Luckey and Vice Admiral McCollum for your years of
service and wish both of you the very best of luck in your
future endeavors.
I will recognize, first of all, Mr. Calvert for any opening
remarks he has, and then would ask you to proceed with your
testimony.
Remarks of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the interest of time, I will keep my remarks brief, but
I would like to welcome our Reserve component witnesses here
today. Each of you represent thousands of men and women who
serve, their families who support them, and their employers who
support that effort. I look forward to hearing from each of you
on current operations, training requirements, and what Congress
can do to help each of your services be more lethal and ready.
Thank you for your service.
And I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
Summary Statement of General Luckey
General Luckey, you may proceed.
General Luckey. Chairman, Ranking Member--Chairman, if I
may, begin by--and I am aware of the hour and I will be brief
in my remarks, but I want to, on behalf of this team, thank you
for your service as well as the leader of this committee, and I
appreciate the support this committee has given all of us over
the last several years.
Distinguished members, thank you for this opportunity once
again to sit in front of you as an extremely supportive
committee of the Armed Forces of the United States and the
Reserve Forces in the United States.
For the past 4 years, you have patiently given me a chance
for a few precious minutes to brag about the superb team of
motivated soldiers and civilians that I have the honor to lead,
supported by their families and employers at home, as we
continue to press into the future, leading America's Army
Reserve down the road to awesome. I know you share my pride in
this magnificent component of the Army. On behalf of all of
them, all of us, I want to thank you again for your stalwart
support and your genuine interest in our soldiers, their
families, and the life-balance challenges inherent in their
calling.
In the interest of time and to get briskly to your
questions and concerns, I will keep my bragging short this
afternoon. I have spoken to most of you many times about the
improvements and readiness, warrior ethos, aggressive
innovation that we have sparked together over the last 4 years.
Much of it is reiterated in my filed statement, and I will not
repeat it here. But more to the point, no words can adequately
express the depth of my respect or affection for this phalanx
of professionals who bring such warfighting capability to the
Nation at such a great cost savings to their fellow citizens.
It has been the humbling honor of a lifetime for me to have
been able to serve as the quarterback of this awesome team. As
the Sergeant Major of the Army expresses it so wonderfully,
this is my squad and I shall miss it very, very much.
I cannot overstate the degree to which your support of our
efforts to resource key initiatives, whether it be in the
advancing of modernization of this squad or in the
interoperability of the total Army. It helped me as a lead sled
dog for this team chart a course and set the tone for building
and sustaining the most capable combat-ready and lethal Federal
Reserve force in the history of the United States.
Your demonstrated resolve to reinforce our initiatives to
train and field a squad of almost 200,000 soldiers, who, upon
very short notice, can deploy and fight and scale against a
peer adversary has been essential and it has been reassuring.
In the end, readiness is the essence of relevance, and it
starts with our people.
In daily practice, putting people first in America's Army
Reserve will continue to mean what it has always been for us.
Our strategic challenge is to be ready enough to be relevant
but not so ready that our soldiers can't keep good, meaningful
civilian jobs and healthy, sustaining family lives. Commanders
at every echelon on this team understand that basic truth, and
we will never take our eye off that ball.
Looking to tomorrow, your Army Reserve will continue to
leverage its Ready Force X construct is the way in which we
will see ourselves, organize ourselves, assess risks, both
risks to mission and risk to force, for the senior leadership
of the Army and the Nation. As the commander of this force, I
assess that even though we have dramatically increased our
readiness posture over the last 4 years, we have done so in
achieving a sustainable level of readiness for the outyears
over the long haul. I gauge that fact based on a number of
different factors and data, the most compelling of which to me
is that the retention rate--the attrition rate of the Army
Reserve is the best that it has been in 19 years.
We press on in the future more ready, more lethal, more
determined, determined to meet the challenges of our time to
win the Nation's wars, while also well-prepared to leverage our
soldiers and capabilities when disaster strikes in support of
our fellow citizens at their time of greatest need. Building
this sustainable capability and infusing this squad with a
profound sense of purpose has been an awesome ride.
I thank you for your support, for supporting all of us on
this journey, and I look forward to your questions.
[The written statement of General Luckey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Visclosky. Admiral, you may proceed.
Summary Statement of Admiral McCollum
Admiral McCollum. Chairman Visclosky, I wish you well in
your retirement as well.
And, Ranking Member Calvert and distinguished members of
the subcommittee, just thank you again today for the
opportunity to appear before you and advocate amongst our men
and women of the Navy Reserve. And it is an honor to be here
with my fellow Reserve component chiefs. To do what we do
together is fight and lead our men and women so they can
prevail in adversity.
It is my distinct honor to report to you on the Navy
Reserve. Sometimes and often we call America's Navy Reserve.
Over 100,000 members in full-time, part-time, and on-call
reservists in the IRR.
With me today is my wife, Leanna, whose steadfast support
through my career exemplifies what so many spouses do to
support their loved ones who deploy, often with very little
recognition.
Also here is my Force Master Chief of the Navy Reserve,
Chris Kotz. And I would like to personally thank him today for
what he has done to advocate, to lead for the men and women,
our sailors, deployed around the world.
Additionally, I would like to thank the thousands of
employers who give up their employees to serve our country and
a little bit of their entrepreneurial space to advocate and
serve their country as well.
Today marks the 105th birthday of the Navy Reserve. And on
this day, like most days, our men and women are serving around
the globe in some of the most austere locations. And again, I
would like to emphasize my thanks for this committee for the
support that you have given us.
The necessity of an on-time appropriations bill cannot be
overstated because it provides predictability, and as we have
met with many of you, and we know that the reservists are at
their best when they can be predictable with their family,
their employer, and their military obligation.
In the modernization, Navy Reserve equipment, as well as
systems, is critical to ensure that the Reserve remains
interoperable with the Active Component to be called to do the
Nation's bidding whenever and wherever it may so choose. This
budget includes a funding request to transition the Navy
Reserve pay system to a cloud-based, user-friendly and on-time
pay system.
And maintaining Navy Reserve aircraft is essential to
provide a lethal Reserve, Navy Reserve force. And in the fiscal
year 2020 National Guard equipment report outlines Navy Reserve
priorities for recapitalization efforts and upgrades in
aviation, including adversary aircraft, the P-8 maritime patrol
craft, and the C-130 Tango Airlift. All these are focused on
providing strategic depth.
I would also like to thank you for your continued support
of military childcare. This budget funds an additional 5,000
slots for men and women in their childcare that will support
the Navy.
In closing, I could not be prouder of our Naval Reserve
force. I know you can't tell, but it has been an honor of a
lifetime to be able to serve amongst them and with them and
coming away inspired every time I see them, combining their
military skills, their civilian skills, and with the support of
their families globally.
So on behalf of the men and women of the Navy Reserve, I
thank you for your support, and look forward to your questions.
[The written statement of Admiral McCollum follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Visclosky. Admiral, thank you very much.
And before you begin, General, I apologize to you. I
misintroduced you. I welcome you very much, General Bellon, and
you may proceed with your testimony. I apologize.
Summary Statement of General Bellon
General Bellon. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member Calvert, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to testify on behalf of
the Commandant of the Marine Corps about your Marine Corps
Reserve. I am honored to be here today with my fellow Reserve
component Chiefs and my senior enlisted force Sergeant Major
Scott Grade, who is seated behind me.
The mission of the Marine Corps Reserve is to stand ready
to augment, reinforce, and sustain the Active Component. Along
with the Active Component, we have Reserve forces forward
deployed, supporting combatant commands' requirements. On
average, in 2019, Marine Forces Reserve provided approximately
11 percent of the forward-deployed Marines for approximately 5
percent of the Marine Corps' budget.
Over the last year, more than 2,600 Reserve Marines and
sailors mobilized, supporting 45 operational requirements in
each of the six geographic combatant commands. This is
approximately a 19 percent increase in personnel deployed and
22 percent increase in operational requirements compared to
2018. Likewise, 9,944 reservists participated in 43 training
exercises, supporting requirements in 21 countries around the
globe.
Additionally, I am pleased to inform you that the morale in
your Marine Corps Reserve is very high, as evident by Reserve
component end strength maintaining a 99 percent of our total
requirement.
Not only are we attracting new Marines, we are retaining
them beyond their contractual obligation. On any drill weekend,
on average, 25 percent of the Marines standing in formation are
not contractually obligated to be there. These Marines are
primarily our leadership. Every month, they have a decision to
make, and they choose to continue to serve and lead our Marines
and sailors. I am always impressed by the professionalism,
competence, dedication to duty, and motivation of our Reserve
Marines. Like their Active Duty sisters and brothers, they
serve selflessly to protect our great Nation. They continue to
answer their irrational call to serve. The way they balance
family responsibilities, civilian lives, jobs, schools, and
careers is nothing short of extraordinary.
I want to extend my gratitude for your efforts to provide
timely appropriations, and request your continued support of
the National Guard and Reserve equipment appropriation. On
average, the Marine Corps Reserves only have 38 training days a
year, and that places an increased importance on adequate and
timely appropriations. With your continued support, I can
ensure Reserve predictable and uninterrupted training schedules
to maximize personnel material and training readiness.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The written statement of General Bellon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Visclosky. General Scobee.
Summary Statement of General Scobee
General Scobee. Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member Calvert,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to report on the state of America's Air Force
Reserve. And I am also going to discuss our fiscal year 2021
budget request.
I am joined today by my teammate, Chief Master Sergeant Tim
White. He is the Command Chief for the Air Force Reserve
Command, and he represents 75 percent of who we are, and that
is our great noncommissioned officers.
The Air Force Reserve is an essential component of the
total force in the Air Force that provides experience and
critical capabilities for our national defense. We enable rapid
response, we supply surge capability, and we maintain strategic
depth for sustained major combat operations, and we do so for
only 3 percent of the total department of the Air Force budget.
We are a predominantly part-time force. However, we provide
full-time support to the joint force. Our personnel participate
in every Active Component mission and are both operationally
integrated and interchangeable with our total force partners.
The National Defense Strategy directs us to be prepared to
operate in tomorrow's battle space. So the Air Force Reserve
must be able to defeat adversaries across a spectrum of
conflicts and operate simultaneously in all warfighting
domains. Our airmen are the foundation of these efforts, and it
is essential that we provide excellent support to both our
airmen and their families.
During the last year, we focused on accelerating our
readiness, developing resilient airmen and leaders who can
generate combat power, and reforming our organization to
optimize our warfighting capabilities, and we have made
significant improvements in these areas and are presently
expanding our efforts to further enhance our readiness and our
ability to support our airmen. We would not have been able to
do this without the incredible support we have received from
Congress.
The National Guard and Reserve Equipment appropriations
have provided essential funding for our modernization efforts,
and we thank you for past years appropriations. The Air Force
Reserves' full-time manpower has improved over the last year,
but it is still insufficient. This increase is largely due to
the conversion of select Air Reserve technician authorizations
to the Active Guard and Reserve billets and the congressional
approval of the direct hire authority. That enabled us to hire
over 900 full-time maintainers over this last period. We have
also been able to help ourselves, and it will help us in the
future, if we can expand this direct hiring authority to other
career fields such as our pilots, and that would also help us
in our full-time manning.
Last year, Congress authorized Air Reserve technicians to
receive medical coverage through TRICARE Reserve Select.
Beginning, though, in the year 2030, this is a great benefit.
It is going improve healthcare for our Air Reserve technicians
and their families, and it is going to increase our retention.
My ask for you this year is that we consider implementing this
change in a earlier date.
The Air Force Reserve is in good shape and will continue to
increase our readiness, enhance our capabilities, and posture
our force to meet future operational requirements. We remain
focused on critical emerging and evolving missions, including
nuclear deterrence, air superiority, space, and cyber. We still
face challenges, but I am confident, with Congress' continued
backing, we can overcome these obstacles.
Our recent successes are a testament to your support, and
your backing of key legislation has enabled us to address
critical challenges, and the on-time allocation of the fiscal
year 2019 budget directly facilitated our improvement and
readiness.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today in front of
you and for your steadfast support as we ensure your Air Force
Reserve remains prepared to defend this great Nation. I look
forward to taking your questions.
[The written statement of General Scobee follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT
Mr. Visclosky. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your
testimony, and would just ask a question of each of you as a
courtesy to my colleagues. Just with some conciseness and
briefness, if you could answer the question. There was $1.3
billion transfer from the National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Account. Could each of you again just briefly but concisely
give us an indication of items you were looking to procure and
the impact it will have on you in fiscal year 2020?
General Luckey. So, Chairman, I am happy to start. I would
just say that I would bend it more in terms of capabilities
than I would any specific item. As you know, we execute this
over a 3-year period of time, and in collaboration with this
committee and the Senate, continue to make sure that we are
investing that money wisely and aggressively. But command and
control systems, to make sure we continue to modernize our
capabilities and platforms for interoperability across the
force, bulk fuel distribution systems, several different
aspects of the medical capabilities that reside in the Army
Reserve, simulators for training, light utility equipment, and
then some fairly heavyweight engineering equipment, engineer
support equipment, those sorts of things.
As you well know, we use this account fairly aggressively
every year to make sure we are continuing to modernize the
force. So those are some of the capabilities that we would be
talking about.
Mr. Visclosky. Right.
Admiral.
Admiral McCollum. And so for the Navy Reserve, it is
somewhat similar. Aircraft modernization, avionics upgrades,
things that we do to modernize the capacity or the ability to
be interoperable with the Active Component, as well as some of
the fuel systems and distribution systems for our expeditionary
combat forces that we refer to as NECC, and then upgrades for
aircraft that we have that will give them more endurance
capability and the ability to have a timing rhythm of the
placement of the upgrades that I have suggested.
Mr. Visclosky. General Bellon.
General Bellon. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to start
by thanking the committee. The Marine Corps typically gets on
average about 1 percent of the total appropriation that is
handed out to the services, but every bit of resource that we
get is very much appreciated.
This year, to answer your question directly, probably the
largest program that we will roll back a year or so is going to
be an upgrade of an F-5 Aggressor Squadron, and that is
typically avionics, as Admiral McCollum pointed out.
But I would like to take this opportunity to point out to
the committee that what the Marine Corps could really use in
NGREA is a wider flexibility on how we spend that money each
year that you give to us. Specifically, my greatest shortfall
is ICCE, individual combat and clothing equipment, literally
the body armor that the Marines wear when they go into harm's
way. Right now, the way the rules are, I can't spend that money
on NGREA, and I have a significant shortfall. But within two
cycles, even with that 1 percent, I can make up that shortfall
for the force. So I just wanted to point that out today and,
again, thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. If I could ask on the rules, was that within
the legislation we passed or is that Department regulation,
just for my clarity?
General Bellon. Sir, I think it is probably a combination
of both. It is the way the Department interprets the
legislation, but I can give you--I can take that for the record
and give you a more developed answer.
Mr. Visclosky. So the request would be to have some clarity
to be of assistance in an issue like that.
General Bellon. Exactly, sir. Thank you.
General Scobee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the Air Force
Reserve, our fiscal year 2020 NGREA fund was intended to target
our critical capability gaps across combat systems, mobility
systems, personnel recovery, and special operations warfare
systems, some command and control, some space modernization
that we had going on, and some distributed training programs.
And there were a number of modernization programs that were
focused on the support for our 37 Wings and 8 Wing equivalents.
So the loss of the fiscal year 2020 NGREA funds is going to
adversely affect basically all of the Air Force Reserve
modernization programs and approximately--that we planned for
fiscal year 2020 and about 50 percent of the current perhaps
that we are working with NGREA will be delayed. So it will be--
it will hurt some of our capability, but I don't expect it to
affect our readiness.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert.
READINESS OF THE RESERVES
Mr. Calvert. Kind of going on what the chairman is asking.
For the past several years, we have increased our funding for
the military to make up for the huge readiness shortfalls we
had. And so could each of us--or each of you, can you give us a
brief update on your perspective on how ready our Reserve
focus, our forces are should a large-scale conflict take place?
General Luckey. Sir, I will start with that one. So as you
know, over the last 3\1/2\ years, Army Reserve has focused
specifically on exactly what you are asking. In RFX construct,
we have increased the readiness of our early deploying
formations. Early deploying defined in those--of the tranche of
forces that we would have to deploy in the ground combat
operations at scale, it is about 38,000 soldiers in the Army
Reserve in less than 90 days. Early deployment formations are
those forces that we would have to get to in 30 days. We have
increased the readiness of those formations just in the last
year alone by another 9 percent.
I will tell you that while the readiness has increased, as
I said in my opening statement, significantly over the last
3\1/2\ years, I will tell you that I think we have reached
about the achievable level of sustainable readiness over the
long haul. And the reason I say that, as I articulated earlier,
I continue to be very concerned about our soldiers being able
to balance between their responsibilities to the soldiers,
ready soldiers in the United States Army, their
responsibilities to their civilian employer, and their
responsibilities to the families.
So part of this readiness equation, of course, is a
function of time. But I will tell you I am very confident that
we can deliver the capability required in time.
Admiral McCollum. And, sir, on the Navy Reserve side, the
two dimensions of readiness that we track is personnel
readiness and then readiness that is associated with their
billet that they are assigned to. And one of the greatest
enablers of that readiness is discretionary RPN or the training
dollars allocated to Navy Reserve that is above and beyond
their base entitlement when that billet was actually bought.
On the personal readiness side, we use a metric that is
established by the Department, a worldwide deployability. And
in that metric, the goal is 5 percent, meaning 5 percent of the
force, or said another way, 95 percent of the force has to be
worldwide deployable. Right now, we are tracking 4.7 percent
that is not worldwide deployable for various reasons, and that
is a good number. Our challenge is to keep it there.
And then on the training side of that, it is lined up as
where the threat lies and how we maneuver the Reserve force
commensurate with what the individual training requirement is,
so--and that is consistent certainly with how the Navy is
looking at its funding with readiness and wholeness.
General Bellon. Congressman, I would like to begin by again
thanking the committee for the support you provide us.
You know, I think probably the most concise way I can say
this is, you know, what we deliver are Marines, and sitting at
99 percent of our total capacity, our requirement, with 25
percent of that force being nonobligated, meaning that they
decide every Thursday whether they are going to drill on Friday
or not. If it is raining and 34 degrees, they decide they are
going to drill. And so sitting at 99 percent, I would say to
you that is a population that wants to be in line to go and
answer the bell in the event of a crisis, and you have provided
excellent support for us. We are better armed and equipped than
we ever have been, and we have got better quality Marines than
we have ever had.
General Scobee. Congressman, as my counterparts here have
articulated, there is two pieces to this. One is our personnel
readiness, and our Reserve appropriation is the thing that that
is my readiness account. That is where I go to to make sure
that all my folks have everything that they need to do from a
training perspective. It is where I get them medically ready,
and it is where I get them their Air Force skills requirements
that they need. Our readiness there has improved dramatically
over the last years. And in particular, the things that we are
interested in has been in our pilot force, which is now at 86
percent, and then maintenance, which we were struggling with
for years, now 95 percent.
So these two areas have come up quite a bit. And then the
other one is the equipment, with the equipment that the Air
Force flies, both in aircraft and across the gambit, including
in space. The readiness there has increased dramatically, and
what has really helped us with that is the NGREA that we get
from Congress every year has really helped us get the equipment
readiness accounts where they need to be as well.
There is constant improvement is trying to be made in
there, and what we have done is we have prioritized our pacing
units that the Air Force has, and our pacing units are up on
the step and they are going to meet, for the most part, the
requirements of the Air Force to be ready for the high-end
fight. And so all the spacing units which you have identified
and we have talked about over the last year are on the step and
ready to go.
And what we are doing now is continuing to prioritize those
priority units and we are also bringing up all of our units
along the way as we go. So readiness is at a high state, but we
continue to work on that on a regular basis.
Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum.
DOUBLE EAGLE APP
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Gentlemen, I have the opportunity to go to welcome home
ceremonies after deployment a lot for the National Guard, but I
have been at deployment ceremonies where I have seen one Army
Reserve, one Marine Corps, one Navy, one Air Force deploying by
themselves.
So, General Luckey, you know, we have got the yellow ribbon
to support the Guard. So I was really excited about your
testimony last year when you discussed the development of the
smartphone-friendly application that would better assist your
soldiers in maintaining contact with their units between battle
assignments, provide resources for crisis support and family
help, and to help members organize their lives.
Can you give us an update on the Double Eagle application
and what you have heard from your soldiers and their families,
how useful this tool has been, and more broadly, what
strategies you are employing to reach out to soldiers and their
families to ensure that they have the resources they need to be
successful? Our Reserve men and women cannot be forgotten.
General Luckey. So I thank you for that. And I, first of
all, I would tell you that we, like the Guard in many respects,
have large formations that deploy as well. So while I take your
point, I will address it directly. I want to assure you that we
have a Yellow Ribbon Program that is--it is a DOD-wide program,
but the Army Reserve has an analogous program to what you have
probably seen with Guard formations and these are at scale.
There was one in about a month ago in Anaheim, California,
where there was 850 combination of soldiers and family members
who may be deploying. In this case, all of them were deploying,
but in some cases, it is a combination of soldiers who are
departing and soldiers are returning. And we have a slightly
different program of instruction in that situation.
So I will tell you, first of all, I want you to be assured
that they are not being left behind. This is a command
responsibility that I take very seriously.
As to the app. What I will tell you is it is better than it
was when I reported last year. It is still not where I want it
to be. I have specifically now tasked the 75th Innovation
Command in Houston, Texas, which, as you may recall, is a two-
star headquarter remission about 3 years ago, to get after all
things future in terms of innovation. It is in direct support
to Army Futures Command, and they have access to and are now
supporting this effort with some of the best app developers in
the country.
As you articulated, spot-on, you know, the opportunity here
for soldiers and for their family members to log into the
Double Eagle app, get information, understand what is going on,
and be able to communicate with other soldiers or family
members in their communities where they live and work is a
powerful tool, and we are beginning to exploit it and develop
it rapidly.
My concern with it, frankly, is it has got to continue to
stay current so it remains relevant for our younger users. I
mean, whether it works for me or not is not the issue. The
issue is whether or not it works for, you know, our 18-, 19-
year-old, 20-year-old soldiers and their families. So we are
going to continue to stay after this one. Thank you for the
question.
SUPPORT OF THE FUTURES COMMAND
Ms. McCollum. So I would like to ask the Army Reserve's
role in the support of the Futures Command with the 75th
Reserve Innovation Command. As you continue to support Futures
Command modernization priorities, as well as ensure that the
Army's Reserve benefits from the best talented and skills from
the private sector, I would like to ask you to give the
subcommittee an overview of the process in which you engage
with the commercial sector.
For example, how is the Reserve taking advantage of
emerging technology, how it is not just in Texas or on the
coast but in the Midwest as well? And also, the Government
Accountability was somewhat critical in a recent report of
Futures Command about outreach to small businesses across the
country. So what role does and can the Reserve and the 75th
Reserve Innovation Command play in doing a better job in
engaging with the small business community nationally? Because
I have sat at some roundtables, and small businesses feel it is
very cumbersome to be engaged and get through the paperwork and
know what is going on.
And then if there is any other Reserve witnesses that could
provide an update on how they are engaging with the commercial
sector, on how that would be helpful, especially from what I
heard you say, sir, about wanting more and better equipment for
our Marines.
General Luckey. So if I may just briefly, as to the
Innovation Command and where we are located, the squadron is--
the two-star headquarters is in Houston, Texas, but we
literally have nodes, and I am just going to list off a few of
them. I got a little card here, but you won't be able to see
it. Everywhere from Boston to Seattle, as you would expect,
Silicon Valley in California, Denver, Salt Lake, Chicago,
Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Kansas City, Dallas, Atlanta,
Huntsville, Nashville, Raleigh, Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Washington, D.C., Detroit, et cetera, et cetera.
So this is a--I would say this is an ongoing effort to make
sure we are not missing opportunities to remain very closely
connected with the private sector.
As to your question specific--and making sure we are
gaining and retaining talent that is working in the private
sector or other aspects of the public sector, but also
remaining connected to the Army through America's Army Reserve.
As to your question specifically about engagement with
small businesses, I will take that for action. I think I owe
you a better answer than I could give you here. What I can tell
you is this is--just the disbursal of this force by its very
nature and the private sector jobs that these soldiers have, I
think, lends itself to being able to do exactly what you are
talking about. What I can't tell you today is how far that
effort has matured.
General Bellon. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
I can share a vignette with you. So, recently, I visited a
logistics battalion, and within that battalion they realized
they had a number of Marines who were university students and
who worked in the technology fields and who were interested in
some of the current problem sets we are facing as we look at a
future force. So they created their own innovation space within
the battalion.
And so I am sitting there talking to a couple of lance
corporals. One was on the UC Cal Berkeley robotics team and the
other one was a math teacher and data scientist by training. In
the Marine Corps they are mechanics.
So in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the problem
sets we consistently were confronted with was a shortage of
generator mechanics. Generators everywhere, few people that can
do the generator mechanic piece, and you have got to fly them
all over the battlefield at risk to the crews and to the
Marines. So they decided that they could fix a generator with
their basic skills if they simply had a recipe on how to do it,
for lack of better words.
So they went out and they bought an off-the-shelf virtual
reality glasses, and they created an augmented reality program
that they had me wear. I threw the glasses on, and there on the
generator is an additive reality, showing the part, the belt
that we were trying to replace, showed where it was, and then
in the upper right corner was a YouTube video of a staff
sergeant. And you click on it with your hands, you pinch it
with your hands, and she would begin to tell you, now, the
first thing you are going to do is take the four screws off the
door, and the four screws would light up in purple through your
glasses.
This was created by the Marines. But the fascinating part
and the part that I think you are after is that when they did
that, they invited local businesses from the region to come in
and see what they really needed. Right? It was probably a 50 to
60 percent solution.
And then other units often provide opportunities for local
businesses who believe they have the capability that we will
need and we put them into the play of our tactical problems on
drill weekend. So if you have got a drone that can deliver
logistics, you know, we will work it into the play of our
problem. It may be 35 degrees and raining with 20 miles-an-hour
wind, and you can either do it or you can't, but they get a
good sense. Those small businesses understand, at a grassroots
level, of no kidding what we need and they are able to
interface with the Marines, and the young Marines bring their
talents to bear and can better frame the problems of what we
expect to face in the next 20 years.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Very interesting. Thank you, gentlemen, for your service.
We appreciate you. We know it is difficult. I think those of us
on this committee have a deep appreciation what you do day in
and day out. So make sure you go back and tell all your teams
how much we appreciate what you are doing.
General Scobee, good to see you.
General Scobee. Good to see you.
FIELDING OF TWO C-130JS
Mr. Ryan. The question I have, when we are talking about
transfer authority and all that, how might the delay in
fielding two of the C-130Js that were funded in fiscal year
2020 and then recently were just reprogrammed to support the
border wall affect the Air Force Reserve? Now, from my vantage
point, and I have an opinion on this, this is a critical safety
issue. The C-130H models that my Reserve unit in Youngstown,
Ohio, utilize and that they fly are old and they are falling
apart.
Now, as you know, the H model line is shut down, so we
can't get the parts that we need, and we are cannibalizing
other aircrafts in the process. And so the real safety issue
for us is that we fly the aerial spray mission, and so these
planes are very, very low to the ground. And my concern as
their Congressman is that we need to make sure that they have
what they need to train on and to utilize.
So can you speak to that issue that we are going to deal
with?
General Scobee. Congressman, my opinion is very similar to
yours. And our airmen need to be training on the equipment that
they are going to use in combat and in support of domestic
operations, especially when we are supporting the American
people. I think it is very important.
I would say that the readiness capabilities that we have,
in particular at Youngstown, are very high. They are old C-130H
models, but they are doing a great job of taking care of that
equipment. In the Air Force, we are prioritizing recapitalizing
some of the C-130Hs with J models, and what I have done and
have support from the Air Force is that the priority will go to
our Special Missions Unit.
As you know, the Air Force Reserve is the only--the only
capability resides in the Air Force Reserve Command for aerial
spray, also for hurricane hunting. The hurricane hunters have
already changed over to J models. And the other is the
firefighting mission, the MAFFS firefighting mission that we
share 25 percent of that with the Air National Guard.
So those, the special units that we are looking at, we are
looking at the feasibility studies for where it is going to be
best to put those airplanes. I can't tell you how much I
appreciate congressional support in getting those.
So if we, the four that were gifted to us from Congress, if
we take two of those away, the four would be initial fielding
for the units that we are aware that would be picked eventually
by the Secretary of the Air Force on where those go, although I
am sure she will get a lot of help in making that decision.
But also what is really important to us is that we fleet
and we have to upgrade the entire unit there, which will be
eight airplanes eventually. If we are--if we stop with two
airplanes, it won't help us to start at all. What we will have
to do is move those C-130Js into another unit that is like-
equipped. Right now, that doesn't reside in the Air Force
Reserve. That would be probably in the Active Component. There
may be some Guard units that have the C-130J 8.1 which is what
it would take.
If that had slipped, we can absolutely work in order to
make sure that we field that entire unit. So if there is a slip
and the two airplanes are added back later, we won't have any
difficulty at all. But if there are only two airplanes, it will
just create a mismatch of configurations for the aerial spray
mission, which wouldn't add any capability to our organization.
So we want to make sure that we get the full unit fielded
eventually, whether it is aerial spray or the MAFFS, depending
on how that goes. But we are happy to keep you advised of that
situation and how we are doing.
SUICIDE PREVENTATION
Mr. Ryan. Yeah. Well, that is disappointing. I mean,
obviously, this is a critical mission within the Air Force
Reserve and, you know, we will stay in contact with you on it,
but we appreciate your advocacy. I mean, we know that this is
not necessarily something that you wanted to happen or you
wouldn't have asked for four. But, you know, there is a lot of
people disappointed about this and, you know, we are going
continue to try to bulldog it and see what we can do to make it
happen.
Another issue for the other gentlemen on the panel that we
are very concerned about is really the outreach with regard to
suicide prevention. I also sit on the Veterans Appropriations
Subcommittee, and so if you can just within, you know, each get
a minute or so, tell us what you are doing as far as--because I
know you all have pretty much implemented new plans. So if you
can talk a little bit about that, I would love to hear about
it.
General Luckey. So I will start. So first of all, it is
great to see you again, and I appreciate the question.
I want to be careful how I characterize this because I
don't want to sound like I think we have solved this, because I
don't think that is a fair characterization. What I will tell
you is over the last 3, 4 years, the suicide rates in the Army
Reserve have been declining. That doesn't mean we have solved
the problem. It doesn't mean I don't watch it very carefully.
It doesn't mean we don't continue to target, as best we can,
those soldiers that are either unemployed or critically
underemployed as best we can with our private partnership
programs that really try help make sure they are able to find
good, meaningful work again.
As I have said in this committee before, one of my concerns
as a leader of this component is statistical analysis. Over the
last several years, we have found that about 50 percent of all
of our soldiers who either have attempted or have, in fact,
successfully completed a suicide were either unemployed or
massively underemployed in terms of--so that obviously becomes
an additive stressor for them. And I would argue, and I am not
a psychologist, but I would argue that it probably increases
their sense or lack thereof of self-worth and other issues that
may be resident in the home and elsewhere. So we take it very
seriously.
I would say the biggest thing from an initiative
perspective that we continue to really drill on is making sure,
not only do we keep an eye on our battle buddies inside our
units--and this is where, again, the app is going to be
critical for us to be able to increase that connectivity during
the other 28 days of the month--but it also enables us, again,
to help better target how we are going to help our soldiers
find meaningful employment in their civilian jobs.
Mr. Ryan. Interesting.
Admiral.
Admiral McCollum. Congressman, thank you. Certainly a very
important topic, one we take an all-hands-on-deck approach. We
had 11 suicides in 2018, 7 in 2019, and we have had 2 this
calendar year to date. And every single one of these we study
and we try to understand, to the extent that we can. The way
forward, our conclusion, the way forward is stress navigation,
as well as building resiliency tools for the member. And
probably more, just as important, this sense of purpose and
belonging that, as leadership, how we evaluate our leadership
methods down at the tactical level, that we create an
environment where that member feels like they are part of the
team and where they belong, and if they are feeling stressed,
that we can pick it up and offer them these resiliency tools.
So those two areas we are really investing in.
Mr. Ryan. General.
General Bellon. Congressman, thank you. For the great
support from Congress, we have been able to participate in the
Psychological Health Outreach Program. And that gives us 29
full-time offices around the country that is civilian
contracted and then two other offices that are part-time folks,
and that has made a difference.
So since I have taken command back in September, I have
looked at the data over the last 7 years, and it is all over
the board. I don't think you can draw conclusions. In the last
2 years, we have had a decrease, but I don't know that it is
statistically relevant over time yet.
So to answer your question directly, you know, I would
point to our command climate and our culture. You know, we take
pride in the fact that we have a very intimate relationship
between the leadership and the young Marines. You know, we
share the same hardships with them. They joined the Marine
Corps to do hard things. So we do hard things. And when you do
that, to echo General Luckey and Admiral McCollum, you know, it
builds their self-esteem and so forth, but more importantly, it
creates a very intimate environment where we can observe them
closely. And doing that and destigmatizing the challenges that
our young Marines and sailors face, I think, is the key in the
future.
You have given us great tools, but it is really about our
command climate and our culture and the destigmatization of
some of the problems that they face as young people.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
General Scobee. Congressman Ryan----
Mr. Ryan. I was going to let you off the hook there, but go
ahead.
Mr. Visclosky. He probably wants to say more good things
about Youngstown.
Mr. Ryan. I will yield him an additional minute or 2 then,
Mr. Chairman.
General Scobee. Congressman, and I have to say this about
this entire committee, every single either staff member we met
with or congressperson, they have all given me an opportunity
to talk about this. To me and my command chief, Tim, behind me,
we take this personal. If I was sitting here--when I was
sitting here last year, we had had three suicides in the Air
Force Reserve Command. There are 74,000 of us in the command.
Last year, we had 16. That is devastating, and that is not
success.
And what we have got to do is figure out where we have gone
so far awry with our people and making sure that we can take
care of them, because that is what we do. We take care of our
airmen. We have been given so many capabilities from our
elected officials to be able to provide care to our airmen.
What has caused this dramatic increase over the last year? So
we have taken a deep dive into it, and as we look at it, there
are really two significant things that have happened in our
airmen's lives. Everything that my colleagues have said rings
true for us as well, but it is financial issues and
interpersonal relationships and relationship issues.
So as we dive into these, the command chief and I have
really figured out what we have got to do to make sure that our
airmen feel connected and valued. One is, part of it is
education. We need to make sure that our folks understand what
healthy finances look like and what healthy relationships look
like. And then if they do find themselves in trouble, they
understand how to get themselves out of that, because that is
part of what we have inculcated in our culture about how we do
things right within our command, and that is about culture.
And then the last thing is, is making sure that our airmen
feel connected. 15 of the 16 were part-time reservists who were
not in status. So they weren't with the command at the time
they took their lives.
What I need to make sure is that all of our airmen--and we
have really tried to do this and we continue to do it at every
unit visit that we have--understands that they are always part
of our family. It doesn't matter what status they are in. You
have given me the ability to bring them in, get them the help
that they need and the care. Some of it is mental health, but
some of it is relationship problems. Whatever counseling they
need, I have the ability to get them that help, and what I need
to make sure is they understand that they are always connected.
And in order to do that, what I have asked for this year,
is I am putting some full-time support in my organization. Some
of it is at our standalone bases, and that helps with our
chaplains, especially when it comes to counseling. And then I
am putting a full-time first sergeant at every one of my wing
and wing equivalents. So there is somebody there that will
always help shepherd our folks along, that there is always an
ability to come back and contact. Because if we knew something
was going wrong in their lives, we have the ability to help
them. And if they know that they are connected, we can bring
them back with us and try to get them that help, especially our
organizations where geography is kind of the tyranny of
distance between them, as my wife likes to say.
Thank you for your question.
WOMEN VETERANS AND SUICIDE
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, if I could follow up on this. So I
have had a few conversations in the past couple of weeks with
some women veterans. They are very concerned about what they
are hearing in anecdotal, and I was going to be asking to get
some information on it, with the uptick of the number of women
veterans committing suicide.
Could I ask you, do you have a gender breakdown of the
number that you just gave us with your increase?
General Scobee. Madam Congresswoman, we will take that for
the record and I will get that information to you. I do not
have the breakdown in front of me, but I can tell you that it
is--that you are absolutely correct. I do have a number. I
don't know statistically if it is a significant number, but in
the 16 that we have had, there are at least four or five that
were female members of the command.
Ms. McCollum. So that might be something we need--I think
it is something we are going to need to look at, the way that
we are doing counseling and outreach. Everybody comes back with
its own set of challenges. We are all individuals. But it is
primarily, then, a male-dominated enterprise, serving in the
military, just as I am in a male-dominated enterprise here.
But in the military, when people come home and they are
dealing with issues and things, especially the women say, you
know, I am supposed to kind of blend back in, and the
pressures, the demands, and the expectations of what I do and
how I can talk about what I witnessed, what I saw, is very
different when they have a chance to talk to their peer support
when they are with, but then when they are back home, they
don't have the same kind of support.
So thank you very much, and I look forward to getting that
information and working together with you on the issue in
general but for women in particular. Thank you.
General Scobee. Congresswoman, I look forward to that as
well. Thank you.
INNOVATIVE READINESS TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Visclosky. If I could, if each of you, for those
services, could provide the same breakdown--I had never thought
about it quite in that context--just to see if there is
something there. And also, all of us share the concern and
appreciate yours, and I appreciate the emphasis on working on
the culture and stigma, so people do--if you have got a
problem, please, we are here to help. So I do appreciate that
emphasis very much.
Just one last question for myself. I will turn to Mr.
Calvert then. I would like to talk for a minute about the
Innovative Readiness Training program. It is administered by
the Department of Defense, provides military training,
opportunity in the United States and territories to increase
deployment readiness. The program also provides key services to
American communities, such as healthcare, construction,
transportation, and cybersecurity.
For the current year, as you probably know, we appropriated
$30 million. In the budget for 2021, the Department asked for
$13.1 million.
General Bellon, because you mentioned the program in your
testimony, if I could ask you, you mentioned units. It allows
your units to increase readiness while making tangible,
meaningful impacts in their communities, if you might address
that.
General Bellon. And I think this actually links a little
bit to Congresswoman McCollum's question. So I will give you
two vignettes. In one vignette, we were able to create a
tactical scenario where the Marines and sailors went in and
repaired an airfield in northern California. Huge success, and
they finished something. They leave something behind for the
community, and they were able to exercise their tactical tasks
and they feel good about that. Right?
The second one was relocating a village in Alaska. And the
depth of the rewards that that provides in our force, you know,
they joined because they want to serve, and they are executing
tactical tasks that fulfill their call to service.
So by providing this resource for us, you are helping us
not only train the young Marines and sailors, but to develop
that culture. You know, at the end of the day, our moral
obligation is to return them to their families and communities
as better citizens, better family members, better friends,
fortified by their service, and this is the kind of thing that
does it for us.
Mr. Visclosky. Any of the other panelists have a comment?
Otherwise, I will turn to Mr. Calvert.
General Luckey. The only thing I would say, Chairman, is it
is sort of like the Marine Corps, I find it to be a really
great opportunity for our soldiers to do two things at the same
time. One is develop and sustain their tactical and--their
technical proficiency more than their tactical proficiency,
their technical proficiency, and in addition to doing good,
building a sense of confidence in themselves and their team
that they are genuinely contributing back to the welfare of
their fellow citizens. So I think it is a huge win from a
retention perspective as well.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Calvert.
P-3 SQUADRONS
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is an interesting subject. I always was interested if it
could be a historical overview somewhat. You know, after World
War II, I suspect that people didn't pay as much attention to
that problem, but I suspect it was a significant problem at
that time, in Korea and Vietnam and certainly now.
So I don't know if there is any comparisons because I don't
know that they even kept statistics of that in those days, but
it would be interesting to look at that from that perspective.
Vice Admiral McCollum, last year's appropriation bill
included a reporting requirement of the Navy's plan to
recapitalize its two remaining P-3 squadrons. What is the
status of that report, and what is the impact of not buying any
P-8s in fiscal year 2021?
Admiral McCollum. Congressman, thanks for the question.
First, from a strategic depth perspective, the Navy establishes
what its warfighting requirement is. In this particular
aircraft, it is 138. The Navy funded 119, and then we had
additional two funded for the Navy Reserve.
Last year, the Navy listed that aircraft on its unfunded
priorities list, and the thought is it does two things. It
closes the gap to the warfighting requirement of 138, and it
can take advantage of recapitalizing these two squadrons, these
two P-8 squadrons. We have one in Whidbey Island and one in
Jacksonville, Florida.
There is a human capital piece of it as well. So if you
think about a pilot who has been on Active Duty and chooses
maybe about the 8 to 10-year point to go to the airline, we
really want to get a return on the investment. We, the Navy,
have placed in that to the tune of $9- to $11 million at that
point. If we can give them a place to continue service while
they are serving in industry--matter of fact, in the same
airframe, the Boeing 737--and get tremendous amounts of hours,
that is great strategic depth of value for our Navy and our
Nation. And every conflict that we have studied that has been
in any aspect enduring, the Navy and all the services have
drawn deeply on its strategic depth.
So we need--for that purpose, that is why the Navy Reserve
is focused, and I have listed it in my National Guard and
Equipment report as my number one equipping priority in pursuit
of closing this gap, funding recapitalizing the two squadrons,
and building a human capital strategy to give the Nation
strategic capability with pilots.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Gentlemen, we have no further questions at
this time. I want to thank you very much, again, for your
service and for participating today.
Admiral and General Luckey, especially yourselves, good
luck to you in your future endeavors. As I told General
Lengyel, as long as you are not coming back, I am not coming
back.
Thank you very much. We are adjourned.
Wednesday, March 4, 2020.
FISCAL YEAR 2021 UNITED STATES NAVY AND MARINE CORPS BUDGET OVERVIEW
WITNESSES
THOMAS B. MODLY, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
ADMIRAL MICHAEL M. GILDAY, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
GENERAL DAVID H. BERGER, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS
Opening Statement of Chairman Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning, the committee will receive testimony on the
fiscal year 2021 budget request for the United States Navy and
Marine Corps.
Our three witnesses today are the Honorable Thomas Modly,
Acting Secretary of the Navy; Admiral Michael Gilday, Chief of
Naval Operations; and General David Berger, Commandant of the
United States Marine Corps.
This is your first time before the subcommittee, and we
welcome all of you. We look forward to hearing your thoughts
about the fiscal year 2021 budget request and engaging in a
dialogue with us.
Normally, I like to keep my opening remarks brief. However,
I have some significant concerns relative to the Department of
the Navy and ask my colleagues' indulgence.
The bulk of my remarks will focus on the fleet. However, I
would like to begin by highlighting my concerns about the well-
being and quality of life for sailors, Marines, and their
families.
Of particular interest to me is childcare. Whether it is
Key West, San Diego, Camp Pendleton, or right here in the
national capital region, we continually hear from sailors and
Marines about the lack of available care. The committee made a
significant investment in fiscal year 2020 to mitigate this
issue, and I applaud the Navy for building on that investment
and, obviously, looking to continue to do so in your fiscal
year 2021 request.
So I just do want you to know, personally, I think, one, it
is the right thing to do, but that the Navy followed up, I
appreciate it very much.
Let's see. Okay. Moving on, to address the fleet, although
the committee has not yet received the fiscal year 2021
shipbuilding plan, I am puzzled by the degree the fiscal year
2021 budget request deviates from the previous shipbuilding
plan.
Beyond that contradiction, what is even more disturbing is
the fact that the Department that chose to transfer $911
million of fiscal year 2020 shipbuilding funds to support the
President's effort to build a wall on the southwest border. We
hear time and again that more ships are required, but then
actions like these are taken, severely undercutting the
credibility of the argument.
Furthermore, I am bewildered by the Navy's approach to the
Virginia-class submarine program in the budget. The Navy
removed funding for a second Virginia-class submarine, then
placed that sub at the top of its massive unfunded priority
list, knowing full well that Members of Congress on both sides
of the aisle will advocate to find $2.8 billion needed to
contract that boat.
It is clear to me that the Navy didn't make the difficult
choices required to reduce other programmatic funding to fund
the second submarine and is expecting Congress to do so.
Perhaps today you can make suggestions relative to reduction
options that the committee could consider.
I am also interested to hear an update on ship and
submarine maintenance issues. The shipyard backlogs remain
high, and the shipbuilding industrial base is facing production
delays and capacity challenges. Last year, we included an
additional $625 million for submarine maintenance. Again, I
would like to ask how you are building on that investment.
Finally, I remain concerned that the Navy may still be
accepting ships with both minor and major defects which require
additional cost and unscheduled maintenance. We have seen the
multiple issues with the Zumwalt class of destroyers, littoral
combat ships, and the late Ford-class aircraft carrier. I
believe it is inexcusable if shipbuilders are delivering ships
with defects. We need to understand what steps are being taken
to improve this situation and to make sure that the taxpayers
are not bearing the cost.
With that, I thank you again for appearing before the
committee today to discuss these issues. We will ask for you to
summarize your testimony in a moment but first would recognize
Mr. Calvert.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome each of our witnesses: the Acting
Secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly; the Chief of Naval
Operations, Admiral Gilday; and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, General Berger.
This is the first time each of you have appeared before our
subcommittee. We greatly look forward to hearing your
testimony.
Our sailors and Marines play a key role in projecting
power, ensuring freedom of navigation, and protecting American
interests both at home and abroad. As many of us on this
subcommittee have traveled to see the current demands of our
fleet, we understand firsthand how important it is to ensure
these sailors and Marines are properly trained and equipped to
carry out their mission. In the current threat environment,
integrated naval power is what keeps our Nation safe.
Fiscal year 2021 is a critical point as we continue to
rebuild our military. The investments Congress made in the past
several years have allowed our Navy to increase readiness,
modernize key platforms, and increase lethality. Now, in this
fiscal year, I believe we must not lose sight of the return to
a great-power competition laid out in the National Defense
Strategy.
This budget request reflects the many difficult choices the
Navy is having to make to balance current operational demand,
properly invest in its people, and increase research and
development to ensure we maintain our technological and
military superiority.
Many of these tough choices will be of great interest to me
and other members of the subcommittee here today. There are a
few items in this request which specifically I would like to
hear about.
First, I would like to understand how the shipbuilding
proposal aligns with the National Defense Strategy. As you all
know, China is on track to reach a 420-ship Navy by 2035, and I
am concerned that this request does not align with previous
force structure assessments.
I would also like to get updates on our future fleet
programs, including the Columbia-class submarine, frigate, and
our amphibious warships, I think one of which was going to be
built in Mobile, Alabama.
Additionally, I would like to update to our aircraft
readiness recovery goals and how we can sustain these
improvements in the future so that readiness does not suffer
again due to poor planning.
I want to conclude by thanking all of you for your service,
and I certainly look forward to your testimony.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, you can proceed.
Statement of Secretary Modly
Secretary Modly. Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member
Calvert, distinguished members of this committee, thank you for
your bipartisan efforts on behalf of the sailors, Marines,
civilians, and their families in the Department of the Navy.
It is an honor to be here today with Admiral Gilday and
General Berger, both of whom have demonstrated great commitment
to each other and to each other's respective naval service as
they have worked collaboratively to lead our integrated
American naval force.
Consistent with that spirit, we have taken a different
approach to the written testimony this year----
Mr. Calvert. You might want to put that mike closer to
your----
Secretary Modly. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Thanks.
Secretary Modly. We have taken a different approach to the
written testimony this year, submitting one unified document
instead of three separate documents.
Staying ahead in today's rapidly changing global strategic
environment demands that our naval forces commit to unified
planning, clear-eyed assessments, and sometimes, yes, some very
hard choices, which you will see in our budget submission.
In this process, we must harmonize competing priorities,
sustain our critical industrial base, and not allow our
maritime competitive advantage to erode relative to global
competitors and, more accurately stated, some very aggressive
adversaries who wish to hasten our decline as a global force
for liberty and for decency.
In the end, this budget submission is a manifestation of
the hard choices we had to make this year, but it is centrally
about the safety, security, and well-being of our sailors,
Marines, and their families. Ultimately, I ask that you
recognize that in this submission we could not make trades that
put our sailors and Marines on platforms and with equipment
that are not ready for a fight, if a fight is what is required
of them.
While this budget shows our trajectory to a force of 355 or
more ships, it does not arrest that trajectory. You have my
personal assurance that we are still deeply committed to
building that larger, more capable, more distributed naval
force within a strategically relevant timeframe of no more than
10 years. I look forward to working with this committee and the
entire Congress in the coming months as we develop realistic
plans to do so.
Our budget also demonstrates a clear commitment to the
education of our people, as we implement the recommendations of
the Education for Seapower study that I led as the Under
Secretary of the Navy the last 2 years. We are establishing a
Naval Community College for our enlisted personnel as part of a
bold and unified Naval Education Strategy that recognizes that
the intellectual and ethical development of our people is
critical to our success as a naval force.
We are also stepping up our efforts to meet our solemn
commitment to our military families through significantly more
engaged oversight and accountability of the public-private
venture housing program.
Finally, I would like this committee to understand that, as
leaders of the Department of the Navy, we are both vocal and
united in our determination to prevent sexual assault and
sexual harassment throughout our force. Every sailor, every
Marine, every Navy civilian deserves individual respect,
dignity, and protection from this great naval institution. We
have work to do in this regard, but you have my personal
commitment that we take it very, very seriously.
We are grateful to the committee for passing this year's
NDAA, which enables many of the priorities identified within
this document. In passing this legislation, you have sent a
strong signal of support to our people and a strong warning to
our adversaries.
We also appreciate the funding stability and the
predictability of the past several years. This has saved money
for the American taxpayer and given our force the agility and
flexibility to address emerging threats while still investing
in the integrated force.
We urge the committee to do what it can to continue the
stability so that we can implement the reforms and investments
required to meet the great-power challenges, protect the
maritime commons, and defend the United States of America.
Thank you very much for your time, and we look forward to
your questions.
Mr. Visclosky. Admiral.
Statement of Admiral Gilday
Admiral Gilday. Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member Calvert,
distinguished members of the committee, good morning, and thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today with
Secretary Modly and General Berger. I am also joined by my
wife, Linda. We are thankful for your enduring support of the
Navy-Marine Corps team.
Today, as we testify, three carrier strike groups and two
amphibious ready groups, along with 30 percent of our fleet,
are deployed around the globe today. Our Navy-Marine Corps team
needs no permission to operate at sea, and their power does not
rest in any one location but, rather, in our ability to
maneuver anytime in anywhere the seas reach, operating across
the spectrum of military operations.
Without question, our sailors remain our most important
asset. We have taken a hard look at what they need to be
successful, the equipment and training they need to fight and
win, and, as, Chairman, you mentioned, as well as the support
required to take care of them and their families.
Over the past 8 months, we have engaged in a deep
examination of these issues. Our balanced approach in our
budget submission provides a Navy ready to fight today while
committing to the training, the maintenance, and the
modernization to provide a Navy ready to fight tomorrow.
Naval power is critical to implementing the National
Defense Strategy, but naval power is not just a function of
fleet size, as the Secretary mentioned. It is also a
combination of readiness, lethality, and the capacity of the
fleet.
Our number-one priority is the Columbia-class ballistic
missile submarine and all it brings to our national deterrence.
This request also heavily invests in readiness accounts such as
ship and aircraft maintenance and modernization; manpower;
spare parts; live, virtual, constructive training; as the
Secretary mentioned, education; steaming days and flying hours.
It invests in new systems to make our fleet more lethal,
including increasing our weapons inventory, bolstering the
range and the speed of those weapons; exploring directed-energy
weapons; and incorporating new technologies like hypersonics.
This request grows our fleet in size, generating sustainable,
capable capacity.
Importantly, naval power is not just determined by what we
operate and fight with but how we operate and fight. We are
pursuing an integrated approach alongside the United States
Marine Corps in fleet operations, in exercises, war games, and
in an experimentation. The net result, as Ranking Member
Calvert mentioned, is integrated American naval power.
Thank you again for the stable and predictable funding,
which has allowed us to make significant gains in readiness and
lethality already. On behalf of your Active Duty, Reserve, and
civilian sailors and their families who serve this Nation, your
support allows us to answer the Nation's call. On their behalf,
I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Visclosky. General Berger, you may proceed.
Statement of General Berger
General Berger. Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member Calvert,
distinguished members of this committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on the posture of your Marine Corps and
our priorities for the future.
I will start by echoing Secretary Modly and Admiral
Gilday's thanks for timely funding as well as your enduring
commitment to the Marines, sailors, and families through
efforts such as the hurricane recovery, which you provided for
last year, and revisions to our public-private venture housing
program. Your bipartisan support is critical to ensure we
continue to prioritize people as our greatest resource.
Thanks to predictable funding over the last few years, we
have made significant progress restoring both availability and
readiness. We are now at an inflection point. We have to pivot
now toward modernization while sustaining the readiness that
this committee has resourced. This pivot, in my opinion, cannot
wait until next year or the following. We must move now or risk
overmatch in the future by an adversary. And that is a risk we
will not take.
As the national defense directs and as Secretary Modly
recently emphasized in his first vector to all hands, we must
pursue urgent change at a significant scale. Marines have
always sensed when it is time to move out smartly. We don't
hesitate. This is that time.
Realizing the bold direction of our strategic guidance
requires acknowledging fundamental changes in the operating
environment and how we must organize, train, and equip the
force. I believe most leaders recognize that significant
changes are required, yet the scope and pace of necessary
change is seemingly at odds with some historical resource
allocations and some major acquisition programs which predate
the National Defense Strategy.
This budget submission marks the beginning of a focused
effort to better align resources with strategic objectives. Our
future budget submissions will build on this investment
strategy with informed recommendations for force design and
adjustments to our programs of record.
Together in partnership with Admiral Gilday, my shipmate
and battle buddy, and under the direction of Secretary Modly,
we are committed to delivering the integrated naval and Fleet
Marine forces our Nation requires.
As always, I welcome the opportunity to discuss our
findings along the way and keep each of you and your staffs
informed as we progress. You have my word, we will be frugal
with the resources that you provide, and we will ask for no
more than we need. With Congress's commitment and support, we
will ensure that your Marines continue to have every advantage
when we send them into harm's way.
I look forward to your questions, sir.
[The written statement of Secretary Modly, Admiral Gilday
and General Berger follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Visclosky. General, thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert.
ISR
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Acting Secretary Modly, one shortfall we hear of from
nearly every combatant commander is ISR. And I am concerned
that all the services did not request sufficient resources this
fiscal year. Do you believe the Navy's request reflects this
increased demand?
Secretary Modly. Sir, I think as we were going through our
budget process, we had to make trades in a variety of different
areas. So, when we went through this process, we went through
the service chiefs, and we asked them, are you comfortable with
the cuts that we have to take in certain areas?
And the decisions we made clearly would have--there are
certain ones that we would have liked to have not made if we
had had more resources. But those balances were made based on
what we believed was in the best interest of the safety and
security of our Marines and sailors and in terms of maintaining
the readiness of our fleet. And so those----
Mr. Calvert. Was ISR brought up at these meetings?
Secretary Modly. Oh, of course it was.
Mr. Calvert. And did they say they didn't need any more of
it?
Secretary Modly. No, sir, I think everyone thinks they need
more ISR. We need more ISR everywhere. But there were choices
that had to be made based on the budget constraints that we
had.
Mr. Calvert. And what was more important than the ISR?
Secretary Modly. I can give you a variety of examples of
things in readiness that we have made choices over. It wasn't a
binary choice between ISR and this. It was basically trying to
balance across the whole budget. But I can give you an
example----
Mr. Calvert. The reason I bring it up is it seems that
every combatant commander I talk to, the first thing they talk
about is ISR. Why is that?
Secretary Modly. Well, they recognize how important it is,
and we do too.
Mr. Calvert. General, do you need more ISR out there?
General Berger. Sir, we do. MQ-9s for the last year, based
on resources provided by this committee, we have employed MQ-9s
in Afghanistan really effectively, down in Helmand province.
At the tactical to operational level, there is no combatant
commander, I agree with you, that is ever going to be happy
with the ISR, because that gives them the indications and
warning that they are looking for.
Mr. Calvert. Yeah, that troubles me, because--you know, the
chairman and I share our disappointment in this reprogramming.
I know that is above all of your pay grade. I am sure you are
probably not too happy about it yourselves.
But, nevertheless, to break the line for the development of
the MQ-9 Reaper Extended Range, every single combatant command
that I talk to says they need more ISR. It doesn't make sense
to me.
Any comment on that, Admiral?
Admiral Gilday. Sir, a couple of comments in terms of
investments that we made and have made with respect to
contributing ISR to the Joint Force.
The first is the MQ-4 Triton. And so that is a great
capability that will have a number of different sensors on it,
that we most recently have deployed two of those out into the
Indo-Pacific AOR, and we have more coming.
As you are probably----
Mr. Calvert. How much does that cost?
Admiral Gilday. Sir, I will have to get back to you on the
exact price of an MQ-4 airframe and the systems that go along
with it. It depends on how it is configured. I don't mean to be
evasive. I just don't know the number off the top of my head.
Mr. Calvert. Did you request the Triton this year?
Admiral Gilday. No, sir, we did not.
Mr. Calvert. I am concerned that we are going to shut down
an affordable platform. The MQ-9 Reaper runs about $20 million
per unit. And, you know, 99 percent of the world they can fly.
We are not talking about the denied airspace here. And for some
future capability that is unknown and a price that is unknown.
Most of the ISR we look at is 5, 6, 7, 10 times as much
money as the MQ-9 Reaper. Is that what the military wants to
move to, is something that is multiples more expensive that
they can fly in a small part of the world?
Was that your understanding, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Modly. No, sir, I don't think that is--I think
some of those decisions were made also around survivability,
being able to fly in permissive environments and not permissive
environments, and also, I think----
Mr. Calvert. The MQ-9 Reaper, is it flown in areas where
they can't survive?
Secretary Modly. Well, right now, there----
Mr. Calvert. It can fly in all of Africa. It can fly pretty
much in all of the Middle East. You can fly almost all of South
America. You certainly can fly anything--or, you know, so----
Secretary Modly. Yes, sir, I agree with that. I think, as
they look at--particularly as the Air Force looks at its
modernization--and I don't want to speak to it, but they are
thinking about more in terms of great-power competition and
whether or not that platform actually would be survivable in a
non-permissive environment. So that is part of the reason that
some choices were made in that regard.
Mr. Calvert. So we are going to spend five times as much
to--we are going to get rid of the MQ-9 Reaper, and we are
going to fly ISR that can fly in denied airspace in areas that
you don't have to worry about having it shot down.
Is that the Air Force program or the Navy program?
Secretary Modly. That has a lot more to do with the Air
Force program, in terms of how those decisions were made.
Mr. Calvert. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Kilmer.
SHIPYARD INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMIZATION PLAN
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you for being with us.
As you know, my district is home to one of our four public
shipyards. And on the heels of the last question, talking about
the great-power competition, obviously, maintaining a strong
naval presence is going to be all the more important in the
years ahead to mitigate some of the threats that we are seeing
from China, from Russia, and their investments in their navies.
I think the Navy has acknowledged the importance of
modernizing our shipyards and improving our public shipyards to
make sure that they are equipped and able to maintain readiness
of our fleet.
I know there is the SIOP, the Shipyard Infrastructure
Optimization Plan. I know how important it is to have it stay
on track.
And, Mr. Secretary, I was hoping you could just give us an
update on the SIOP. Are you, in fact, on track? And what is the
total level of funding you are dedicating to the SIOP in fiscal
year 2021, and what will that accomplish?
Secretary Modly. Thank you, sir. I will speak broadly to
the SIOP. It is a 20-year program to basically modernize our
shipyards, our four main shipyards. It is $20-billion-plus over
that 20 years.
And we are prioritizing projects in that process. I believe
there are some projects that are happening in your district
this year. We are putting a heavy emphasis on some of the work
down in Norfolk Naval Shipyard as well. Looking at doing
planning in Pearl Harbor and in Portsmouth. So there is work
that is being done in all of these areas over the course of
this year.
In terms of the exact dollar amount, I don't know if the
CNO might know what that is exactly, but I think it is around a
billion dollars that is going into that this year.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks.
Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir, it is about $1.5 billion in
MILCON. And there is more than just MILCON, but we have three
projects underway this year. We will have another eight next
year across the four shipyards.
And so, at the same time that we are replacing some of this
equipment that--the average age of those yards is 76 years old,
and some of that equipment is that old. Some of those dry docks
are over 100 years old. So, at the same time, we are creating
digital twins to understand each of those yards, the layouts,
and how we can best invest in new infrastructure. We are also
replacing things like cranes and dry docks and also some
significant maintenance facilities.
We are committed to it. The public yards, including Puget
Sound, are really the jewel in the crown of our deep
maintenance facilities, and we know that we are past due in
terms of making these investments.
NAVALX TECH BRIDGE INITIATIVE
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. And I appreciated that, before we
started, you mentioned you might be coming out. We would love
to host you.
And, Mr. Secretary, I would love to invite you as well. We
would love to have you.
Mr. Womack came out last year. And it is a real sight to
behold, and the men and women who work there are really doing a
bang-up job.
I also wanted to ask about the NavalX Tech Bridge
initiative, which was designed to create techie go systems
around the Nation by partnering the Navy with the private
sector and with startup communities and academia and nonprofit
organizations.
Keyport Naval Undersea Warfare Center in my district was
selected as one of the first five Tech Bridge locations in the
country. Just hoping for an update on how you feel like that
program is going and what we are learning from that initiative,
what sort of impact you think it will have on innovation going
forward in tech development across the Navy.
Secretary Modly. I think it is an absolutely critical
process for us to develop these closer ties with industry,
particularly in the tech areas, because of their ability to
innovate quicker than we are able to innovate. So we need to
learn from them; we need to partner with them.
So this is a first, sort of, really, I think, serious foray
into that area. We are going to continue to do this. We are
going to monitor it. I think they are experiencing some success
with this, but the key is to really develop this at scale so we
can have almost a whole new ecosystem in terms of how we do
innovation across the Department of the Navy.
I don't know if the CNO has anything more to add on that.
Admiral Gilday. Just to echo what the Secretary said, when
we first joined the Navy and the Marine Corps, the U.S.
Government did 90 percent of the R&D in this country, and now
it is flipped. And so, obviously, the best ideas are coming
from industry.
The Congress has given us authorities so that we can turn--
we can lead-turn new capabilities faster. So the stuff that we
are applying, as an example, to our computer networks in terms
of machine learning, AI, in terms of cyber defense, have put us
in a much better position because we don't have to wait 5 or 6
years to field something. We can field it within 6 months.
So, yes, we are leveraging it, sir, and will continue to do
so.
Mr. Kilmer. Super. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Womack.
TOMAHAWKS
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And my thanks to the witnesses this morning. Mr. Secretary,
Chief Gilday, and the Commandant, thank you for your service to
our country.
This first question I think I am just going to ask for the
record, because I know it has some sensitivity to it, but I
just want to make sure that I understand where we are, above or
below our requirement on Tomahawks. I consider it to be an
important piece of our arsenal. And I would like to--we don't
have to get into detail here, but I sure would like an update.
Mr. Womack. But I would like your comments on the
importance of expanding our offensive strike capability.
So, Admiral, I will yield to you.
Admiral Gilday. Sir, thanks for your service as well.
Sir, so Tomahawk is one of those, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, one of those weapons systems that gives us
range and speed that we need to not only close gaps but
maintain and establish overmatch against our peer competitors.
So, with respect to Tomahawk, we are investing in Tactical
Tomahawk, the Block V, as you know, the maritime strike
version, and also the land attack version and the upgrades that
come along with that.
To directly answer your question, we are not where we need
to be. The Block V comes to IOC in 2023. But we are making
investments in those weapons steadily. Those numbers are coming
up.
Mr. Womack. Quick question for the Commandant.
In your written testimony, you talked about the POM
submission, which coincides with the inflection point for the
Marine Corps. Yet, looking at the budget, I don't really see a
significant amount of change. So why isn't there more change if
we are at that inflection point in the PB21?
General Berger. Sir, last July, we started probably a 7-
month effort to figure out what the Marine Corps--we would need
in 2030, and we finished that effort in late December, early
January. Not an excuse, but that is the reason why there aren't
fundamental changes in this budget submission.
There are the initial--what we could see already last July
when we began the submission process for this, what you could
already see was that, if we are going to contribute to the
naval fight, back to your previous question, we are going to
need some tools, some capabilities we don't have right now, if
we are going to contribute to sea denial and sea control.
Our long-range strike capability for the last 30, 40 years
has been Harriers and Hornets and now F-35s. And then it was a
drop back in to MRLS rockets. We need the ability to reach out
and touch a threat, an adversary's naval force, from ship or
from shore if we are going to be part of the integrated naval
force. So you see even in this budget submission the beginning
of the long-range fires that we are going to need in that
regard.
Mr. Womack. Okay. Thank you.
You know, Mr. Chairman, on kind of a lighter note, I
realize I have a couple of Naval Academy graduates sitting over
here on the panel. And having been elected chairman of the
board at West Point a couple of weeks ago, I just want, for the
record, everybody to know that I am glad that they have moved
that secret weapon that they had out to the fleet now, this
quarterback by the name of Malcolm Perry.
These Army guys were running around out there last December
trying to catch the wind, and he made us pay a dear price. So
thank you for moving that guy on out. I think he was out of
eligibility anyway. But congratulations on your victory.
And I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
INDUSTRIAL BASE
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary and Admiral and Commandant.
Thank you very much for being here and testifying today.
So I represent Tucson. I think you have a Tomahawk
manufacturing plant there. A very important piece of the
economy to us. You know, it is very important that our ships
and their components are manufactured domestically. As I said,
in my district and throughout Arizona, there are many small
businesses and companies that produce components for submarines
and ships. However, they are vulnerable given the volatility of
budgets and production lines.
What are you going to do to help the domestic industrial
base maintain relevancy and continue research and testing to
give the Navy cutting-edge capabilities?
And my question is directed to you, Mr. Secretary, but I
would love to hear from the other people, as well, if you have
something to contribute.
Secretary Modly. Well, thank you for the question, ma'am. I
think it is a very, very important question, because as we
think about how we develop a force, a new force structure, for
the Navy and Marine Corps team, we are heavily dependent upon
industry for us to be able to deliver that. And the industrial
base that we have that supports shipbuilding, particularly, and
all the components that get into it represent thousands and
thousands of jobs across the country, not just in the areas
where we actually build the ships. We have to make sure that
that industry is healthy and that it can adapt and change as
quickly as we see the threat environment changing.
So I have seen, just in the last couple years, lots of
serious investment, particularly in our shipbuilding industry,
to be able to be more adaptable, integrate new technologies
more quickly. But it has to be a partnership with industry,
particularly because when you see how our industrial base has
shrunk so much over the past 20 or 30 years, we have to work
with them a lot more collaboratively. And I think it is going
to require a lot less adversarial type of relationships and a
lot more collaborative relationships to make that work.
But it is part of our strategy. It has to be part of our
strategy. Because if we are going to accelerate a path towards
355 or more ships--and a lot of those ships that we are talking
about in our force structure don't even exist right now; they
are ships, platforms that we are looking at that are both
manned, unmanned, lightly manned--we have to have industry with
us on that. So it is a high priority for us.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you. I think people are really
surprised that southern Arizona has this industrial base
regarding ships. I mean, we are not exactly a coastal State,
but it is a very, very important industry to us. So I just want
to make sure that you are there and stay there, and I want you
to know it is a top priority of mine.
Commandant, Admiral, do you have anything to add?
Admiral Gilday. I want to say simply that our success, in
many ways, depends on a successful defense industrial base.
And so, as I just mentioned in the response to Mr. Kilmer's
question, one of the great things right now with respect to
industry is that there are so many ideas and so many options,
and a lot of that stuff is exciting. So, years ago, they used
to be really dependent upon our requirements. Now, you know, a
question that we ask is, what have you thought of that we
haven't that we could use? And a lot of that stuff has a direct
application from commercial to military with a few tweaks.
And in terms of Tomahawk, you know, as I just mentioned to
Representative Womack, we are very bullish on Tomahawk.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. So are we. So thank you.
General Berger. You mentioned predictable funding. I think
that is one of the three points.
Second, I think we have to do our job in terms of
predictable programming. We can't jerk around every 2 or 3
years in a different direction.
In other words, looking back through the lens of industry,
they need both. They need a predictable view on our
programming--what we need, what our requirements are--and
predictable funding.
I got a lesson last spring, traveling to a shipyard, on the
length of the supply chain, which you allude to. And the short
version of that, which I never would have understood unless
they drew it on a whiteboard, was, you know, here at the big
end, we could absorb some fluctuations. Down on the little end,
in someplace, you know, in Iowa, or you pick the State, there
are six people that produce a component of this. They can't
stop work for 6 months. Those six people have to have jobs.
So I understood, some people call it the fragility of the
supply chain, but I was taken to school last spring and learned
a lesson. That part is really important.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I agree. Maintaining that expertise at
that level is so important to the long-term success of the
program.
So I just want you to know, we are very proud of the
collaboration that you do with the University of Arizona in
Tucson. They are working on some cutting-edge technology that
we think can help you, and we like to see that kind of
collaboration. So, again, thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers.
CHINA
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy emphasizes the threats
posed by, quote, ``great powers'' and specifically highlights
Russia and China, of course, as the greatest threats to our
interests.
China continues to modernize its military platforms and
increase its number of deployable platforms of aircraft
carriers, guided missile cruisers, combat support ships, and
fifth-generation stealth fighters. China has also started
deploying military assets further from their coastlines. They
recently deployed a surface action group about 250 miles from
Guam and are also sending their submarines further afield.
China continues to maintain its maritime claims in the
South China Sea, has militarized disputed islands by deploying
advanced military systems. China also uses fear, coercion,
economic pressure to advance their priorities in countries
throughout the world.
We, of course, have much greater capability at large than
China, but our military might is spread across the world;
theirs is focused on the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.
As China continues its economic and military ascendance,
asserting power through an all-of-nation long-term strategy, it
will continue to pursue a military modernization program that
seeks Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near term and
displacement of the U.S. to achieve global preeminence in the
future.
My question: Speak to us about the actions of China in the
vein that I have mentioned. And what do you see for the future?
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Modly. Sir, thanks, for the prelude to that,
because I think everything you said are things that I would----
Mr. Rogers. Could you speak up?
Secretary Modly. Sorry. Thank you for that prelude to that,
because I think everything you said is something that I would
echo.
It has profound implications for us as an integrated naval
force because of their aggressiveness in South China Sea and
other parts of the world. It requires us to think differently
about the type of force structure we are going to have to be
able to counter those threats. I just read an article the other
day where the Chinese consider themselves a near Arctic power
as well, in addition to the South China Sea. And they are being
very aggressive everywhere.
I will say that what it is doing for us is it is helping us
rethink how we might want to build a naval force, what we need
to invest in, what those ships might look like, what presence
means, how do we counter them, and in an area where it is
predominantly dominated by water, as you look at the Pacific
region.
And so it is there but it is also in other parts of the
world where they are very, very aggressive. So we have to think
about not just building a force that can fight them there, if
we need to, or protect our forces or our trade in that area but
also globally.
And so, from my perspective, that means we have to build a
much more agile Navy, a Navy that is far less concentrated on a
small number of platforms to one that is more distributed. And
that feeds in very much to the strategies that the Commandant
and the CNO are working on.
Mr. Rogers. It seems like I recollect another time when a
military power in the East decided to run the U.S. Navy out of
the region and we had a little war. Do you see any parallels?
Secretary Modly. Well, sir, there are some parallels, but I
think our job really, in trying to build this Navy and as a
Nation, is to avoid that from happening. We want to deter that
from happening. We want to complicate their thinking about how
difficult that might be for them to do.
But we have to remain vigilant, because they have a long-
term vision. And we need to sort of match that long-term vision
with some very creative thinking, I believe, and persistence to
maintain the industrial base that we have to have to be able to
counter this and to be able to adapt as the conditions change
over time.
Mr. Rogers. Admiral, General, do you care to comment?
Admiral Gilday. Sir, when you spoke, I thought about two
things.
One is, all the things you outline indicated that China has
the capability now to challenge us, and that capability is
growing.
And you mentioned the South China Sea, and I think about
intent. And so, when you think about capability and intent--
and, right now, as you mentioned, much of their behavior in the
South China Sea is very provocative and very disruptive in a
sea lane that handles some $3 trillion of trade a year, so very
disruptive. That is only growing, with their One Belt, One Road
initiative, as you see that extend across Asia and into Europe.
And so the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps's global
presence is very important to challenge them. And so you see
that on a day-to-day, week-to-week basis, where Admiral
Davidson uses naval forces to conduct transit in the Strait of
Taiwan--major exercises. The Navy and Marine Corps's biggest
exercise in a generation will occur in both the Pacific and the
Atlantic in just a couple of months to send a message to China,
in particular, that we have capability and that we have intent
to respond if challenged as well.
So, to the Secretary's points about the need for a larger
Navy, for a more distributed Navy, I think that everything that
you stated is testimony to that argument, sir.
Mr. Rogers. General.
General Berger. I have spent about a third of my career in
the Pacific, and I still have a lot to learn about the Chinese.
Their approach--I think there are parallels to draw, some
lessons to learn, sir, but their approach is very different.
They would like to accomplish their goals without ever firing a
shot. And we need to understand that. In other words, their
goals are everything that you laid out, but their approach, it
is very different. They will buy or coerce their way right into
the neighborhood.
Hence the importance of partners and allies and the U.S.
military and our whole-of-government approach. We have got to
be the best partner out there. Because the moment you leave a
room, they will be in that room, convincing a country that they
are a better partner than the U.S. is.
Lastly, it probably goes without saying, but they have
watched us, they are gone to school on us, they have learned
from us, they are mimicking us. They form geographic combatant
commands like us. They are copying us, in other words, to catch
up to us faster. That and stealing our technology. Combine the
two, they are moving pretty fast. We should not understate
that.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, gentlemen.
I yield.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Ruppersberger.
EDUCATION FOR SEAPOWER STRATEGY
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you for your service.
To begin with, I do want to acknowledge Ranking Member
Calvert's issue on ISR. We have to stay focused on present and
future there. I realize budgeting is about priorities, so that
is what we have to do here too. So I really think we have to
keep our eye on the ball there.
I want to get into the--just this last week, the Navy
released an Education for Seapower Strategy. And the naval
university system consists of five learning institutions. They
have a War College, the Marine Corps University, Naval
Postgraduate School, United States Naval Academy, and the new
United States Naval Community College.
The key focus of this system will be ensuring that each
component fills a complementary role within the learning
consortium and integrates fully with others in the system as
appropriate and avoids, which is important, duplication of
effort.
Now, I am vice chair of the board of the visitors of the
U.S. Naval Academy. And I really do acknowledge that guy was
really good there, Mr. Womack.
Now, getting back to the institution, in my opinion, the
Naval Academy rivals any other in the country, including our
Ivy League schools. With the Naval Academy's--and I am also
vice chair of the board there, so I focus a lot at the Naval
Academy.
With the Naval Academy's shift in focus over the last few
years towards demands of the future, like cyber--and that new
building is really tremendous, and it is going to make a big
difference, I think, the cybersecurity building--can you talk
about the role the Naval Academy plays now in the naval
university system, this new system, and how that might change
under this new strategy that came out last week?
Secretary Modly. Sir, well, thanks for the question. This
is something that I have worked on very hard for the last 2
years, in terms of the Education for Seapower study. We had a
study that we launched a couple years ago to just really take a
reflective look on our education system and what we are doing.
You have heard a lot today about how the technology gap is
closing with our largest adversaries. And so our conclusion was
that the one thing that is going to be our enduring competitive
advantage is the intellectual ability of our people and their
ability to be agile, to move quickly.
The Naval Academy is the cornerstone of a lot of this. It
is the entry point for a lot of our military officers when they
come into the naval service. And so they have done a really
good job over the years.
We need to be able to think about how they become part of a
broader educational system, and that is what we are looking at.
Because there are a lot of--we had a lot of independent pockets
of excellence across this system that were not well-integrated,
and so we were not taking advantage of that throughout the
process.
So, you know, one of the first steps we took was to fully
fund all these institutions. Every year, they would come in,
they would submit their budgets, and they would be bill payers
for other things.
So we have fully funded the Naval Academy, the War College,
the Postgraduate School, the Marine Corps University, and we
are standing up this Naval Community College as a way to
leverage all the expertise that we have and give our students,
particularly our midshipmen, an opportunity to perhaps leverage
expertise at the War College or at the Postgraduate School or
work on graduate programs while they are still at the Naval
Academy.
So I see this as all positive. And the level of investment
is really not that large, given the size of the institution.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Not at all.
Secretary Modly. So it is a tremendous investment for the
future of the force, and so we are getting after this very,
very seriously.
NAVAL ACADEMY
Mr. Ruppersberger. Do we have anybody in this room that
attended the Naval Academy?
Oh, okay.
The other thing I want to talk about, which is--now we are
on the Naval Academy. There has been so much deferred
maintenance there that they have real problems. I visited
Bancroft Hall maybe about 4 or 5 months ago, and we need some
real focus and work.
The deferred maintenance has got to stop. And I am using
this forum right now to say, we really need to look at that.
And I would ask that you meet with the new superintendent to
make sure we start focusing.
Again, the new cyber building is fantastic, but we also
have issues of the water, the flooding. You know, there are so
many things that need to be looked at there. I am not sure
about West Point or Air Force, but I can tell you, the Naval
Academy needs work in maintenance and infrastructure.
So if you could work with me and my staff on that, I really
want to make sure we stay on that.
Secretary Modly. Yes, sir. Admiral Buck and I are
classmates, and so we have been talking about this since he got
there. And that is part of the reason--a lot of the funding
that is coming in this year is to, A, start looking at the
broad, long-term infrastructure plan there, do some planning
around that. MacDonough Hall, I am sure you have been----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes.
Secretary Modly [continuing]. In there. They have serious
problems----
Mr. Ruppersberger. And the water levels keep rising too,
so----
Secretary Modly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. We have to deal with that
long-term too.
Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Ms. McCollum.
SHIPBUILDING
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, everybody has been thanking you for your
service, but we really mean it, so thank you once again.
I would like to ask about the Navy's shipbuilding and the
plan to grow the fleet to 355 ships by the early 2030s.
The Navy has yet to submit the fiscal year 2021 30-year
shipbuilding plan, and it is reported that Secretary Esper has
not signed off on the plan asking the Navy to review it.
At the same time, the Navy submitted its fiscal year 2021
budget request and proposes a $4 billion reduction in the
shipbuilding account from fiscal year 2021, a reduction to two
ships.
Gentlemen, I have three questions, and I will just put them
out there: Why the steep reduction in the shipbuilding budget
for fiscal year 2021? And when can we expect the Navy's
shipbuilding plan?
Are you concerned that the shipbuilding industrial base may
be impacted by this reduction, and what manufacturing areas
will be most impacted?
And, additionally, there have been cost overruns--Admiral,
you spoke to them at a submarine meeting I was at--and delays
on the number of ships and subs. So are you concerned that the
industrial base does not currently have the capacity to handle
the growing fleet to 355 ships?
And then, in some of that, as you were talking about dry
docking and climate change and everything else, you mentioned
the public plan for the public shipbuilding facilities, but we
also have private facilities that are undergoing the same
stress.
So those are my questions, gentlemen. Thank you.
Secretary Modly. I will start, ma'am, if that is okay, and
just give you some of my thoughts on this.
With respect to the shipbuilding plan, it is an unfortunate
confluence of timing. As the Commandant mentioned, he and the
CNO sat down around the September timeframe to look at an
integrated naval force structure assessment that would then
inform our shipbuilding plans going forward.
All the shipbuilding plans for the last 4 years have been
based on a 2016 assessment. That 355 was the tag line for that
in terms of the total number of ships. We asked them to relook
at that, to look at it together, given the changes in the
Defense Strategy, the strategic context. And they were working
that overtime.
That was delivered to me in the latter part of January. Our
budget submission for 2021 was basically already completed.
We were going to release a 30-year shipbuilding plan that
coincides with the 2021 budget that would have been informed by
some of this new information but not entirely all this new
information, and the Secretary of Defense was just not
comfortable at that point in time, having not had a chance to
review it all. So he has asked us to take a little more time to
walk it through with him and the Deputy Secretary so he
understands it better.
So that is where we are with that. We will get a 30-year
shipbuilding plan over here within the next couple months, I
would say. That is the plan, at any rate.
The integrated force structure assessment that--I see a lot
of questions, but the Secretary of Defense is--this is his
call, and he has told us that he wants a couple of months to
look at that first. So that is what we are moving out on, to
inform him so he understands it better.
With respect to what this new shipbuilding plan might look
like and what information will be in there, as part of this new
force structure assessment, there are several categories of
ships that did not exist or were not contemplated in the 2016
assessment: a new amphib, a new smaller amphib to support what
the Commandant is talking about; new combat support vessels as
well; unmanned systems; the new frigate. All these are new
ships that don't exist right now. We are going to award the
frigate this year. But those will then inform future plans.
So we really see, as we talk about this inflection point on
the shipbuilding plan and the strategy, you are going to see
that much more in the fiscal year 2022. And we want to develop
that in consultation with the Congress as well--we understand
this is not something we just do inside the halls of the
Pentagon--as well as with industry.
So do I have concerns about industry's ability to deliver?
Not really. I think they can deliver based on the plan we have
right now. I think that there are some concerns about how this
year, the fiscal year 2021 budget might impact them, but I
think, over the long term, the plan that we are going to submit
will create a lot of opportunities for shipbuilding and the
industrial base beyond our existing set of competitors in that
space, because what we are asking for is a lot more innovation,
different platforms, et cetera.
And I can ask the CNO or the Commandant to comment on that
as well. But that is where we are with the shipbuilding plan.
Admiral Gilday. Ma'am, to give you some insights on what we
did with the $5 billion that we removed from procurement since
last year--and this submission reflects that cut, which ends up
being fewer ships in terms of procurement.
So that $5 billion--as I spoke to in my opening statement,
we really want to make sure that we have a ready, capable,
lethal fleet rather than a bigger fleet that is less ready,
less lethal, less capable.
And so, in that $5 billion, $3.5 billion goes to manpower
and training. So, for years, we have had gaps for sailors,
billets at sea that have gone unfilled. We need to make those
ships whole again and keep them fully manned. And we learned
lessons from that over the past few years in ways that were
very, very painful.
The same thing with maintenance and modernization. We have
taken $2 billion of that $5 billion and put it in maintenance
and modernization. So we deferred maintenance for a long time
between 2010 and 2020, and we are now catching up, including
modernizing our ships as well.
We are fully funding training, our steaming days for ships,
our flying hours for our pilots. We are funding ordnance, as we
talked about this morning, in terms of Tomahawk and other long-
range weapons, and spare parts as well.
So we are trying to make sure that our fleet is whole. And,
you know, if we had more top line, we would put it to
additional ships.
Ms. McCollum. Well, why didn't you--I mean, you are cutting
two ships. I understand that you are putting the money to good
use, but why didn't you just ask for the training money and the
money that you just described that you have technically
reprogrammed?
Admiral Gilday. So they were difficult decisions that we
had to come to grips with. Do we continue to underfund those
critical accounts? And I go right back to: Sailors are the most
important things. And so we should be putting them on ships
that are maintained well, that are----
Ms. McCollum. I don't disagree with----
Admiral Gilday. I don't mean to evade your question.
Maybe----
Ms. McCollum. No, and I don't think you are.
Admiral Gilday [continuing]. I don't understand it.
Ms. McCollum. But by doing a reduction this way, rather
than billing it into the base that you ask us for, then we are
not having the conversation that the money needs to be
appropriated in those accounts in order for you to continue
your goals. Because these aren't one-time things you are
talking about doing, correct?
Admiral Gilday. Correct. That is correct.
And so, to amplify what the Secretary said, as the Navy
grows, we want to make sure it is whole as well. And some of
the pressurization that we have right now in the shipbuilding
account includes the fact that 20 percent of our shipbuilding
account right now is dedicated to the Columbia seaborne nuclear
deterrent, and that will creep to more than 30 percent of our
shipbuilding budget in fiscal year 2026 to 2030.
The fact that we are investing in our shipyards, the fact
that we are closing these gaps with respect to ordnance and
spare parts that we can no longer ignore--and so those are the
additional pressures, ma'am, that we have on the top line that
we are operating under.
Mr. Calvert. If the gentlelady would yield on that point?
Ms. McCollum. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. Because I think you are bringing up an
extremely important issue here.
Because this budget doesn't sustain the 2016 force
structure assessment goal of 355 ships by 2030, let alone a
plan that calls for more ships. So, you know, I think we are
dangerously--we are down a path that we are never going to meet
the goals that you have been outlining, from my perspective.
And so I just wanted to bring that point up.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
With Mr. Kilmer's question about, you know, our ship
facilities both with climate change and sea-level rise, however
you want to describe it, the same thing is going on in the
private yards. And I had asked a question earlier, a couple
months ago, and I know our staffs are talking, but do you have
any more information?
Do you want to enlighten on--are there conversations going
on with the private shipyards? Because this is going to be
substantial for them, and they didn't cause the climate change.
So that becomes a very important factor in how we are going to
be able to keep all the shipbuilding on time.
Admiral Gilday. Ma'am, I will have to get back to you on
any type of conversations we are having with private shipyards
on their infrastructure with respect to the effects of, you
know, rising oceans.
With respect to, though, the point about ships, your ship
numbers, you are absolutely right. Given the top line right
now, we don't think that we can afford a Navy greater than 305
to 310 ships, and so the fiscal year 2021 budget takes us to
306. So that is what we think we can afford, given all the
other pressures that I mentioned a few moments ago.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Crist.
CLIMATE CHANGE ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here. I appreciate your presence
and your service to our country.
Admiral Gilday, if I could begin with you, in January of
2019, the Department of Defense completed their report on the
impacts of climate change on the military installations. The
report found that 18 Navy installations are at risk, 16 of
which are currently at risk of flooding. This report did not
look at foreign installations, so you would have to imagine
that the actual worldwide number is higher than 16.
Can you talk about the problem of rising sea levels that
are causing the Navy--and what you are doing to address climate
change in general, please, sir?
Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. It is a significant concern,
obviously, because we own so much waterfront property.
Mr. Crist. Right.
Admiral Gilday. And so what we are doing with the military
construction projects that we have at our bases, we have to
take into account at least a 2- to 3-foot buffer above the
current level in order to accommodate, you know, that rising
tide, which is measured--the thickness is about a nickel a
year, anywhere from a nickel to three nickels a year, in terms
of the rise of that water.
So, as we are slowly investing in more infrastructure and
getting our bases up to par, I will tell you that we are taking
that into account as part of our long-term strategic plan. But
it is--
Mr. Crist. Yes, sir.
Admiral Gilday. But it is factored into our MILCON
projects.
Mr. Crist. Well, thank you.
My second and last question may seem on the lighter side.
It is, but it really isn't. I saw a movie recently, a new one,
called ``Midway.'' And I don't know if any of the three of you
have seen it yet. Have you?
Mr. Secretary, you saw it.
The reason I raise it, it impacted me. I have seen it now
twice in, like, a week and found it so compelling, and the
admiration you have after--you saw it, so you know what I am
talking about.
My only question is--and it seemed very factual to me,
especially at the end, with the documentation of what each of
the individuals who were highlighted in the film, with their
credentialing. And, to your knowledge--you are the Secretary of
the Navy--is it factual, from what you know?
Please.
Secretary Modly. I believe the film--that we worked with
them on the development of that film in terms of----
Mr. Crist. You did?
Secretary Modly. Yes. So most of those were historically
based facts. In fact, we were invited to the premiere of that
here at the----
Mr. Crist. Did you go?
Secretary Modly. Yes, I did.
Mr. Crist. Was that here?
Secretary Modly. It was here. It was at the Navy Memorial.
Mr. Crist. That is wonderful. Where are you from, sir?
Secretary Modly. I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio.
Mr. Crist. Are you a Browns fan?
Secretary Modly. Yes, I am afflicted with that.
Mr. Crist. Say it again, I am sorry?
Secretary Modly. I am afflicted with that. But it is a good
affliction to have.
Mr. Crist. Things will get better, don't worry. I am a
Tampa Bay Bucs fan. They will get better too.
Secretary Modly. Thank you.
Mr. Crist. Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Aguilar.
COLUMBIA CLASS SUBMARINE
Mr. Aguilar. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know
how to follow up the Browns questions. I am going to give it a
shot.
Mr. Secretary, the lead Columbia-class sub has a very lean
schedule to deliver the fleet simultaneously with
decommissioning of the first Ohio-class submarine. What is the
Navy and the industry doing to de-risk the programs and to
ensure timely delivery?
Secretary Modly. Sir, thanks for the question. I will hit
some of the highlights of that, and I will ask Admiral Gilday
to maybe add some more specific color to that.
You are correct, the schedule for this is very tight right
now. We don't have a lot of margin left in the schedule. And
that is one of the reasons why that is our top priority in
terms of our funding. We had to make sure that that submarine
was funded and they were putting enough attention to it over
time.
But there are lots of--this sort of goes back to the
question about the industrial base. Decisions that are made in
the industrial base--for example, the decision last year to buy
the two carriers at once, that has implications for the
industrial supply base that also supports the Columbia, because
a lot of the same companies have to be around and viable to
deliver the Columbia. That is because it is a very, very
specialized set of equipment. The nuclear reactors, some of the
other technologies that go in them are shared across this
industrial base for these specific types of submarines.
So, when we make decisions, when we make budget decisions,
we have to understand the second- and third-order effects. And
that is one of the reasons why it is really important,
particularly on these large capital projects, that we really
think hard about them before we make decisions that could cause
perturbations in the supply chain, et cetera, going forward.
But we are spending a lot of time to ensure that the
schedule for the Columbia is tracking properly, and we can't
afford to have a slip-up there at all.
Admiral Gilday. Sir, thank you. And if I could just add a
couple of things to underscore what the Secretary said.
So it is the Navy's number-one acquisition program because
of the schedule that you mentioned.
Number two, we are fully funding the first hull. When we
begin construction of that hull this fall, 83 percent of the
design will be complete. And so that may not seem impressive,
but if I compare it to Virginia-class submarines we are
building now, only 43 percent of the design was done when we
began those submarines. If I go back to the 1980s when we built
Ohio, the previous nuclear deterrent, 2 percent of the design
was done when we began building.
So we are working very closely with Electric Boat and
Huntington Ingalls to ensure that we are setting ourselves up
for success here right from the beginning. So the ability to be
83 percent done with design gives us the ability to better
predict, you know, the parts that we are going to need, the
steel that we are going to need.
And they do that work both in Quonset Point, Rhode Island,
and also down in Newport News, Virginia, and then, finally, up
at Electric Boat. I was up at Electric Boat the week before
last, and they are building a facility at Electric Boat so that
they can build the Columbia-class submarine inside one
building, so instead of moving pieces around a shipyard or
doing work in different areas, everything is done right in that
one building. It is going to be really impressive.
And, lastly, based on everything else I said, just the
predictability for those companies to be able to keep sighted
on what workforce requirements they are going to have over the
next 10 years is really important. So that is another reason
why we have to be, as you said, really focused on the schedule.
Mr. Aguilar. Admiral, are there production delays on
certain components that are impacting the schedule?
Admiral Gilday. Not that I am aware of, sir. But I will get
back to you--I will ask that question and get back to you.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. Missile tube production or anything like
that?
Admiral Gilday. So we just delivered missile tubes to the
U.K., and my understanding is we had some initial issues but we
are in a good spot right now, that Electric Boat is in a good
spot.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay.
Mr. Secretary, same?
Secretary Modly. There was a welding problem on some of the
initial tubes that were manufacturer's, but they have corrected
those.
CONVENTIONAL PROMPT STRIKE
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. I appreciate it.
Just one more, Mr. Secretary. The entire Department has
rightly focused on the resources for emerging technologies. One
of the line items that caught our attention was the
Conventional Prompt Strike, which has grown from $11 million in
fiscal year 2019 to $1 billion in this year's budget request.
Usually, this is the point in the hearing at which Mr.
Ruppersberger asks questions about hypersonics. But can you
explain to the committee how this increase for the CPS program
is justified over this short period of time, but also,
specifically, how you are working with the other services for
this and making sure that there aren't a duplication of
efforts?
Secretary Modly. Yes. Thank you for the question.
Conventional Prompt Strike is one of our most important
programs right now for the future. We are behind our major
adversaries in hypersonic weapons right now. And we believe
that that funding number is acceptable. Several people were
trying to push us to take more than that, but I think we are
trying to do this in a very reasonable and measured way.
And we are doing exactly what you said, is we are trying
not to duplicate efforts between the services. So, actually,
about 2 years ago, Secretary McCarthy and I signed an agreement
where the Army, Navy, as well as the Air Force will work
together on this. So it is not a joint program office, but it
is a cooperating program office, and so that has been going
exceedingly well.
And so we are very excited about that program. They are
making great progress. And, actually, we would love--if you are
interested, we could come and give you a classified briefing on
that if you are interested, in terms of how that program is
progressing.
Mr. Aguilar. That would be great. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
QUALITY OF LIFE AND MILITARY HOUSING
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
The first question I have deals with quality of life. And I
assume, Mr. Secretary, it would be directed to you.
Ms. McCollum, Mr. Calvert, and I were recently in Key West
for a number of meetings, and one of the things, when we asked
about quality of life, housing came up, and there is a backlog
of requests. Key West, very expensive place. Our understanding
in conversations, there is a height limitation, so there is no
growth. Everybody rents their place out for Airbnb.
And we are going back to the airport, and there is this
large swath of land that is vacant. And someone pointed out to
us that the United States Navy used to own it but in 2013 they
sold it. Now, that was 7 years ago, but my sense was housing
values and backlog for military housing was probably acute 7
years ago in Key West.
One, who makes a decision to dispose of property like that
when you have a backlog for people who are working in the
military who need housing that is affordable?
And if we asked the question and went around to other bases
and facilities the Navy has, are we going to get the same
response of, ``Well, yeah, we sold that,'' and now we have a
backlog on possible areas for housing?
Secretary Modly. Sir----
Mr. Visclosky. Who makes----
Secretary Modly. Sir, I don't know who made that specific
decision. Those are decisions that would make their way up
through the Secretariat. I assume it happened several years
ago, before I was here.
We talked about this when I was in your office, and I am
investigating that. And I am actually going down to Key West in
about a week or so to talk to them about what the situation is.
My understanding was that that was an area that had housing
on it that had to be condemned for a variety of different
reasons. And so then they decided to--I am not sure if they
sold it. I need to find out the true facts on that, and I will
get back to you on it, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. And the reason I bring it up is not so much
to relive the past. You can't get the property back. I mean,
you could, but you are going to pay a lot more money for it. My
understanding is there was property disposed of also near the
Navy Yard some years ago. And we all realize what southeast
Washington looked like along the waterfront, and now you would
have to repay a gazillion dollars to get that property back for
the United States Navy.
So, looking forward, I guess my point would be I hope that
never happens again. And I am not the most prescient person,
but for some of these disposals where there is backlog on
housing, you are in expensive housing markets, I would
appreciate you getting back to the committee as to who is
making these decisions and what are the safeguards in place so
that greater care is made in April of this year, the next time
that decision has to be made.
We can't relive the past, but it seems like there are
sequentially bad decisions being made on properties that could
be used effectively to control costs for military families.
Secretary Modly. I don't disagree with you, sir, and I will
look into that. My assumption is it is either the Assistant
Secretary for Installations and Environment who has the
authority to do that, but I am pretty certain it would go all
the way to the Secretary of the Navy for approval.
Mr. Visclosky. If you could, again, look into this----
Secretary Modly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky [continuing]. So that it doesn't happen
again.
Secretary Modly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. That is all we are looking for.
Secretary Modly. Yes, sir.
CHILDCARE
Mr. Visclosky. The second thing, quality of life--and,
again, I do want to thank the Navy. When I became chair--and I
have been on this subcommittee since 1993. Our executive
assistant said I was the seventh chair. I am under no illusions
that we come and go.
My goal last year was try to fix one thing out of that $700
billion budget at the Department of Defense for quality of
life, and it was childcare. I appreciate the Navy heard the
message. The fact is, my understanding is the wait list is
currently 3,700, which is unacceptable but much better than
7,700 when we had this conversation a year ago.
I also appreciate that you have increased your request--
money is not everything, but money is part of this issue--your
request for the year going forward.
I guess, again, in a positive light, for the other
services, if there are lessons to be learned, what happened,
and how did you approach that? To what do you attribute that
success in the reduction in the wait list for daycare?
Secretary Modly. Well, I think about a year or so ago or
maybe--right now, I think we are about 9,000. The demand is--we
have 45,000 daycare slots across the Navy, and that is about
9,000 short of what we need. So, in this budget, I think we are
adding another 5,000 to try and close that gap.
I am not sure what we did, other than apply the resources
to it and taking it seriously. So I am not sure what other
lessons--I don't think it is a complicated lesson, in terms of
what can be imparted to the other services. But I don't know
their specific situations.
I don't know if Mike has any observations.
Admiral Gilday. Thanks, sir.
If I could just add a couple.
One of the things we are doing, in lieu of seeking
additional MILCON, is we are doing pilot projects right now
with some locations. And I will give you a couple of examples.
In Coronado, California, they have an elementary school
that is excess capacity and they don't need. So we are going to
lease that space and turn it into a childcare facility.
We are also working in some places with industry, with
large companies, where they would actually build the facility
and then we would lease some of the space back.
As you know, we have many spouses that work in our
childcare facilities, and so that is a plus as well. And we try
to pay them above what industry typically pays--not a lot, but
we are above the national average. And so we would hopefully
find more job opportunities for our spouses, as well, in those
facilities.
But we would like to come back to the committee and give
you a report on how the pilot projects work and whether or not
we are able to look at additional opportunities based on that.
Mr. Visclosky. And appreciating, positively, that you
mentioned the pay issue. Again, visiting a facility, one of the
observations of ours was that the pay for daycare workers was
the same as a cashier.
Now, let me tell you, I am from Gary; I want the cashier to
make more money. But, also, you have somebody dealing with a
person's child, a human being. We ought to pay them what we
want for that quality daycare.
And we are told, well, we are limited on what we can pay.
And we had asked several different services and individuals,
where is the law or the regulation that says I can't? And in
one case, they said, well, it kind of depends on what we are
getting from the commissary too, like we are having a bake sale
here.
So I appreciate, again, positively, you said, no, we know
we have to pay more. Because I am deadly serious that I think
one of greatest recruiting tools--let alone how you treat
people, civilian and military, you couldn't find anyplace in
this country with better daycare for your children. Now, that
is what we ought to subscribe to.
So I appreciate your, at least implicit, there is not a pay
issue here if we are determined to hire people and pay them
what they deserve.
Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. And our turnover rate of people
is about 10 percent lower than industry. So we are turning over
at about 25 percent a year; industry is at about 38 percent.
And so we trying to remain competitive.
The other thing we have done for our spouses is we have
instituted a program where, if they need to get a new license
when they move to a different State, we will pay for that.
And now we have a MyNavy Family app, and they can do that
on the--they can set up childcare on the app. They can set up
their housing on the app. They can read orders that spouses
understand on that app as well. And so we are trying to make it
easier for people.
Mr. Visclosky. Good. Good.
General, if I could have the same conversation with you,
and it is just not going to be as happy. My understanding is
that the wait list for the United States Marines in fiscal year
2019 was 783, and the estimated wait list for 2021--and it is
an estimate--is 783.
I would also point out that we plussed up the Marine Corps
budget about $18 million last year for daycare. The fact is, in
your budget, you asked for almost a $2.6 million cut from 2019
levels and a significant cut for the investment we made to take
care of childcare.
Could you explain that budget submission to us?
General Berger. Sir, I called down this morning to Camp
Lejeune to find out, today, to answer your point, what is the
picture today. Because we have been stationed on both coasts
multiple times and we have kids.
The wait list down there is 30 days. Needs to be better,
but 30 days? Okay. Longer for DOD employees than it is for
uniformed servicemembers, but for uniformed servicemembers, 30
days.
So the next question I asked was, okay, where is the
chokepoint, where is the biggest bulge? And it is age 2 to 3, 4
years. That is where the biggest bubble is.
What are the challenges in hiring? And as the CNO said,
licensure comes up pretty quickly, reciprocity between States,
which this committee and the Department is working hard to bang
out with the Governors, because that is--when our spouses move,
and they are part of the labor pool, if it takes them 3 months
to get relicensed in another State, that is a problem.
We have made big adjustments in flexibility of hours. That
has made a huge impact. Because it was rigid before, you know,
6:00 to 6:00 and that is it. But units don't operate, of
course, 6:00 to 6:00. So you have to be--base to base,
installation to installation, you have to be a lot more
flexible than they have been.
Lastly, the whole Department of the Navy has gone online
with applying for childcare, which you couldn't--you had to
show up in person before with your application when you got to
the base and then join a wait list. Now you can do it before
you ever move. You can apply and be accepted even before you
leave your previous duty station.
Changes that have to happen if we are going to be
providing, like you point out--and we need to--the world-class
childcare that we should be providing.
Mr. Visclosky. Well, you pointed out another issue you have
to deal with. That is, essentially, people work shift work.
And, again, we are all very familiar with that concept.
But you didn't really answer my question. How are you going
to do that backlog if you are asking for less money than you
had 2 years ago?
General Berger. Part of the money is labor, and part of the
money, of course, is MILCON and the infrastructure around it.
We think, right now, if--and we will need to check the rest of
the, you know, places around the globe. But a 30-day wait and a
700-person backlog, what does it cost to drive that down even
further? And I would be happy to get back with you. I can't
answer that today.
Mr. Visclosky. We want to work with you. And we are going
to be putting the bill together here; in about the next 30
days, we are going to start. And you just have to--I just want
to solve this problem.
And we are never going to go have a zero wait list, but I
have told other people, when my 33-year-old son was born--I am
a Member of Congress; his mom at the time was a Harvard law
grad--it took us 9 months to find daycare. We had control of
everything in our life. If I am a newly enlisted personnel, I
am moving my family, I am desperate for daycare, I am going to
be deployed, I can't imagine the stress on that family.
So I am absolutely deadly serious about solving this and
want to work with you. But, again, in the next 30 days, really,
if you can communicate with us, we have to--whoever is sitting
here next year, I don't want 783 people on that list.
General Berger. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Ryan?
Yes, I am looking to my left and my right.
Ms. McCollum. And we agree.
Mr. Visclosky. One of them.
Ms. McCollum. We both agree.
SECURE LVC AIR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT (SLATE)
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Modly, thank you for being here, a fellow Ohioan
and, I heard through the grapevine, a fellow Cleveland Browns
fan. We can do joint therapy together. But we are excited about
this year.
Thank you for being here. Thank you for your service.
I have kind of a long question that I want to ask, but I
think it is relatively important because it speaks to, kind of,
a broader approach that I think we need to have.
In your testimony, you mentioned live, virtual,
constructive training. And the Navy has identified extensive
shortfalls in current air combat, not the ships, but the air
combat training requirements, highlighting the need for both
encryption and advanced live, virtual, constructive capability
in naval aviation air combat training.
And my staff and I have heard from aviators flying fourth-
and especially fifth-generation fighters who say the current
training ranges are woefully inadequate to put these planes and
these aviators through the paces.
If we want aviators to train as they fight, we need to
train them against the full range of threats, including against
peer adversaries who are fielding state-of-the-art air defense
systems and planes that approach our own in terms of
performance.
And since our adversaries are not likely to lend us dozens
of actual S-400 missile defense systems or provide us with
foreign pilots flying foreign planes, the next best thing is to
simulate those entities. And in an era of distributed, all-
domain operations, utilizing synthetic training environments is
absolutely crucial, which I know you agree with.
Unfortunately, my understanding is that the Navy is
proceeding down a path that would invest nearly a billion
dollars to purchase a new training system for Navy fighters
that does not have a requirement for LVC capabilities and could
not handle adding those capabilities later without another a
billion dollars later on to add new hardware.
And instead of leaping ahead, it looks like the Navy is
doubling down, at great expense, on technologies that won't
provide the LVC capabilities Navy aviators and even Navy
leaders claim that they need.
And, even worse, I understand the Navy's next training
system may not be fully fielded until 2050. That is a hell of a
long time to be investing in yesterday's technology.
So here is the kicker: The Air Force and the Navy have
already flown and tested a system known as SLATE, the Secure
LVC Air Training Environment, that has full live, virtual,
constructive capabilities right now, today. And it is at
technology readiness level 7, compared to the system the Navy
is investing in, which is only at TRL 3.
The reason SLATE is farther along is because this
subcommittee, at my urging, after hearing from pilots and
aviators, provided funding for SLATE several years in a row,
and it has paid off. SLATE exceeded expectations when it was
tested on Air Force F-15Es and Naval F-18s in training
exercises at Nellis.
Here is what the lead researcher was quoted in the press as
saying after the test was conducted. He said, ``We are not
supposed to say that it was a very successful technology
demonstration. That is supposed to come from our senior
leaders. But it was a very successful technology demonstration.
It was beyond our wildest hopes.''
And when Naval Air System Command completed a technology
review board in May 2019, the SLATE program was named as the
most mature, lowest-risk approach to delivering advanced LVC
capability to the fleet.
And so I want to ask you, why is the Navy not investing
into SLATE? And why is the subcommittee being asked to fund a
program known as Tactical Combat Training System Increment II
that doesn't give naval aviators the full capability they need
and won't be fully fielded until 2050?
Secretary Modly. Sir, so thanks for that information. And
most of those details I am going to have to go back and check
on because I don't know the details of the program. However,
from a high level, what you are describing, in terms of what
that capability is, is exactly what we need.
So I will have to go do some investigating and get back to
you in terms of what exactly happened with those two
technologies and what we are doing. But this is absolutely
critical to the future and the way we are going to train our
pilots, so it concerns me that we made an option for something
that is not going to do that. But I will have to go investigate
and find out for you.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah. I would appreciate it. Like the chairman
said, I mean, we only have a few weeks as we are moving forward
here to construct this bill, and there are a lot of competing
interests. And, you know, we know what the National Defense
Strategy has kind of told us, the major--which I think is an
amazing document and a great blueprint, and everyone who had
their fingerprints on it should be commended. But these are the
kinds of things that drive us crazy, you know, when you are
thinking a billion dollars isn't going to get us to where we
need to go or where we need to be. And we have the opportunity
and the technology that seems like it is in place and ready to
be scaled up.
And, you know, that is what the taxpayer wants from us.
And, you know, I know you are a good Ohio kid, so you are going
to understand this. And I appreciate your service, and I want
to say thank you. But, please, with your team behind you--you
know, we know how important our staffs are to us--please let us
know in the coming days how we can maybe rectify this problem.
Mr. Calvert. Yeah, I share the gentleman's concern on that
very subject.
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that. See? They say people don't get
along in Washington, D.C., and we do, don't we?
Mr. Calvert. Absolutely.
Mr. Ryan. All right.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Calvert.
MIX OF SHIPS AND PLATFORMS
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
One thing that concerns me, as we go through this--and,
obviously, I don't think there is any disagreement that we have
that we need more ships and we need more platforms. And, you
know, we are going to have this argument, how we are going to
get there. We have to grow the top line. Well, you know,
unfortunately, as an appropriator, you have to deal with
reality. Defense discretionary spending is shrinking, not
expanding. And the same thing with nondefense discretionary
spending.
And so, as we go down the appropriation line, we have to
make some realistic decisions here. Because where we are at,
where we are going here, this discussion about it, we are not
going to a 355-ship Navy. So we have to look--but we need more
platforms, we need more ships. So maybe we ought to start
looking at the mix of ships we have in some serious
discussions.
You know, one of your colleagues in the Army told me, well,
you know, when you start making 50-year decisions on aircraft
carriers, what is the survivability of an aircraft carrier? I
am sure you don't want to hear that, from the Navy's
perspective, but those are questions we have to ask. Because,
as you know, $13 billion for an aircraft carrier buys a lot of
ships.
And you are talking about--when the Marine Corps, for
instance, is talking about smaller carriers, maybe have
multiple use, be able to use those as amphibious carriers,
small carriers, another kind of mix of ships to get more
platforms out there, that is something we need to talk about.
Because, you know, I have had a number of discussions about
these various subjects but in a different setting.
But I am concerned about that, because we need more
platforms. And I don't see a path forward here from what you
are laying out in your budget. I just don't see it. Tell me I
am wrong.
Secretary Modly. Well, sir, you don't see it in the 2021
budget. I will admit that.
Mr. Calvert. Do I ever see it?
Secretary Modly. So----
Mr. Calvert. Do I ever see it?
Secretary Modly. Well, that is my job, is to present a plan
that can get us there within a reasonable timeframe. And that
is what I am working on right now with the Secretary of
Defense, to come up with that plan.
And as you mentioned, driving to a 355-ship fleet or more--
which I believe it has to be more--is going to require a
different mix than we had in the 2016 force structure
assessment. Whatever that number is, it is a 30- to 40-percent
bigger fleet than we had 3 or 4 years ago.
There is no realistic way that you can assume we are going
to have a 30- or 40-percent higher top line to maintain that
fleet. It is just not realistic. So how do we bring it in? How
do we bring that number down? How do we change the mix? How do
we take the average cost of our ship and take it down?
But it is less important about what the number is than it
is what the capabilities are that that mix delivers at the end
of the day. And that is what we are working on. I think----
Mr. Calvert. Well, I would caution, numbers do matter. Now,
you have force multiplication, obviously, with our allies,
whether the Japanese or the Australians or whatever. That
delivers more platforms. But at the end of the day, numbers
matter. I mean, that South China Sea is a lot of territory. I
have been to--you know, that is--so we need----
Secretary Modly. Well, I agree with that. My point is that
the debate right now within the halls of the Pentagon is not a
debate between having 200 or 350. It is more like, is it 355 or
380, or 370 and 390? So that----
Mr. Calvert. So how do you get there with the top line you
have?
Secretary Modly. So one of the things you have to do is you
have to drive down the average cost per ship in that new mix.
The $13 billion carrier, hopefully that is the last $13 billion
carrier we buy. Does that mean that the next Ford class is
going to be--it is going to come in less than 13, because we
are learning a lot on the first one and they are going to be
cheaper as we go forward on those.
Right now we have four in the budget, or we have four that
are under contract. We have now a window of time, 6 to 7 years,
to think about what that next carrier is after that.
Mr. Calvert. And don't get me wrong, I love aircraft
carriers. I would like to see us, you know--but, at the same
time, you know, we have to defend them. And if we are going to
build them, we have to have the money to build them with.
And now I am going to get to the second part of this thing,
which is, if we are going to find the money to build the ships,
including the aircraft carriers, we need reform within the
Pentagon. And I keep harping on this subject. You guys all know
what I am harping about, is that you have the highest number of
civilian employees in the history of the Pentagon, relative to
uniformed forces.
If you get back to the historic ratios of the Pentagon,
according to The Business Council, you save $125 billion over 5
years. That would pay for the aircraft carriers, that would pay
for your 355-ship Navy plus, and we would be on our way. Plus,
it takes care of our procurement issues with the Air Force, the
Army.
We need reforms within the operations within the Pentagon.
I have mentioned this to the Secretary, the Assistant
Secretary. Because, in my perspective, under the real budget
reality that we are dealing with, you are not going to see
growing defense budgets like I think some people believe is
going to happen. Realistically, I just don't see it. So we have
to get realistic about finding dollars within that operation we
can put into procurement in a more efficient operation.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Ms. Kaptur.
MENTAL HEALTHCARE
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
being late. I had my own hearings this morning.
We thank you very much for your service to our country.
I wanted to ask two questions. One deals with those under
your command. What can be done to help ensure better access to
mental healthcare and maintaining a continuum of care for those
in the Navy and those transitioning out of the military?
We understand that--at least, the information I have
indicates that recent reports show that military treatment
facilities will eventually only service Active Duty
servicemembers, causing an increase in the use of civilian and
VA medical facilities and resources, and will place an even
heavier reliance on the Department of Veterans Affairs in this
arena where we are so short of individuals who can perform
these services, both as doctors and as advanced practice
nurses.
I think the Navy may have a special responsibility in this
arena. And I am just wondering if you could explain to me, what
are you doing to help us better diagnose and treat individuals
who do present with neurological conditions, not just PTSD but
other related conditions?
Secretary Modly. Well, thanks very much for the question,
ma'am. It is a very important question for us, as we are
finding that not just PTSD but all kinds of other mental health
issues that our sailors and Marines experience, as well as
their families.
One of my jobs is to sign condolence letters to the
families of sailors and Marines who have lost their lives. And
I am finding that, as I am signing these, 70 percent of them
are suicide, a result of suicide. It has become a real problem,
a significantly higher rate now than 5 years ago. I think last
year we had 72 suicides, Active Duty members, and 5 years prior
to that we were at 42.
This is a significant problem for us. We are putting a lot
of resources behind it, a lot of attention to it. We are
putting mental health professionals on our carriers and some of
our larger ships to make sure that sailors and Marines have
access to that. But it is a long-term struggle for us to get
after this.
And it is not something that is isolated to the military;
it is a societal problem. We are finding that our statistics
are echoing what we are seeing in society. For our demographic,
we are actually lower that some of the societal rates on
suicide.
So we are putting significant resources behind this. We are
doing a lot of work not just with our mental health
professionals but also with our own people about teaching them
how to reach out, having more interpersonal reactions, being
able to flag and understand when their shipmates are having
struggles, and to get them to help. And it is a long-term
thing, and it is something that we are going to be working on
for a very long time.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, I will tell you, I think one of the ways
we could help is by training of additional support personnel to
work in this area, including doctors and advanced practice
nurses. I would appreciate your getting back to me for the
record on the best ways we might work with you to do that.
TRAINING FOR BEHAVIORAL SPECIALISTS
Ms. Kaptur. I was extremely impressed with the Intrepid
Center up at Walter Reed. That is the beginning of a coherent
societal response. I was very impressed when we were down with
special forces and looking at how behavioral specialists had
been embedded in units.
But in order to do that, you have to have the training. And
I can guarantee you, when these individuals come home, the
ability of our veterans system to respond is not as crisp as it
should be. There simply are not the people out there with the
proper training.
So I am looking for a proposal that would help us provide
the funds to train. I don't quite know how to do that. I talked
to the heads of all the service academies when they came before
us a couple years ago, and they didn't view their job as
training doctors. Well, I am thinking, well, then whose job is
it? How do we do this, working with Department of Defense and
the Veterans Department?
So I would really welcome your comments. I met the Admiral
of the Fifth Fleet, myself, when we were down in Tampa, and a
few years later he was dead. And I just feel especially
compelled to push you a little bit and ask you to respond to
the record on that. All creative ideas welcome.
Can you do that, Mr. Secretary?
CONTROL OF THE BLACK SEA
Ms. Kaptur. My second question is completely different, and
that regards the naval presence of the Russians in the Black
Sea. Can you give us a sense of your own knowledge of that
region of the world and what more we can do, working with NATO,
working with you, to counter Russia's control of the Black Sea
region and stop her from further advancing in that region, in
the sea lanes? Any comments on that?
Admiral Gilday. So, ma'am, the best thing that we can do in
the Black Sea is to be in the Black Sea.
We just had a ship leave the Turkish Straits overnight, the
USS Ross, and she actually did a rescue of some Turkish fishing
vessel, where the boat was on fire and they rescued the
civilian mariners from that vessel. But we are doing multiple
patrols in the Black Sea a year.
And so our presence there is really reassuring to countries
like Ukraine that we do have a presence and to show the
Russians that they don't control that water space. And so,
again, that is routinely an area where General Wolters, the
European Command Commander, has us operate, as well as the
eastern Mediterranean.
Ms. Kaptur. I think my time may be closing here, but I just
wanted to get a sense, do you view that the Russians are sort
of in a static position, or do you view the Russian Navy as
pushing? Do you feel the edge more, or do you feel some step-
back at this point?
Admiral Gilday. Definitely feel the edge more. Definitely
feel the muscles flexing, with sharp elbows, in that region.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
Mr. Visclosky. Ms. McCollum.
ARCTIC TRAINING EXERCISES
Ms. McCollum. I have been doing a little research for my
next question here. I am going to ask you about Arctic
operations.
The last 2 years, the Navy has had two carriers participate
in Arctic training exercises. One involved the USS Harry Truman
with NATO, and in 2018 the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the
northern edge in Alaska last year. And the Marines have
conducted several training exercises with our NATO partners in
Norway since 2017.
The Navy is treating the Arctic region with the concern
that I believe it warrants, given Russia and China's increased
activities in the region.
And, Mr. Secretary, you are right on; China has been
calling itself a near-Arctic nation. But now they have a new
tag line, and I wanted to get it right, so I looked it up. They
want the Arctic to be part of the ``Polar Silk Road.'' So they
are all in. And we know they have scientific stations in
Iceland, built a new embassy in Iceland that is very expansive.
So can you let the committee know--because we are getting
more involved in supporting your efforts in the Arctic, but I
think a lot of our colleagues here in Congress still don't
think of China, they don't think of the Arctic, they don't
realize Russia's vast increase in activity in the Arctic.
Can you tell us some of the hazards of the Arctic and the
impacts that you might see naval operations encountering? What
kind of damage, for example, might our ships sustain due to ice
buildup or sailing in heavy seas? Because the weather can
turn--I am from Minnesota. The weather can turn on a dime up
there. I think it turns fast here; it turns faster in the
Arctic.
What are you learning--I know there has been more
cooperation with NATO, even National Guard exchanges with
Canada, Denmark, and Norway--about what they do with their
ships? Because they are regularly in these heavy conditions.
I won't even tell--you probably know the number of
icebreakers our NATO allies have, how many we don't have, and
how many China is building and looking at even building
nuclear.
But the question I would also include the Marines on is:
Gear is different. Training is different. You have to train to
be everywhere in the world, as Marines, and we thank you for
doing that. But there might be some investments or things we
need to look at in either cold-weather research or making sure
that supplies and training are available for the Marines,
because they could be deployed in some very tough, tough
conditions.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Secretary Modly. Well, I absolutely agree with your
conclusion about the challenges that we are going to have
there. We are not really used to operating up there, as some of
our adversaries might be. The Russians, for sure, are much more
capable of operating in those conditions. They have a greater
inventory of icebreakers than we have.
And as the climate changes and we are seeing some of that
sea ice recede a little bit, it is creating more opportunities
for sea lanes for transportation of good and services across
the polar regions. So that is more for us to protect. And so
that creates a lot of challenges for us.
Also, in terms of their proximity with respect to missile
proximity, that they could launch from that area down into
North America, creates challenges for us there.
We have a huge asset up in that region, and that is the
State of Alaska, where we could use that probably more in terms
of areas to train, to place forces, to work collaboratively
with our other services.
Actually, the Secretary of Air Force and the Secretary of
the Army and I decided just this week that we are going to put
together a team to start thinking about that part of world and
how we can do things collaboratively so that we can leverage
each other in terms of creating greater presence up in that
region.
I will ask the CNO to talk specifically about some of the
maritime challenges, as well as the Commandant about the
challenges in training Marines to function in cold climes.
Admiral Gilday. So, ma'am, to echo some of the things you
said, or to kind of underpin them, the Bering Straits will soon
be considered strategic straits just like the Strait of
Malacca, just like the Suez, just like the Panama Canal.
Particularly with the receding ice cap, it is going to get more
competitive up there in terms of natural resources, in terms of
sea room to maneuver, in terms of trade routes.
And so we have seen this coming and have increased our
exercises up there. The Commandant, I know, is going to speak
about the amphibious exercise last fall and one that we are
just finishing up right now with the Norwegians.
In the past month, I have met with my Norwegian counterpart
and my Canadian counterpart to talk about additional exercises
that we can do up north. We are doing ICEX right now in Alaska
with two U.S. submarines and one U.K. submarine.
So our drumbeat of exercises up there has been steadily
increasing, with much attention by the Secretary of Defense and
his staff as well.
General Berger. Ma'am, those of us who have trained in
extreme cold weather would agree with you 100 percent, it is
not just colder.
I think--I won't speak for General O'Shaughnessy, because
he lays it out really straightforward. There is a homeland
defense aspect of what you are alluding to, and then there is a
keep the maritime commons open.
Ms. McCollum. Right.
General Berger. Two different----
Ms. McCollum. Missions.
General Berger [continuing]. Lenses to look through, both
critically important and both, I would offer--and you
confirmed, the naval force is key to both, as is the rest of
the joint force.
We are going to go where the Navy goes. We need to operate
wherever we are sent. It is partly a matter of gear, as you
highlight, that is unique to that environment. But it is also a
more basic, fundamental level of leadership under extreme
conditions that you can't simulate anywhere else. There are
only a handful of places where you can get to that level of
small-unit leader leadership where it makes that kind of a
difference in that adverse environment.
Alaska and Norway, we do train in both. Great opportunities
to train. Alaska, in fact--you get the dual advantage in Alaska
of a huge airspace, a huge sea space. You can stretch the
muscles of a joint force in Alaska in a way that is difficult
to do in most other places.
So, absolutely, yes. We are not going to have a specialized
cold-weather force, because, as you point out, we have to be
able to operate wherever around the globe. But where the Navy
goes we are going to go, and that includes the Arctic.
Ms. McCollum. Well, I would hope that, as ships are being
deployed, the maintenance, the stress on the metal, a whole lot
of things, needs to be taken into account. And I am sure you
are doing that, with working with, you know, engineers and--
because equipment is going to change when it is subjected to
that kind of cold, and that needs to be worked into a
maintenance log.
When I started working, people--Mr. Calvert was very nice
to me all the time. He knew I was going to ask about
icebreakers for years and years and years.
You know, it is like, ``Well, no, we will pay for them. The
Coast Guard can pay for them.'' Well, the Coast Guard can do
some of them, but I think the DOD needs to be stepping up, and
we need to have some that are fully at your disposal, equipped
in a way to do what you need them to do, and not just rely on
Coast Guard, which is also going to have other maritime
responsibilities for the commercial shipping that is taking
place as well as commercial fishing in there.
So I look forward to working with all the branches of the
service but with the Navy and the Marine Corps in particular to
make sure that we have the training, we have the equipment, we
have the ingenuity, we have the research going on. Because
Alaska is either your front yard or your backyard, depending
upon how you are facing. And China might want to be near the
Arctic, but it is not an Arctic nation. We are. And so we need
to take care of our yard.
Thank you.
ICEBREAKERS
Mr. Visclosky. If I could follow up on Ms. McCollum's
question, historically, it has been the Coast Guard for
icebreakers. And given the commentary relative to the Russians
and their number of icebreakers and the opening up of the
Arctic, do you foresee--and I know there is no money in the
2021 budget--that that might change and that the Navy might
have a role in that?
Admiral Gilday. So, sir, we did make an investment--
actually, a joint program office with the Coast Guard. They----
Ms. McCollum. One.
Admiral Gilday. For one. Right. Exactly, for one. The
Commandant of the Coast Guard reminded me of that this week
when we traveled.
But it is, presently, a Coast Guard--it is, presently, a
Coast Guard mission. And that Polar Security Cutter, I think
they are going to deliver it within the next 2 years.
I know that answer is unsatisfying, ma'am.
Ms. McCollum. Yes.
Admiral Gilday. But right now that is a Coast Guard
mission.
Mr. Visclosky. I would get to shipbuilding in an inverse
manner from what Ms. McCollum had talked about earlier and a
number of other members. We had a conversation last week about
the Littoral Combat Ship, and I am not going to revisit that
conversation.
But, for the record, I would like to know how much the
United States Navy paid for those first four littoral combat
ships that are going to be decommissioned. It has come to my
attention there are going to three dock-landing ships also that
are going to be decommissioned.
Also, in the 2021 budget--I assume it may be in the
submission. If not, what is the cost for that decommissioning
as far as providing for it in the 2021 budget?
Having said that, though, and the explanation being the
cost of, if you would, refurbishing these ships, to the
extent--and I am still having a very difficult time coming to
grips with that we had four experimental ships before we built
the fifth one, but I will give you that.
My understanding is the LCS mission modules are finishing
testing, and they will complete tests on these ships and others
in the fleet. Will other LCSes have to be redesigned? Will
there be other testing? Will there be other changes?
And, again, kind of looking forward--okay. I am unhappy
about those four. But if we are still doing testing and we are
still developing modules, is this going to be a continuing
saga?
Admiral Gilday. Sir, so the testing we did with those first
four hulls actually informed the modifications that had to be
made with the block buys we did with LCS-5 going forward so
that we could put missile systems--the antisubmarine warfare
package, the anti-surface warfare package, and the mine warfare
package.
And so the things that we found on those first four vessels
included propulsion issues, both with water jets and reduction
gears that weren't working properly. So the engineering plants
were--the propulsion plants as well as the electrical plants
were unreliable. And so we learned from those four vessels and
have actually retrofitted the newer vessels to have
modifications that have taken care of those problems.
We learned from testing that we needed increased cooling
systems. We had to change out, completely change out, cooling
systems in order to accommodate those modules that I just spoke
to. And there were also command and control modifications that
were made in order to get the most out of those new mission
modules that we are putting on the LCSes.
The surface mission modules, they are already being
installed. The antisubmarine warfare mission modules, they will
finish their testing this year. And then the mine modules will
finish their testing the following year. So we are looking at
maiden deployments for these new systems within the next couple
of years.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
There is a lot of focus on the Columbia, for good reason,
but I would like to turn for a few minutes just to the nuclear
weapons modernization program itself.
I am going to be at the Energy and Water Committee later
today. Mr. Calvert and I are members, as well as Ms. Kaptur is
chairing the committee. And the NNSA is going to come in today.
According to its agency's 2020 stockpile stewardship
management plan, they said they did not intend to ask for any
more than $15.5 billion for weapons activity until the early
2030s. And, again, this is their budget submission. Yet they
are now, for 2021, seeking $15.6 billion, which is 25 percent
more than current-year funding.
Admiral, your budget proposal talks about the development
of the W93 in the 2019-2020 budget. The W93 design was not
planned to begin until fiscal year 2023.
The question really is, what has changed relative to the
investment in this warhead? And will this investment starting
earlier affect other investments the Navy has to make?
Admiral Gilday. Sir, I can't speak in terms of comparing
that investment against others. We could certainly take a look
at that. But I will say that the actions that we are taking are
based on the Nuclear Posture Review, as you know, in terms of
the modification of some of those weapons.
I think the investments that we are making are a pretty
steady glide slope and are fairly modest with respect to
keeping the arsenal up to date.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
One final question in the same vein. According to a 2019
report by the Government Accountability Office, plans to
refurbish the Navy shipyards, including those that are critical
to the modernization effort, are suffering from delays and cost
overruns.
With regard to our nuclear deterrence, what are the
strategic risks of neglecting these refurbishment projects? And
how is the Navy planning to make that investment, if I could?
Admiral Gilday. So, sir, the strategic investment plan that
we have for shipyards, our four public shipyards, if that is
what you are talking about, $20 billion over 20 years. And so
right now we have three MILCON projects ongoing. Another eight
are requested in the budget, our budget request for 2021.
We are really committed to updating those yards. The
average age, as I mentioned before, is 76 years old. The
condition, relative to other infrastructure, we would rate as
poor. And so it has become a priority for us.
It is an area that we have probably under-resourced for a
number of years, and it has finally come to roost. In terms of
being able to continue to do high-quality maintenance on those
nuclear-capable ships, we have to continue to make the
investment in that infrastructure.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Just more of a comment as we are ending this
hearing.
You mentioned a digital twin earlier, Admiral. That is,
obviously, very exciting technology. And that came out of the
Small Business Innovation Program. Can you get back to us and
tell us how successful that is and how well that is doing? Or
maybe you want to make a quick comment about that?
Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. Absolutely. So, right now, it is
very promising in terms of creating these digital twins for all
four shipyards that allow us virtually to take a look at how
would we streamline production lines and processes. But we will
come back to you, sir, and adequately answer your questions.
Mr. Calvert. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Gentlemen, I think we are at the conclusion.
Mr. Aguilar mentioned the hypersonics program. Obviously,
very important across the services. And from, I think, all of
our perspectives--and I am sure you are cognizant, but I just
feel compelled to say it--is the issue of making sure we are
coordinating these investments so that we are not getting in
each other's way. Because, obviously, we are in a competition.
Very important program.
Thank you for your service. Thank you very much today.
We are adjourned.
Wednesday, March 4, 2020.
UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN
WITNESSES
LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID D. THOMPSON, VCE COMMANDER, U.S. SPACE FORCE
MAJOR GENERAL CLINTON E. CROSIER, DIRECTOR, SPACE FORCE PLANNING,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF SPACE OPERATIONS
Opening Statement of Chairman Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. The subcommittee will come to order. This
afternoon the subcommittee will receive testimony on the
Department of Air Force's plans for standing up the Space
Force.
We welcome our witnesses today. General Thompson and
General Crosier, welcome to your first appearance before the
committee. We do appreciate you being here to share your
expertise.
Recently, the Space Force was established as a new branch
of the armed services. Such a significant reorganization cannot
be approached lightly or haphazardly as it is critical that the
foundation crafted is well constructed and provides a path to
success for the service and the department as a whole.
It is essential that those forming the policies and
procedures for the Space Force actively engage the Congress,
particularly the Appropriations Committee, to build and sustain
support for the force and its mission. This will require the
Department to provide timely and complete information and
transparency to ensure that there is a common understanding and
expectation of what this new service will do, how it will do
it, and what resources are needed.
For example, the Space Force budget projects over the next
5 years current missions and no new capabilities. So will the
Space Force simply execute existing space missions but under a
new organization, or is the Space Force ultimately organizing
to do new substantial missions? Either way, I believe that the
fiscal year 2021 budget requests and the Space Force reports
provided by DOD to date leave those questions unanswered.
Finally, I understand that the Space Force aspires to
minimize cost and bureaucracy and to implement a management
approach that is lean and agile. The plan is to accomplish this
by leveraging existing support and services from the Air Force.
This is a common-sense approach. However, some aspects of
the proposal raise questions. Specifically, I am concerned that
the Space Force will not have the adequate decisionmaking
authority over its acquisition process, financial management,
and recruiting. And as the Space Force is not properly
represented in rooms where the Air Force is making resourced
decisions, then I fear the Force's interest will be
subordinated to those in a much larger sister service.
I would appreciate our witnesses giving us an update on the
status and the plans for the Space Force and help us understand
those issues. I appreciate, again, you being here. We will have
your testimony in a moment, but first would recognize my
Ranking Member, Mr. Calvert, for any remarks he has.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chairman.
Welcome, Lieutenant General Thompson, Major General
Crosier, to the subcommittee. As we consider the current threat
environment and how we train and equip our forces to respond,
space must be a fundamental part of our planning efforts.
China, Russia, non-state actors, and others are working to
challenge our unfettered access to space. That is why we must
smartly build a Space Force that can provide us with the
freedom of operations and security.
Last year we discussed how the Space Force will coordinate
with existing commands, identify servicemembers to join the
force, and how it can meet the space mission--and I share this
concern with the chairman--growing into an ineffective
bureaucracy.
I look forward to receiving an update on all these issues.
I also look forward to hearing about the Space Force plans on
leveraging private industry and guardsmen, all of whom are
looking to contribute to the mission of the Space Force. I want
to conclude my brief statement by thanking you, once again, for
your service, and I look forward to your testimony.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
special effort that our ranking member for the full committee,
Ms. Granger, made to be with us this afternoon. She does have a
statement as well.
Remarks of Ms. Granger
Ms. Granger. Thank you. I thank Chairman Visclosky and
Ranking Member Calvert for holding this hearing today. I would
also like to welcome our first witnesses ever from the U.S.
Space Force, Generals Thompson and Crosier. You have a big but
necessary job in front of you. This hearing is an important
step for our Nation as we consider the Space Force very first
budget request.
More now than ever our Nation faces competition and
aggression on every front, and space is no different. Our
adversaries, especially China, are developing advanced space
technologies that actively threaten our Nation's dominance and
American way of life. Our Nation's security and prosperity
relies on our unchallenged access to space.
For this very reason, I was proud to support the Trump
administration's vision for this new branch of our armed
services, and I look forward to supporting its development this
fiscal year. I am pleased to see the budget request reflects
our needs in space. Strong investments in research and
development while minimizing bureaucratic delays will grow the
Space Force in the most efficient and effective way. Your
comprehensive plan on the organizational structure of the U.S.
Space Force provides us with your vision for the Force's
future. However, many of us still have questions relating to
acquisition, organizational requirements, and how the Space
Force will support our combatant commanders.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and
working with members of the subcommittee on this important
issue so vital to our national security.
Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, you may proceed.
Summary Statement of Lieutenant General Thompson
General Thompson. Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member
Calvert, Representative Granger, and distinguished members of
the committee. I am honored to appear before you here today
along with my esteemed colleague, Major General Clinton
Crosier. We are privileged to be among the 16,000 men and women
currently assigned to the U.S. Space Force serving under the
leadership of the first chief of space operations, General Jay
Raymond.
These space professionals remain the best in the world in
developing, fielding, and operating space systems that maintain
the combat edge of our Armed Forces and the reason they enjoy
freedom of action. It is this freedom of action in space that
is our asymmetric advantage.
U.S. interests in space are increasingly threatened as
Russia and China develop and field weapons to hold U.S. and
allied space systems at risk. For example, late last year, the
Russian Government launched a satellite that is actively
maneuvering near a U.S. national security satellite today. The
Russian Government has characterized this as an inspector
satellite, but similar actions in any other domain would be
interpreted as unprofessional, dangerous, and potentially
threatening behavior. These activities are very concerning.
The U.S. position is that these actions do not reflect the
behavior of responsible space-faring nations. Development like
these and aggressive actions by other potential adversaries are
the big reason why, on December 20th, 2019, the President and
Congress directed the establishment of the U.S. Space Force as
the sixth branch of the Armed Forces. Space Force
responsibilities, in addition to executing our day-to-day
missions, include developing military space professionals,
acquiring military space systems, maturing military documents
for space power, and organizing current and future forces for
combatant commanders.
The Space Force represents a monumental change in our
warfighting paradigm and our ability to fight and win future
conflicts. By the design, the Space Force will be an
independent, 21st century military service, agile, lean, and
mission-focused, while leveraging Air Force support for so many
services that will minimize bureaucracy.
The fiscal year 2021 space budget requests support and
provides irreversible momentum towards implementation of the
national defense strategy that remains our guiding star and
drives our decisionmaking. Current resources will transfer into
the Space Force from the Air Force in expedition-conditional
phases to best take care of our servicemembers and to avoid
risk to mission.
This budget submission includes increased investment in
four elements of our strategy to address the threats in space:
first, to protect and defend highly capable satellite systems
we depend on today; second, to field robust and resilience-
based architectures that survive under attack and deliver space
capabilities in all phases of conflict; third, to develop true
space war fighters who are essential to winning in the domain;
and, finally, to develop a broad range of options to respond if
our national security is threatened and, in particular, if
those in space are threatened.
Progress along these lines of effort improves our ability
to address near-peer threats in space and is sustained by your
support and funding, you, our partners in our Congress.
Let me close, again, by stating that we do not seek
conflict in space. However, we must maintain a position of
strength and develop credible warfighting capability in order,
first, to deter conflict and to maintain a full range of
options to ensure our national security. The Space Force is
taking the lead to preserve U.S. and allied space superiority
across the continuum of conflict and to defend U.S. interests
and those of our partners and our allies.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify, and we
look forward to your questions.
[The written statement of Lieutenant General Thompson and
Major General Crosier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Calvert.
CONSOLIDATING VARIOUS OFFICES
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the initial organizational chart that you released, the
Space Force has outlined the goal to bring the space and
missile system center, space development agency, space rapid
capabilities office, and space elements so the Air Force rapid
capabilities office under a single authority. I think
consolidating these efforts is a good idea and an opportunity
to become a leaner, more agile organization.
I know more details were coming out later this month,
specifically on acquisition authority and how that will be
organized. But is there anything you can share? Do you expect
consolidating these offices will result in some efficiencies
that will hopefully save some money?
General Thompson. So, Congressman Calvert, let me say,
first of all, that, as you suggested, the Congress and the
President have given us a tremendous opportunity. It is not
just in acquisition, but it is across the Space Force. You have
given us the opportunity to create a clean sheet design in many
areas, one of those is specifically acquisition, by directing
the establishment of the Space Force Acquisition Council and
telling us to come back with a new approach.
With regard to those organizations today, we have already
begun the process, even before the Space Force was established
but since then, of working between the space and missile system
center, the space development agency, the Space Rapid
Capabilities Office, the Air Force rapid capabilities and
others to ensure that their acquisition activities are
synchronized, complementary, and not duplicative in many
senses.
In fact, as an example, the Space Rapid Capabilities Office
that was established 2 years ago, we gave some very specific
mission sets that hadn't been addressed previously as a result
the warfighting domain. We expect them to do that quickly. The
Space Development Agency's focus is on leveraging commercial
investment and what we see there in proliferated consultations
and the Space and Missile System Center has recently
rearchitected itself but is still focused on those specific
today warfighting capabilities that we will need today and in
the future.
Consolidating them under a specific acquisition
organization will further integrate their activities, ensure
they are not duplicative, but make sure they create one single
space architecture. I have no doubt going forward that we will
find efficiencies. Right now our focus is in driving an agile
and rapid response for all of them as they continue to develop
space capabilities for the Nation.
Mr. Calvert. I would ask, as this acquisition takes shape,
that you leverage the talent and the institutional knowledge
that you mentioned of the Space Missile Center in L.A. The
intellectual capital has been built up, as you know, over a
long period of time. It is one-of-a-kind that is uniquely
situated to meet the challenges that the new Air Force, new
Space Force is going to take on. And so I know you will give
them the leadership to move in the right direction and get that
done.
General Thompson. Yes, sir. They are a national treasure.
They have provided capabilities that no one else could for more
than six decades, and I am sure they will continue to do that
in the future. The evidences was their own rearchitecting
themselves to ensure they could meet those challenges. They
have special set of capabilities, as does the space RCO at
Kirkland and the SDA as we leverage----
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Ms. McCollum.
SPACE FORCE PERSONNEL
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. So we know, in order to be
successful, not only do you need equipment; you need the
personnel to operate the equipment to do the mission. So I
would like to ask you a few questions about the development of
Space Force personnel, including the transfer of the Air Force
to the Space Force. In the fiscal year 2020 NDAA created Space
Force, but it directed the Air Force to move personnel
internally to populate Space Force instead of adding more
personnel to the new service branch. It is my understanding
that the Air Force Secretary has temporarily detailed about
16,000 airmen to Space Force.
And so, before I get into the question, I want to set the
table a little bit, too. So, General Crosier, you recently
stated during a presentation to the Defense Advisory Committee
on Women in the Services that Space Force is working to
incorporate flexible family leave and caregiver possibilities.
You went on to say that we have a ground level opportunity with
Space Force to ensure that the newly created military branch
incorporates the culture of equality and inclusion in order to
attract female candidates.
As you know, this is an area which the older branches of
the military have struggled with over the years and continue to
struggle with. So I have a couple of questions, but I will
submit a question to the record about how Space Force cadets
are going to move forward in the future.
As you know, it is our honor and privilege to nominate
individuals to the military academy, and I don't think--I don't
know if they will call them doolies their first year of the
Space Force Academy.
My questions are: Can you give us an update on the process
by which you are asking Air Force personnel to voluntarily join
Space Force as well as the development of personnel
administrative systems for Space Force? And how are you
ensuring that you have the capability and the ability to pull
space operators from the Army or Navy into Space Force, in
other words, create even more opportunity for them and more
yourselves? Do you have a timeline for no longer relying on Air
Force detailees? And then, back to my question about, you know,
having a more inclusive military branch here, what are some of
the specific policies and regulations that face Space Force
might be planning on implementing to encourage women to join
and to ensure women will be retained?
General Crosier. Congresswoman, thank you very much for the
question. I appreciate that. There are a number of things there
that you talked about, so let me just try to address a few of
them at a time. So, on the day that the President signed the
NDAA on 19 December--20 December 2019 rather, we assigned
16,000 men and women from the former Air Force base command
into the U.S. Space Force.
So those people are executing the mission of the U.S. Space
Force today. It is essentially the mission we had been
executing all along, but with the stand-up of the Space Force,
now we have men and women, as you said, assigned sort of in a--
I wouldn't say temporary detailee, but they are temporarily
assigned in the same way that an officer or enlisted member can
be assigned to a combatant command or the joint service or
something like that.
Of those 16,000 people, a portion of those, probably about
6,000 people, will be offered the opportunity to formerly
transfer into the U.S. Space Force. And by that we mean, the
technicality of actually resigning your commission in the Air
Force, Army, or Navy, or Marine Corps and then recommissioning
in the Air Force or terminating your enlistment in those
services and reenlisting in the Space Force. It is a very
technical process that has to take place and it is part of
congressional scrolling and law.
In terms of the readiness to do that, we think it will take
a few months to be ready do that. All of the databases that we
need to process pay and retirement and healthcare and those
sorts of things, it will take us some time to do. Currently, we
are looking about the 1 September timeframe to be able to
transfer Air Force space operators into the Space Force, and
then we will follow on with those volunteers from space
intelligence, space acquisition, space communication probably a
few months later.
Our plan for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps transfers has
always been in the fiscal year 2022 timeframe simply because we
believe it will take some time and we want to get the
transition right with those Air Force members that are
transitioning, and we are more similar between the Air Force
and Space Force for obvious reasons. But then we want to take
the appropriate amount of time to make sure when we transfer
those soldiers, sailors, and marines that we have got all the
right pieces of infrastructure in place to be able to do that.
Finally, very briefly, if I can just reflect on DACOWITS, I
was honored to be able to speak in front of that organization
yesterday. And the point that I was making is the point we will
underscore throughout the hearing I hope, and that is General
Raymond, our CSO, has really put an edict down for us that we
have a historic opportunity.
This is the first new service that has been established in
72 years, and so we have been told by Congress, by the
administration that we have a clean sheet to look at, how would
a 21st century service operate? And as you look at human
capital management in the 21st century, the world has changed
over the last number of decades with technology and personnel
needs and that sort of thing.
So we think there are opportunities to look at more
flexible recruitment and retention policies, some of which you
mentioned, that will make the Space Force attractive to all the
men and women who might be interested in joining.
Thank you.
Ms. McCollum. And then you will get back to us on the
record on how you are going to handle academy appointments----
General Crosier. Yes, ma'am. Happy to do that.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Ms. Granger.
COMMAND AND CONTROL PROGRAM
Ms. Granger. Thank you. After receiving several classified
briefings, I am very concerned about the threats that China
poses in space. Can you briefly update us on how the Space
Force is dealing with these threats?
General Thompson. Yes, Congresswoman. Let me say, first of
all, I noted not only that but the opening statement by the
chairman, the need to understand that more fully. And what I
would ask is to give us an opportunity to come back in a
classified setting because we can give you full details in that
regard. I will tell you that this fiscal year 2021 budget is
the fourth in a series of budget that you all have given us
that have really allowed us to turn and focus on the threat.
When we started this process back with the fiscal year 2018
budget, we started working on some of the foundational
principles we needed to understand the domain deeply, space
domain awareness, sensors, and fusion engines and tools
associated with understanding all of what is in a domain, what
its capabilities are, who owns it, and how it might pose a
threat and provide indications and warning.
In subsequent years we built on that. We have built command
and control tools now as well, and we continue funding a
command and control program to be able to fuse that data, to
develop courses of action to present them to commanders so they
can make timely decisions and disseminate it out to the force.
That has been part of our investment since about fiscal year
2019. And we began prototyping and demonstrating and preparing
for what I will call abilities to protect and defend our
assets. And we did that extensively in the budget in 2020.
In 2021, we are now taking steps to extend that across the
fleet as well as look at other capabilities to be able to
continue to defend those assets that we have and deny adversary
use of space in conflict. We have done that over the course of
4 years. There is a tremendous amount of detail that we could
provide in a classified setting, but I would tell you where 4
years ago we did not have significant sensing, command and
control, defend and protect, and other capabilities in this
domain, we now have established a course and, with your support
and continued investment, are certainly on a course to be able
to defend and protect our assets in a domain going forward.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. I know we would all look forward to
those classified briefings.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
PROCUREMENT AND ACQUISITION
Mr. Ruppersberger. First thing. I think you talked about
historical opportunity, and this is very rare that you get an
opportunity to start from scratch. And, you know, when you are
involved in management whether it is corporation, government,
bureaucracy a lot of times gets in the way. So it is really
important that when we--what we have to deal with is space.
Space and cyber are the future of tomorrow, and we are--have
Russia, China, other countries that are focused there, so--and
a lot of people really don't know how much space is involved in
everything that we do every day and whether it is from defense
or whether it is from commercial or whatever. I know Mr.
Calvert talked about acquisition. I want to get into that a
little bit, and one other thing I want to say, too. Since I
have been here there have been two start-ups, Homeland Security
and the Director of National Intelligence. I think Homeland
Security went too quick, too fast. Thank goodness they had
operations like the Coast Guard that were well managed and
helped move where they needed to be. But the Director of
National Intelligence took a little slower; they pulled people
in; and I think it was effective on what they needed to do.
Mr. Calvert. Would the gentleman yield on that one point?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. Calvert. When we were having those discussions about
the Director of National Intelligence, how big was that office
supposed to be? About 100?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Whatever it is, it works. At least it
did work until----
Mr. Calvert. I think it was 100 going back in time. I
think, what, 1,200 now?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Is that what it is? I haven't kept up
with it. I am just looking at the end game results.
Mr. Calvert. And it keeps growing. It is about 1,200.
Mr. Ruppersberger. If it works, we do it. The national
intelligence is important. But getting back to the issue. I do
want to get into acquisition. The Department's effort to design
a Space Force organization structure as it relates to
procurement and acquisition, which can really get tied up in a
lot of the bureaucracy issues that slow you down. You detail
that the plan aligns with the congressional direction to
streamline acquisition, functions of the Space and Missile
Systems Center, Space Development Agency, and Space Rapid
Capabilities Office.
Now, can you explain to this committee your recommendations
on how we should evaluate this effort and what the ideal roles
and responsibilities among these different entities should look
like? In other words, what do SMC and SDA and the Space Rapid
Capabilities Office do now, how do they differ, and how should
we expect them to look a year from now?
General Thompson. Congressman, thanks so much.
Let me talk a little bit about that if I can. As you noted,
those organizations all are involved in acquiring and filling
space capabilities. We have already begun the work to make sure
that they are deconflicted, starting with the Space and Missile
Systems Center. When it talks about those unique what I will
call unique military space capabilities that we have used for
decades, things like missile warning, GPS positioning,
navigation, and timing remains one of those capabilities that
the military provides today, even though it is used more
broadly, protected communications that includes the ability to
do command and control of nuclear forces in event of nuclear
war, as well as the ability to surveil the domain, understand--
keep track of all the objects in the domain. Those are some
unique military space capabilities that we have done for
decades. Those are the things that Space and Missile Systems
Center does today, does well, and is going to continue to do
into the future, even as it evolves what it is and how it does
those things.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes. Finished?
General Thompson. SDA, the Space Development Agency, is
focused on looking at commercial and architecture, how we can
leverage it for new and evolving missions and merge those with
Space Missile Systems Center. And then space RCO is focused on
rapidly fielding--prototyping and fielding for us new
capabilities to help defend and protect----
Mr. Ruppersberger. And the commercial was so important.
That is what makes us strong as a country.
One other thing and I am finished. You mentioned the
consolidation of acquisition oversight will significantly
improve the Space Force's ability to integrate future space
programs and architectures. Can you speak to why you are so
convinced of this and how the U.S. Space Force plans to remove
to measure success in procurement?
General Thompson. Yes, sir. There are two things I would
point to. The first is the direction of Congress to provide a
report back on a clean sheet design to do that. First of all,
we recognize the need for transparency and the oversight of
Congress. We are going to ensure that is the case, but this
gives us the opportunity to do that with you in a streamlined
way. It also gives us the opportunity to develop a streamlined
approach to oversight inside the Department of Defense.
So that is the first thing you have given us is the
opportunity to develop that and come back to you and work with
you on how to implement that. The second piece is, the
establishment of the Space Force Acquisition Council and the
assistant secretary of the Air Force for Space Acquisition and
Integration, who is supposed to lead that activity.
And the expectation is, under that leadership, including
Space Force members and others, that group using a streamlined
approach and process with the support and the--or the oversight
of Congress is intended to create the new acquisition system
that you will see here with the report here in a few weeks.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Carter.
SUITABILITY AND SURVIVABILITY OF SPACED-BASED SYSTEMS
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome.
This is an exciting thing to talk about. General Thompson,
according to the 2019 annual report from DOD director of
operational test and evaluation which provides independent
assessment of the effectiveness of DOD systems has raised
concern about whether DOD's space systems will perform
adequately against potential adversaries.
Report says DOD intends to invest, at least, 100 billion in
space systems over the next decade. It must thoroughly
understand how our systems will perform in space, particularly
when facing manmade threats. The report concludes the DOD
currently has no real means to assess adequately the
operational effects of this suitability and survivability of
space-based systems against growing threats.
What is your view of this report's finding? Do you agree
and how will the Space Force address this issue differently
than has been addressed previously?
General Thompson. Congressman Carter, that report was
absolutely correct. For many years, because space was not a
warfighting, we focused on engineering excellence. We focused
on mission performance. We did not have to think about or
develop systems that could survive in the face of manmade
threats. That is absolutely correct. That is one of the reasons
the Space Force was created and one of the things that we have
to do and are doing and are beginning to invest in directly is
a suitable testing enterprise and testing regime to test
exactly for those sorts of threats. It is done today in every
other service, in every other domain. We do it in the air. We
do it at sea. We do it on land. We now have to build a similar
enterprise for space system to test them against threats and
representatives to those threats to ensure they can survive and
function effectively throughout the domain.
Mr. Carter. You used the term ``warfighting domain,'' would
you define that to us? It makes sense----
General Thompson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. But there has got to be a specific thing that
means.
General Thompson. So I would say--so I am not sure there
has been an established and approved definition, but I would
tell you the D.D. Thompson definition is: If I am operating in
the domain, somebody can threaten my ability to perform, shoot
at me, whether it is with kinetics or electronics or with cyber
and have the ability to destroy my capability or my mission or
defeat my mission, that is a warfighting domain. D.D.
Thompson----
Mr. Carter. You told us about Chinese and Russian satellite
that kind of got in on our space. Now the Navy, when somebody
gets in their space, historically puts a shot across their bow
telling them to back off. The Air Force has their way of
letting them know you are getting too close for comfort and you
are about to commit an act of aggression.
Are we going to internationally define those things, or are
we just going to be custom?
General Thompson. So, Congressman, it has been years that
we have not had those sorts of standards and norms of behavior
or rules of engagement in space. I hope you saw the commander
of U.S. space command, our boss, General Jay Raymond in his
other hat, specifically and publicly, called out the Russians
for that activity and that domain. We are in the process now,
first and foremost, internally with the United States with our
partners and allies and friendly nations to help establish what
those norms of behaviors should be, what rules of engagement
should be, and help to make it clear going forward what they
are, how we expect others to behave, how we will behave, and
what the consequences might be if they do not.
As you said, it took centuries to develop those at sea. It
took decades to develop those in the air. We are now in the
process of developing them in space.
General Crosier. Very, very quickly. I really appreciate
the question, but one of the things you will see inside this
fiscal year 2021 budget is resource-neutral. We have paid for
it within the Department of Defense but we are actually
bringing the additional billets to the table to stand up the
first space doctrine center to do exactly these kind of things,
develop doctrine, norms of behavior. We are also looking at
robusting our space warfare center to create those tactics and
TTPs that we need to deal with these threats.
And to your original question, we are actually investing to
robust the space test environment and the space test center so
that we can get after the space tests the same way other
domains do it. We captured that and paid for resource-neutral
in our budget because we agree with you: All three of those
things are important to get after.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
COMMANDS WITHIN THE SPACE FORCE
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both
for being here this afternoon and for your testimony. I
understand that the Space Force is considering standing up
several systems commands, including a space training and
readiness command, which you talked about, and a systems
command focused on acquisition.
How many system command organizations are you considering?
What will they do, and where are they going to be placed? Will
they be spread throughout the country, including places like
Arizona, or are they going to be concentrated in a location
where there is a space mission already in place?
General Thompson. Congresswoman, let me say a few things if
I can. First of all, today the organizations that will
constitute commands that do operations, commands that do
acquisition already exist in many places in the enterprise. We
talked about some. We talked about the Space and Missile
Systems Center. We talked about space RCO. We talked about the
Space Development Agency. Those organizations exist today. They
are actively engaged today. They are performing effectively
today, as are our operational units and commands. Certainly,
the original intent, once we have finalized and had an approved
field command design, there is no expectation or intent that we
would be looking at moving organizations around, repositioning,
reposturing. It is the in-place structure to ensure they
operate effectively, they perform their tasks effectively, they
are integrated, and they are supporting the priorities of the
Nation and the Space Force and our leadership. That is what the
Space Force will do initially.
Some of the other capabilities we need and other commands
will grow out over time. As General Crosier said, they are
funded in the budget, and as we develop, build, and fund, and
resource them, we will go through the process of establishing
where they might be. We have basing processes to determine
where they might be, and we will run those processes. As those
new capabilities are developed, they are ready to come online.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Cole, please.
SPACE FORCES IN RUSSIA AND CHINA
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. I
have to tell you I struggle with this, just intellectually, not
from any hostility. I think this is great. Just trying to
envision exactly what we are doing and where we are going, so
trying to develop some frame of reference.
Let me ask you this: I am very curious since part of this
is a spin-off from threats from our near-peer rivals. How do
they organize their Space Forces? Do they have a separate Space
Force in Russia and China?
General Thompson. Congressman, they do. In fact, they are
recently--they have recently reorganized themselves. Since I am
going to say 2014, both have created organizations. In one
case, one of the organizations is a space organization itself.
The other is a space organization that includes cyber and some
other things, but they have strategically reorganized
themselves in the last 5 years to emphasize the importance of
space because they recognize--two things. First of all, they
recognize what our ability to use space for our purposes has
done for us, and they want to do the same thing. The second
thing is, they have reorganized themselves to attempt to take
away our ability to use space in conflict, and so they have
created--in fact, they preceded us in creating space
organizations to do exactly that.
Mr. Cole. And what about--we have obviously friends that
have capabilities in space and assets in space, the British,
the French. Tell me where our allies are at. What is their
thinking? Is this sort of--do you see them developing along the
same lines that we are and apparently the Russia and the
Chinese are? Give me some assessment of their----
General Crosier. Congressman, I think the unifying piece,
whether you are talking about our potential adversaries or our
allies, is we have all recognized that space is now become a
contested potential warfighting domain. That is the key. The
Russians and the Chinese have come to a slightly different
organizational construct that we have based on their militaries
and how they are organized and our allies--most of our allies,
some are very capable in space, but most of them, all of them,
are much smaller than we are. So they likely will come to a
different conclusion about what organizational construct works
for them, but what is clear across the board--and as we do our
space exercises and space war games, we continue to invite
allies and partners. And over the last couple of space flags
and other space-related exercises, we have anywhere from 7 to
10 of our allied partners show up and do those integrated war
games with us. And they are fully on board with the idea, with
the understanding, that space has become a threatened
environment, and if we are going to be able to operate our
space assets, both in peace time and in war time, both to
support our economies and our militaries, they have got to be
protected and defended.
I will tell you that already, as the director of planning
for the space team, I already have a formal request from one of
our key allies in writing to embed several of their officers
inside the Space Force planning team. We are only 75 days old
as a Space Force today, and I already have, as I said, a formal
request from one of our closest and most trusted allies to
embed officers inside our planning team. So I think that is a
good sign.
CONSOLIDATION OF CAPABILITIES IN THE SPACE FORCE
Mr. Cole. Last question. And, again, I am just struggling
with this. Your testimony, the documents I have read talk about
having 16,000 people or so. It is pretty small number
obviously, and that is appropriate when you are at the very
beginning of something. Seems a little top heavy in terms of
general officers given the size of that unit for me. I would
like you to address that, how you feel about that long-term?
And then the second question related that I would have and,
again, I recognize we are at the very beginning and I would
expect things to change just as they changed--you know, there
were decades before we had a separate United States Air Force
whereas other countries did it differently. I mean, there was a
Royal Air Force almost from the beginning of their power there.
They didn't follow the same model we did for several decades.
So, again, these things are going to change and be different
between countries, but I do worry about having a force where
you have got a corps of 6,000 or 7,000, whatever the number is,
and you have got elements of the other services that are
working on the same mission in the same chain of command, I
would say, how does that work? I mean, we don't have--obviously
our services cooperate; we believe in jointness. But we don't
have, you know, Marines and Army people directly in the same
chain of command. As a rule, we don't have, you know, anything
like that. Again, there is not Air Force officers on aircraft
carriers. So I just wonder how that--how do you manage that in
the beginning and when and how do you see it conflicting? And I
guess I would ask you, how do you see things in 5 years? I
mean, you are clearly thinking ahead, what do you think is
different in 5 years than today?
General Crosier. So what I can tell you, Congressman, is a
year ago, when we brought our legislative proposal to Capitol
Hill, we have been consistent ever since in saying that the
Department's intent was to consolidate space capabilities from
across the Army, the Navy, the Air Force into the Space Force.
The Department of Defense has said clearly that we can't
establish an Air Force Space Force for the reasons you
describe. We have other services that do things in space, but
if we are really going to take advantage of this historic,
once-in-a-lifetime 72-years-since-we-have-done-it opportunity,
then we have to look across the board. And so the Secretary of
Defense on the 20th of December 2019, the day that the NDAA was
signed, Secretary Esper signed out an implementation memo and
part of that implementation memo was saying it continues to be
the intent of the Department of Defense to consolidate space
capabilities from across the services of the Department of
Defense.
So we are going through a process right now--in fact, I
spent a couple hours this morning. We spent the better part of
the last 6 months identifying what Air Force units, missions,
and people will transition from the Air Force into the Space
Force. And that has been very successful. We transferred $15.4
billion from Air Force funds, and as has been identified about
10,000 people between military and civilian. So that is working
very smoothly. Now, as we have looked at the fiscal year 2022
planning timeframe, we are going through the process of
identifying what units in the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps,
et cetera, would and should transfer into the Space Force so
that we can take advantage of that unity of effort, singular
leadership, and integrated strategy, vision, and architectures
which we think is so important.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Aguilar.
RELATIONSHIP WITH DARPA, NRO AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you gentlemen for being here. Following up a little
bit on my colleague, Mr. Cole, prior to the Space Force, there
still are several agencies, as you have mentioned, that have
space programs. How do we plan to intend to leverage the
capabilities of space-related agencies like NRO and DARPA to
make sure that there isn't a duplication of efforts? What role
will they play moving forward, and how are those conversations
now?
General Thompson. Congressman, I will tell you that already
we had a very effective relationship with those organizations
before the Space Force was created. Specifically with the
national recognizance office, we have had a longstanding
relationship with them. In fact, today they have a total staff
of about 3,000, about 1,000 of those are U.S. Space Force
members. So we already provide expertise and personnel to help
them in their activities. The second thing is, about 5 years
ago, we established with the national recognizance office two
forums that we use, one, on the acquisition and architecture
side and the other on the operation side. The organization that
was at the time Air Force space command that is now the core of
U.S. Space Force, developed a common national security's space
architecture with the NRO, determined in a couple of cases
where we were going to conduct joint programs. In one case, we
are doing it with an on over at space surveillance system. We
are collaborating on how to create systems to warn and protect
our satellites together, as well as collaborating on the
overall architecture. That has been in process for 5 years.
That will continue in the Space Force.
On the operational side, we created a forum called the
Joint Space War Fighters Forum where the U.S.-based command
commander and the director of the NRO collaborate on
operational issues. They are together doing planning and
operation every single day in the National Space Defense
Center. So there is already a well-established and very close
relationship with the NRO that pre-dated the U.S. Space Force.
We will continue to do that in the future.
With DARPA and NASA and other organizations, we have
routine engagements to establish priorities, areas of
collaboration, whether it is in technology, whether it is in
research and development, whether it is in operational
concepts. All of those forums worked relatively well in the
past. Now that you have a U.S. Space Force and a service chief
who can speak with authority, who can establish authorities
across the broad range of activities, I can only see those
relationships growing and being more effective in the future.
General Crosier. I would just add very quickly too as I
like to do. We recognize very early in the planning process the
value of having the national recognizance office, in
particular, part of our planning team so we have an embedded
NRO officer inside our planning team to make sure that as we do
all of our planning going forward that we think about how we
better integrate as a team.
Mr. Aguilar. Do you anticipate that embedded NRO individual
or that type of position continuing for years? How would you
formalize that within the structure?
General Crosier. Well, we can easily formalize it through
what we call memorandums of understanding or agreement, but I
think it likely will. I think we are going to see such benefit
from having exchange officers, if you will, on each other's
staffs. And as General Thompson said, we already have up to a
thousand previously Air Force people from Air Force space
command inside the NRO as these members now become U.S. Space
Force members, you will have the U.S. Space Force serving
inside the NRO day in and day out, but having NRO planners
inside our team at headquarters U.S. Space Force, I think, will
be very effective. And I see no reason why we wouldn't continue
it long-term.
Mr. Aguilar. Appreciate it. Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Rogers.
SPACE FORCE CREATION AND REDUNDANCIES
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me talk to you briefly about what I am going to call
inevitable redundancy. I am sure you have gone through this in
your own minds a lot. Many of us in Congress support the Space
Force, however, we do have some concern that the creation could
lead to redundancy between the services since some services
that have had space-related operations before you came along
will still require the information and intelligence obtained
through those operations that they have been experiencing. How
do you deal with this?
General Thompson. Congressman, I would say, first, some of
that redundancy already exists today, and I think through the
creation of the Space Force and what happens naturally when you
bring organizations and combine them in that regard as we will,
it is a quicker and more effective mechanism for identifying
and eliminating some of those redundancies. That is a measure
of how effective we are in consolidating the sum total of DOD
space activities inside the Space Force. And so that is the
first way we will get after it is, as soon as all of those
activities and organizations are inside of one service, you can
very effectively with one service chief, with one leader
working together with the Secretary of the Air Force, identify
more quickly those redundancies, and you really only have one
set of leaders that need to agree to eliminate them.
So I would say, in fact, some of those redundancies, in
fact, some Members of Congress have chastised us in the past
about the number of duplicate and redundant organizations we
have inside of the DOD and National Security Space Enterprise.
I think consolidating all of that activity under the U.S. Space
Force is one means by which we can identify and eliminate those
redundancies.
General Crosier. Fully agree, Congressman. And I would just
add too that as we look at Space Policy Directive 4, SPD 4,
signed by the President last year, the primary mission given to
the Space Force--well, two missions really, but mission number,
as we call it, is enhancing the lethality of the joint force.
So, even as we stand up to Space Force and as General Thompson
said, the goal of the department is to consolidate and avoid
duplication of effort, but even as we do that, the Space Force
has a primary mission of supporting the Army, the Navy, the
Marine Corps, and the Air Force in all of those things they
have come to know so well in terms of joint warfighting.
Satellite communications, ISR, weather, missile warning, GPS,
precision-guided weapons, accuracy, all those will continue to
be primary missions for the Space Force.
So we look at the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the
Marine Corps as primary customers in delivering those
capabilities, and we will integrate more closely than ever
before to make sure that we fully meet their warfighting needs.
General Thompson. I apologize, Congressman, if I could add
one more thing. This does not mean there should not be space
expertise in those other services. There must be space
expertise inside those services so that we can work with them
to effectively integrate those capabilities. What we don't
want, as you said, is duplicative capabilities.
SPACE FORCE AND WEATHER PROGRAMS
Mr. Rogers. One of your missions is weather. Navy has their
own weather program, and in most cases, that type of
information is very custom, very attuned to what the Navy
needs, wind directions and so on; Air Force with flying and the
like. Will they now just disband their space-related agencies
like that when you come into being?
General Thompson. Sir, today with the Navy, in particular,
we do a couple of things. One is their naval research lab is a
very effective arm of developing the kinds of sensors that we
need in space for, as you said, the very specific weather and
meteorological-related things that they do today, but we work
with them effectively. They often times will do experimentation
and then that technology and those instruments are then
translated over to what are now U.S. Space Force organizations
to build into those weather systems.
So, in our relationship with the Navy today, we don't
duplicate, we divide and conquer in terms of technology,
development, and ultimate fielding. We anticipate that work
will continue in one of two ways or probably both ways. In
cases where it makes sense, those capabilities that exist today
inside the Navy will move into the Space Force, but where it
makes sense for them to remain, we will continue to interface
and integrate with them to make sure that they are
complementary and not duplicative in how we work.
We do that today in the specific example you provided,
which was meteorological sensors and satellites for weather
forecasting.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you have got a lot of work to do. This is
going to be a little bit complicated as we go along.
General Thompson. Yes, sir.
MODEL FOR SPACE FORCE SAME AS NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
Mr. Rogers. Have you studied the creation of the U.S. Air
Force out of the old Army Air Corps? Was that a good model to
follow?
General Crosier. Yes, sir, we did study it. In fact, some
of the language that we submitted in our legislative proposal
last year--and, of course, Congress adopted their own version
of the Space Force, which we are happy with and comfortable
with; we like what we got out of legislation--but some of what
we provided in our legislative proposal was actually translated
from the initial legislative proposal from the creation of the
Air Force in 1947.
We had access to those documents, and things like technical
conforming amendments about how you make sure that you can pay
people as they move to services. We used a lot of that. So we
did. What we have also done, though, is we have really looked
at our partners in the Navy and the Marine Corps because the
model that we have adopted, that Congress adopted that, again,
we are very comfortable with, is two separate and equal
services inside a single department. And that is the same model
with the Department of the Navy who has two separate and equal
services in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. The same
is true. One Department of the Air Force, two separate and
equal services, the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Space Force,
but we have taken a lot of lessons from the Navy and Marine
Corps about how do you apportion the budget? How do you do
requirements together? How do you share a common secretariat or
secretary infrastructure? And we have learned a lot and adopted
a lot from that.
Mr. Rogers. Good luck.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
ROLE OF NATIONAL GUARD
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen.
So we have recently been talking a lot about, and I think
we had a meeting with the National Guard, and they are
obviously an integral part of our defense and so what--and they
also have this unique ability of--they have folks in the
private sector that have, you know, special expertise. So how
do you see them being incorporated without--to go to one of the
previous questions without redundancy. What is the role of the
National Guard? How do you see it happening? How do you see
that being put together?
General Thompson. Congressman, let me say first, both the
Guard and the Reserve are vital to mission execution today
inside the U.S. Space Force. We simply could not execute all of
our missions without the support and the capability that both
of them provide today. So I would tell you already both inside
of the Guard and Reserve, both in the Guard Bureau and the Air
Force Reserve have already aligned themselves and their units
that provides space capabilities to provide effective support
to the U.S. Space Force.
So we know that they already support us today. They have
already made some organizational adjustments to continue to
ensure that that support is effective. One of the things that
we are doing as a result of this opportunity to look at a 21st
century service is to look at the Active Duty, Reserve, and
Guard construct through a 21st century lens.
And so we have put a focused team together. That team
includes members of guard, members of the Reserve, Active Duty,
and our civilian experts to look at whether or not we think
there are some changes to that approach that might be merited.
We haven't presupposed or precluded any outcome, but while we
are effectively aligned today with the Guard and Reserve--they
continue to support the Space Force--we are going to take a
clean sheet 21st century look at this relationship, at these
components, and see if changes are warranted.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So, again, those decisions have not yet
been made?
General Thompson. Correct.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. You are looking at them, which makes
sense. So one of the things that when you think of the Space
Force, you know, you think of protecting our military assets,
but do I understand that--and I think, Judge Carter, you talked
about those rules of engagement, right? One of the things
obviously our military and Navy does is protect sea lanes, open
sea lanes. So do you also see the role to protect civilian U.S.
assets and that kind of thing?
General Thompson. Yes, sir. As you know, that is the role
of our warfighting combatant commanders. In fact, with the
establishment of U.S. Space Command that new space combatant
command last August, that was one of the responsibilities
conveyed on the combatant commander, the Commander of the U.S.
Space Command is, when directed, provide protection to civil,
commercial, and other interests of the United States and our
allies. So we could certainly see that today and in the future.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Aderholt.
ROLE OF ARMY'S SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks.
Thank you for being here. Could you talk about the role of
the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command in Space Force,
and, in particular, I am interested in what role that
Huntsville, Alabama, the tech center there, would play?
General Thompson. Sir, the Army has brought tremendous
space capabilities for decades--obviously, as you noted,
missile defense, but Space and Missile Defense Command is the
core of their space capability.
As General Crosier described, we are in the process right
now--first of all, they effectively support the U.S. Space
Command, the combatant command today. And as General Crosier
described, we are engaged in a process with the Army and the
rest of the Department in defining what parts of that command,
what capabilities, what missions might, in fact, transfer into
the U.S. Space Force to continue to operate in that role and
which elements will remain behind in the Army to provide
effective space support.
And let me give you a couple of examples. One of the things
they do today is the Army has a series of units that operates
our military wide band communication satellite payloads. They
do that globally for the entire Department of Defense. That is
one that you might consider as a military space mission that is
focused on space that might be considered for transfer. At the
same time, they have a whole series of teams that they call
space support teams. The sole purpose of those teams are to
bring space capabilities, and facts and understandings to Army
maneuver units. They exist to ensure that Army units
effectively exploit space capabilities today. Those sorts of
units probably don't make sense in the U.S. Space Force. They
need to stay behind in the United States Army.
COMBATANT COMMANDERS
So all of the missions of the Space and Missile Defense
Command are vital today, will continue today in one way, shape,
or form. The analysis that we are doing now will determine
which elements might transfer to the U.S. Space Force and which
will remain behind and support the United States Army.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. What will you be doing to ensure
that combatant commanders will continue to have the access to
their need for Space-based information and avoid creating
levels of control and bureaucracy in the Space Force which
would actually slow down the process?
General Thompson. Sir, General Raymond as the commander of
U.S. Space Command, one of the first things he did when he
established the command, he established what he called
integration--forward integration and planning elements with
every single combatant command. Their purpose it was modeled
after what had been done in U.S. Cyber Command, to ensure the
expertise, the capability, and ability to integrate operations
and plans for all of the rest of the combatant commands was
there for space as it was in the other domains. That was
instead of a more traditional model and a larger resource model
that created individual components in all of those commands.
The job of the U.S. Space Force will be to ensure that
those planning elements and the individuals in those planning
elements that are U.S. Space Force members are adequately
trained, have the adequate expertise and are prepared to
support U.S. Space Command and combatant command in that work
that needs to be done.
Mr. Aderholt. In terms of rolling out the plans to locate
the various parts of the Space Force and how it will all be
supported, how are the studies going to be in terms of the cost
of living and the cost of operations?
General Thompson. The Department of the Air Force has a
very objective and transparent process by which we define the
criteria that we need for basing decisions on a whole host of
factors, assess them, develop options, and ultimately do a
selection process. Our intent is to use that same process that
is used for strategic basing for decisions across the
Department of the Air Force at the point at which it becomes
necessary and prudent in the establishment of various commands
inside the Space Force.
General Crosier. If I could just add very quickly. So in
the congressional report that we submitted just a few weeks ago
to this committee and to the rest of the Congress, what we said
was as we looked at these organizations that are moving from
the Air Force into the Space Force and potentially
organizations that might move from the Army, Navy, or other
DOD, we used a phrase, we said, we wanted to to the maximum
extent practical keep organizations located where they are. We
have said cost and maintaining cost and being careful about
cost is a very important parameter for us. And, frankly, unless
there was an overwhelming need to relocate something--and in
most cases we don't really see that--then it is far more
effective and less expensive to continue to maintain
capabilities where it is.
So, again, we will look on a case-by-case basis, but we
have been very clear, unless there is an overwhelming
operational need that we would much prefer leaving things where
they are, at least, for the near term to midterm until the
Space Force grows into its final operating capability.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
Mr. Womack, you are recognized. I think we are batting
cleanup.
And since we have about 20 minutes, General, I would ask
and you have been very good in your answers, but I think we are
looking for additional brevity because I do have a series of
questions, too. But floor is yours, Mr. Womack.
Mr. Womack. So I am supposed to be brief?
Mr. Visclosky. No. You are always a gentlemen. I am not
worried about you.
SPACE NATIONAL GUARD
Mr. Womack. Well, I will be brief.
Well, not completely satisfied with the answer on the
Guard, so I am going to pushback a little bit and press a
little bit. We have--in my State--I am Arkansas--we have space-
focused missions already. And, frankly, I don't understand why,
because of the reporting requirements as you stand this
organization up, I don't understand why we are going to not
incorporate space guard, create a Space National Guard because
we have those elements, why we wouldn't do that on the front
end, while we will study it later. By not doing it now, does it
make it easier just not to ever do it? I mean, in all the other
services, our Guard and Reserve folks bring so much value to
the process and their expertise inside the uniform and, in many
cases, in their civilian occupations lend itself. And I know
that part of the reporting requirements as was contained in one
of the documents in the open-source information was to prevent
what was called bureaucratic bloat and redundancy. It just
makes sense that the space guard idea should have been part and
parcel to the process from the beginning and should be
incorporated. And I am not satisfied that it is not.
General Thompson. And Congressman, I will tell you that in
many of the areas that we are looking at, in acquisition and
personnel management, in a whole host of areas, there are many
people who simply believe the way we do things today are
effective and we should continue to do that. And in many ways,
we ultimately may do that and probably will do that.
What I would suggest is, it is probably harder to create a
guard and then try to uncreate a guard rather than it is to do
a study and then later say the proper answer is to get guard or
not a guard.
And so what we don't want to do is put blinders on or
presuppose an answer, at the same time not precluding it, just
make sure we have allowed ourselves full flexibility to
understand the problem, understand the solutions, understand
the advantages, the pros and cons, and make the decision going
forward.
Mr. Womack. So what is your answer to the space-focused
guardsmen out there who have been--I don't want to say
overlooked, but maybe they just feel bastardized in some way?
That may not be the right way to say it, but what is your
answer?
General Thompson. What I would say is----
Mr. Womack. Where do we fit in this process?
General Thompson. All of those units that were previously
aligned Air Force Space Command are now realigned to U.S. Space
Force units. They continue to execute the mission. They
continue to be as vital today as they were before that, and
they will be as long as this construct is in place until we
decide what the future looks like and we implement it. So they
are just as valuable and important to us today.
Mr. Womack. So, from an upward mobility standpoint, how
will these airmen in space-focused missions advance without a
space guard? I am not real sure how----
General Thompson. Well, sir, they advance inside the Guard
structure today. That Guard structure remains in the Air Force
and in the Army, you know. I would hope and I would expect--and
I know General Lengyel is a strong supporter--they would have
the same advancement opportunities inside the Guard today that
they have had in the past.
Mr. Womack. Call me skeptical with the process. We will
keep an eye on it.
General Thompson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Womack. And I thank you.
SPACE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
I would start by associating myself with the questions
raised by Mr. Diaz-Balart as well as Mr. Womack. I did not hear
the complete interchange, but would be concerned about some of
the personnel suffering because they have lacked schooling or
career advancement opportunity. So, again, appreciate that
being raised and apologize. It has been a while since we have
been interrupted by a vote. We have a prime real estate here.
So we are not looking to prolong anything, but we can continue
for a moment.
The space programs and other programs in the Federal
Government from time to time are run overbudget and behind
schedule.
My concern is, because the Air Force will not relinquish
authority over the acquisition decisions for several years, the
Space Force is developing a proposed plan for an alternative
acquisition system to streamline it. The plan is set to be
before the United States Congress at the end of this month, but
as you know beginning in April, we are writing our bill. The
question is: The commitment will be met as far as the end of
March, and, as you sit here or between now and the end of
March, if there is an anticipation of a substantive budget
issue for 2021, I assume we have your assurances we would hear
back from you on that?
General Thompson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. The Space Development Agency is slated
to move to the Space Force in October of 2022, more than 2
years from now. If everybody is agreed it should move, why the
wait, if I could ask?
General Thompson. Sir, the thought inside the Department
right now is, both the Space Development Agency and the U.S.
Space Force are two young and immature organizations that have
been given an aggressive charter and an aggressive purpose and
an aggressive mission. And the thought was each one of them,
understanding the ultimate end state, each one of them needs
the opportunity to develop and grow and reach a level of
maturity before we bring them together. I will tell you that we
have already been, since the establishment of the Space
Development Agency, we have been working very closely with them
on ensuring that the activities of the Space Force and the SDR
are complementary. We are sharing architectural ideas,
requirements, and things like that. So we are working together,
but the thought was, let both organizations mature a little bit
and then bring them together.
LAUNCH COSTS
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. On a launch cost for fiscal year 2020,
Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for launches, rough
approximation $310 million per launch for 2021. We are looking
for three launches for a billion comes out to about 350 million
per launch. Realize part of that cost is government oversight.
Any reason for the continued increase in launch costs and also
recognize we have got a competition going on here? The theory
is all of this is supposed to be reducing that average launch
cost.
General Thompson. Yes, sir. So what I would propose. I will
give you the answer and then propose we would come back to you
and your staff with more detail. It is also a matter of the
type of mission, the size of mission, the uniqueness of the
mission, the complexity of the mission, and the missions in
2021 in that sense are a little more complex. They are going to
unique orbits. They have some specific requirements that aren't
what I would call part of a typical launch.
What I would suggest to you is, we get together with you
and your staff. We go through the elements of the mission and
the elements of the cost, in particular, and I think what you
will see is those cost differentials are based on the
uniqueness of the mission. You are absolutely correct. We are
in the middle of a competition. We expect to award this summer,
and we fully anticipate cost savings out of that program.
COMPTROLLER
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. My understanding is you will not have
your own comptroller. Are you worried about your independence?
Is there a plan at some point to house a comptroller in your
organization?
General Crosier. Congressman, so already, as you know, we
have submitted a separate Air Force budget from a separate
Space Force budget in this budget build fiscal year 2021. In
fiscal year 2022, we already have--the budget that we submitted
was largely built by the Air Force with some Space Force
involvement and participation, as the Space Force stood up only
in December as you know. But the fiscal year 2022 budget, we
are taking responsibility to build as the Space Force.
So General Raymond as the CSO has a pot of money that has
been allocated to us to recommend to the Congress for
appropriation, and he has control and authority over how we
will recommend that money to be used. So I think he has
complete autonomy within that cap, within that dollar value
that we have been given, within the budget bogie if you will,
and I think he has complete authority to oversee that. What we
have done is, because the comptroller proper is in the
secretariat and we are two services and one Secretary, we will
share the FM, the comptroller function in current year of
execution. But what we did to make sure that we had not just
appropriate representation but to ensure that they had enough
manpower to manage two separate budgets now is we have invested
a number of billets from the U.S. Space Force into our FM
function so that we have dedicated full time people doing the
Space Force budgeting mission in direct support of the Space
Force.
Mr. Visclosky. The Air Force will be executing activities
on your behalf. Will they be charging you a tax for those in
the coming fiscal year?
General Crosier. Congressman, I am not aware of any taxes.
Obviously, we have to work out the details of exactly how we do
budget allocation, one Department, two services. As I have
said, we looked heavily at the Navy and Marine Corps, but,
Congressman, I am not aware of any tax processes or any idea
for that.
BUDGET
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. No organization's life is unstatic. I
notice that the budget grows somewhat over the next 5 years,
but not appreciably. However, recently the chief of staff of
the Air Force indicated that he did not think that the current
funding levels for the Space Force was sustainable and that the
Nation's needs when it comes to space capability are going to
enlarge. Any sense looking out these next 4 years and the 5-
year plan where we are going to hear back and there is going to
be a bump?
General Thompson. Chairman, I would say, first of all, I
think like many of the rest of our Armed Forces, the Space
Force is probably smaller than the Nation expects. However, we
have been blessed over the last several years with significant
increases in the budget after what we need as a space
warfighting domain, and all I would tell you going forward is,
based on the guidance from the administration, based on what we
do in terms of Congress, based on the resources provided, that
the chief of space operations working with the Secretary and
the leadership of the Nation will create the investment
strategy, the best investment strategy we can to meet the
challenges we face in space.
Mr. Visclosky. I don't mean this in any disrespect at all,
and there was an interchange earlier about the size of the
National Intelligence Administration and whether it was
supposed to be 100 and whether it was 1,200 there now, but it
appears that the Space Force is planning to have two four-star
general officers and at least three three-star general
officers. You mentioned before the small size of the Space
Force, a tenth of the size of the Marine Corps. Any concern
that we are going to end up being top heavy with officers?
General Thompson. Sir, there is absolutely concern, and
what we would love to do, we are finishing our analysis and our
final proposal to come back and share those numbers. I will
tell you two things: First of all, there has been tremendous
pressure and tremendous drive from our leadership to hold down
the bureaucracy of this force, and we are going through a
number of initiatives--and if you would like, General Crosier
will share some of those--to ensure that we are agile, we are
lean, and we are mission-focused. We are using a lot of
innovative approaches to ensure that is the case. The
additional challenge that we have is we also have to function
inside the Department of Defense and the national security
enterprise. And to be effective--and we have got to be
effective functioning inside that enterprise--comes with it
what I will call certain things that we have to do to
effectively engage in the budgeting process to effectively
ensure that our--that chief space operations fulfills his role
with the Joint Chiefs to do planning, programming, to do all of
those things. And to sort of plug into that enterprise
effectively is going to drive some things that we need. And
what we would like to do is do two things: Show you how that
works, number one, but also to show you the metrics we
developed that we believe shows we are, in fact, relatively
speaking light and lean when it comes to bureaucracy.
Mr. Visclosky. General, I do trust your good faith, and I
would appreciate also we had an exchange in our office last
week relative to budget justifications, and I do appreciate
that people have followed up with us and shown the committee
the respect I think it deserves.
I would encourage you in that and it is hard sometimes to
resist requests. We are here also to be helpful to you to
manage the size so you are exactly the size you do need for our
national security; no less, but no more. So we would want to
participate in that as well. So thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. One last comment. I was somewhat surprised you
had an unfunded priority list already of $1 billion, and so you
are learning your lesson from your parent organization. So I
just thought I would point that out.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Calvert is on fire today.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, this really isn't
for you gentlemen to answer today, but we need to think about
how the Space Force is going to align with NATO and our other
allies as we look at Russia and China. Is the Air Force going
do it? Because it took a while after World War II to develop
NATO, and different NATO allies are aligned different ways.
They have all been working on space. They have things done
differently, and so this is going to have to be a decision and
discussion that is going to have to take place. And I think it
needs to take place sooner rather than later if it is
happening. I think you are so busy with everything else right
now and fulfilling your mission of trying to get yourself
organized at the same time do the excellent job you do in
space, but that is probably a luxury discussion that that takes
place. But if we are going to figure out, as we patrol the seas
to keep them navigable, as we do drills to make sure that
things work on the ground, we will have to figure out how Space
Force interacts with our allies.
General Crosier. Congresswoman, if I can just add very
quickly, you are right. We do have a lot on the plate, and we
are very busy, but the Air Force, the space elements within the
Air Force had a pretty robust engagement with allies and
partners before the Space Force was stood up, and that mission
has translated. And we are paying particularly attention to
that. In fact, just a few weeks from now, we have the annual
space symposium out in Colorado Springs, the end of March,
first week in April. And General Raymond, our CSO, is hosting
his first ever space chief's conference--international space
chief's conference at the space symposium. So he is going to
have--I am not sure--10, 12, 15 foreign space chiefs, allied
space chiefs that are there at the symposium with him and
already starting to do the engagements to figure out how we are
going to work together. So we are on a positive trend, I think.
We have a lot of work to do, but I think we have got a lot of
those engagements already established.
Ms. McCollum. As has been said before, good luck, and I say
that as a daughter of an Army Air Corps person. Good luck.
Mr. Visclosky. Gentlemen, thank you very much. You have a
fascinating but very difficult challenge ahead of you. You do
have our best wishes. And because it is new, it is unchartered,
good things happen, problems occur. Please stay in touch and
let us know. We want you to be successful here. So we are
adjourned. Thank you very much.
Thursday, March 5, 2020.
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
WITNESSES
LIEUTENANT GENERAL R. SCOTT DINGLE, SURGEON GENERAL OF THE U.S. ARMY
REAR ADMIRAL BRUCE L. GILLINGHAM, SURGEON GENERAL OF THE U.S. NAVY
LIEUTENANT GENERAL DOROTHY A. HOGG, SURGEON GENERAL OF THE U.S. AIR
FORCE
THOMAS McCAFFERY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS
LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD PLACE, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY
BILL TINSTON, PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DEFENSE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
Opening Statement of Vice-Chair McCollum
Ms. McCollum. The Subcommittee on Defense will come to
order. This morning the subcommittee will receive testimony on
the defense health programs in the military health system, and
we have six witnesses with us today and we welcome them:
Lieutenant General R. Scott Dingle, Surgeon of the U.S. Army;
Rear Admiral Bruce L. Gillingham, Surgeon of the U.S. Navy;
Lieutenant General Dorothy A. Hogg, Surgeon General of the
United States Air Force; Mr. McCaffery, Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs; and Lieutenant Ronald J. Place,
Director of Defense Health Agency; and Mr. Bill Tinston,
Program Executive Officer of Defense Healthcare and Management
Systems. Today we have serious questions on how medical reforms
have been accounted for in the President's budget for fiscal
year 2021.
As you will notice, we will have members coming in and out.
We are getting briefings on COVID-19 as we speak, and there is
a few other meetings going on. But your full testimony is
available, and I know members had it like I did last night to
read through it.
So we will get started. Across the spectrum of the military
healthcare system, from military readiness to benefit care, in
many cases the budget justifications lacks adequate detail for
the subcommittee to make informed decisions. We hope the
witnesses today can address the subcommittee's questions and
concerns.
Out of particular interest we look forward to hearing about
the role of the Department in addressing or assisting other
Federal agencies dealing with the epidemic or pandemic possible
outbreaks, such as COVID-19, the Department's study on reducing
and eliminating certain healthcare services at many military
treatment facilities, and an update on the Department's
electronic healthcare record system, MSH Genesis.
We look forward to hearing about these topics and more.
And, with that, I want to once again thank you for appearing
before the subcommittee. And now I want to recognize our
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Calvert, for his comments.
Open Statement of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank
you for referring to this horrible disease as COVID-19. I am
from Corona, California, so we want to make sure that we call
the disease what it is.
Ms. McCollum. I did it for you.
Mr. Calvert. And I appreciate that very much.
I want to welcome our distinguished panel. This is a
critical year for the military healthcare system with a lot at
stake. We are trying to keep the COVID-19 virus from impacting
readiness while also going through significant structural
changes to the system.
These changes include transitioning military treatment
facilities from the services to the Defense Health Agency,
consolidating some facilities and shifting medical specialties
to focus more on operational readiness, all while continuing to
implement a new electronic health records system. Currently,
you have a lot on your plate.
Given that these issues will impact a broad population, to
include military personnel, dependents, and retirees, I can't
overstate the importance of keeping us apprised of your
progress and informing us when you need help. We must ensure
that health and safety are not adversely impacted as a result
of these structural changes.
During my time, I will ask you to address some of these
issues, starting with your preparedness and resourcing for
COVID-19. We all know the impact it has globally, and I will be
interested in your plans to mitigate its effect on the force.
In addition, I will ask about your views on the structural
changes to the military healthcare system and their potential
impact on readiness. And, finally, I look forward to hearing
about the progress on implementing the new electronic health
record.
Thank you for your service. I look forward to your
testimony.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey and Ms. Granger are hoping to be joining us, and
we will break for any statements that they wish to make when
they arrive.
As I said earlier, your full written testimony will be
placed in the record, and members have copies at their seats.
And I told some of you I was riveted reading last night. So we
have it, and we thank you for it.
In the interest of time, however, I am going to strongly
encourage each one of you to keep your summarized statement to
3 minutes or less, and I will let you know when you are at 3
minutes. I will do so gently, and then it might get a little
louder with the gavel.
So, Lieutenant General Dingle, will you lead us off with
the 3-minute remark.
Statement of General Dingle
General Dingle. Thank you, Vice Chairwoman McCollum,
Ranking Member Calvert, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. It is an honor to speak before you today. The
mission of the Army Medicine is to conserve the fighting
strength as the Army is called upon to deploy, fight, and win
wars in support of our National Defense Strategy. We accomplish
this not independently but as part of a synergistic Joint Force
that is represented before you today.
The Chief of Staff of the Army says: People first and
winning matters because there is no second place in combat.
Like General McConville, I and everyone in Army Medicine
recognize the foundational strength of our Army lies in our
people, our soldiers, their families, our civilians, and our
soldiers for life. They are our greatest strength and our most
important asset.
My vision for Army Medicine is to ensure that we remain
ready, reformed, reorganized, responsive, and relevant in this
era of unprecedented global complexity, change, and
uncertainty, whether in support of multidomain operations,
large-scale combat operations, or pandemic emergencies. As the
Army undergoes modernization to support the multidomain
battlefield, we will lead through change and reorganize to
remain relevant and responsive to the warfighter.
However, our unwavering commitment to save lives on the
battlefield will never change. In tomorrow's multidomain
battlefield our adversaries may possess robust anti-access and
aerial--area-denial capabilities that will test our ability to
provide prolonged field care. Consequently, our medics will
have to sustain life in austere locations. This requires
changes in our doctrine, training, and material solutions.
To remain relevant in this new environment, Army Medicine
must leverage 21st century digital technologies along with
cutting-edge research and development in order to remain
proficient. Army Medicine is assisting in the prevention,
deterrence, detection, and treatment of infectious diseases.
Similar to HIV and the Ebola responses, Army Medicine is
working with leading agencies and institutions to combat COVID-
19. Army Medicine's ability to prevent, detect, and treat
infectious diseases depends greatly on the Army's research,
development, and public health capabilities that enable a
medical ready force and a force that is medically ready.
In closing, I want to thank the committee for allowing my
colleagues and I to speak before you this morning. America
entrusts the military health system, Army Medicine, and the
services with its most precious resources, our sons and
daughters. It is imperative that we get it right, and we will.
Your commitment and continued support assures the Joint Force
that when a wounded soldier cries out ``medic'' in combat, we
will be there ready to respond because Army Medicine is Army
strong.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The written statement of General Dingle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. McCollum. Sir, that was delivered with precision
timing. Thank you.
Statement of Rear Admiral Gillingham
Rear Admiral Gillingham, your statement, please.
Admiral Gillingham. Good morning. Madam Chairwoman
McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the over 60,000 men and women who
comprise the mission-ready Navy Medicine team, I am pleased to
be here today. I am grateful for the continued trust you place
in us.
The mission of Navy Medicine is tightly linked to those we
serve, the United States Navy and the United States Marine
Corps, their ability to prevail across the range of military
operations depends on their medical readiness and our
capability to enhance their survival on the high-end fight.
At its core, survivability is Navy Medicine's contribution
to lethality. To this end, our one Navy Medicine priority is
the people, platforms, performance, and power are strategically
aligned to meet these imperatives: Well-trained people working
as cohesive teams on optimized platforms demonstrating high-
velocity performance that will project medical power in support
of naval superiority.
I can tell you that these priorities are rapidly taking
hold. On any given day, Navy Medicine personnel are deployed
and operating forward in a full range of diverse missions,
including damage control resuscitation and surgery teams;
trauma care at the NATO Role 3 Multinational Medical Unit in
Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan; humanitarian assistance onboard
our hospital ships; and expeditionary health service support
and force health protection around the world.
There is no doubt that people are at the epicenter of
everything we do, dedicated Active and Reserve personnel, Navy
civilians, serving around the world in support of our mission.
In order to meet current future challenges. We must recruit and
retain talented medical and civilian workforce. Navy Medicine
continues to focus on several key areas, both our officer and
enlisted communities, including critical wartime and
operational specialties, as well as mental healthcare
providers.
Importantly, we are now embedding 29 percent of our
uniformed mental health providers directly with fleet, Fleet
Marine Force, and training commands to improve access to care
and to help reduce stigma. All of us have a responsibility to
do everything possible to reduce the incidents of suicide. It
is important--its impact is devastating and affects families,
shipmates, and commands.
Collectively, substantive military health system reforms
directed by Congress in fiscal years 2017 and 2019 National
Defense Authorization Acts represents an important inflection
point for military medicine, catalyzed our efforts to
strengthen our integrated system of readiness and health.
Navy and Marine Corps leadership recognize the tremendous
opportunity we have to refocus our efforts on medical readiness
while transitioning Healthcare Benefit Administration to
Defense Health Agency. You would expect from a transformation
of this scale, MHS reform presents us with both challenges and
opportunities. We can point to progress made to date. However,
all of us recognize there is much work ahead.
In summary, the Nation depends upon our unique
expeditionary medical expertise to prepare and support our
naval forces. It is a privilege to care for our sailors,
marines, and families. Again, thank you for your leadership,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The written statement of Rear Admiral Gillingham follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Hogg, please.
Statement of Lieutenant General Hogg
General Hogg. Vice Chairwoman McCollum, Representative
Calvert, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is
my distinct honor to testify on behalf of the 64,600 Active
Duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen who comprise the Air
Force Medical Service.
At home and abroad, Air Force medics answer the call across
a broad spectrum of operational, humanitarian, and disaster
response missions. From the clinic to the battlefield and even
the back of an airplane, our ability to deliver life-sustaining
care in the most challenging environments ensures that our
warriors return home to their families.
The Air Force medical services' core competency of
aerospace medicine and aeromedical evacuation focuses on the
needs of air and space operators and maintainers. Since
September 11, Air Force aeromedical evacuation crews have
conducted more than 340,000 global patient movements, including
13,500 critical care missions.
In the deployed environment, roughly 30 percent of
downrange care is trauma related, and the remaining 70 percent
is disease and nonbattle injuries. These injuries range from
occupational, dental, and musculoskeletal injuries. Our
training and currency opportunities mirror these scenarios to
produce well-rounded, flexible medics who can accomplish any
mission under the most unpredictable conditions.
As the National Defense Strategy shifts focus to global
conflict and peer competition, the Air Force is postured to
increase lethality, strengthen alliances, and realign
resources. The Air Force Medical Service is evolving in support
of these national defense objectives by investing in our
aeromedical evacuation platforms, ground surgical teams, and
broadening every medic's skill set, preparing them to deliver
care in denied environments where we may not have the access to
functioning airfields or state-of-the-art equipment.
The story of senior Airman Colleen Mitchell, a young
medical technician, drives home the criticality of this last
point. In January, Airman Mitchell was on her first deployment
when Al-Shabaab militants attacked the airfield at Manda Bay,
Kenya, killing three Americans. Awakened by the chaos, she
assumed the role of lead medic. Spending hours triaging and
treating patients, working with limited personnel and supplies,
she operated well above her pay grade and outside her comfort
zone to save lives.
Airman Mitchell demonstrates the qualities that makes our
medics remarkable: leadership, technical skill, and an
unwavering commitment to mission and those whom we serve. As
the surgeon general, my responsibility is to prepare every
medic to do what Airman Mitchell did, and I do not take this
task lightly. Military treatment facilities remain our primary
readiness platform, but sometimes fall short of offering
patient volume, diversity, and acuity needed to sustain
clinical currency.
Leveraging additional training opportunities through
civilian and government health organization is paramount and
will inevitably grow as we rescope the direct care system.
Military medicine presents unique challenges that a civilian
healthcare system does not encounter. Our medics will continue
to rise to those challenges.
Thank you for your continued support, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The written statement of Lieutenant General Hogg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Place.
Statement of Lieutenant Place
General Place. Vice Chairwoman McCollum, Ranking Member
Calvert, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity.
I will add just a few comments to my colleagues.
The DHA's principle mission is supporting readiness. Within
that mission are two distinct responsibilities: First is to
ensure that every person in uniform is medically ready to
perform their job anywhere in the world. Second is to ensure
our military medical personnel have the cognitive and technical
skills to support the full range of military operations, which
our leaders may call on us to perform.
The Defense Health Agency is accountable to the Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Honorable McCaffery, the combatant
commands, and the military departments' force aim. The DHA
assumed responsibility for managing all military hospitals and
clinics in the United States in October of last year.
Working closely with my colleagues, the service surgeon
general and the Joint Staff surgeon, we continue to view our
medical facilities as readiness platforms where medical
professionals from the Army, Navy, and Air Force both obtain
and sustain their skills from which these professionals deploy
in support of military operations.
The DOD's leadership's recent assessment of which medical
facilities best support this readiness mission provides the
basis for moving forward and implementing these decisions. We
intend to execute this plan in a manner that ensures our
patients continue to have timely access to quality medical
care.
I will highlight a few important points: First, Active Duty
family members who are required to transition to civilian
network providers will incur little to no additional out-of-
pocket costs for their care. Second, all beneficiaries in these
locations will still enjoy access to the MTF pharmacy. Finally,
we will implement changes in a deliberate fashion at a pace
local healthcare markets can handle. If market capacity in a
particular location is more constrained than we estimated, we
will reassess our plans and potentially adjust them.
The surgeons general and I are ensuring that the proposed
reduction in infrastructure and uniformed medical personnel is
coordinated. This synchronization will be reflected in the
Department's medical personnel reduction plan, required by the
fiscal year 2020 NDAA section 719 that is due to the Congress
in June.
The DHA is scrutinizing every part of our health budget to
ensure we are using the resources provided by Congress in a
manner that most effectively supports our readiness mission. We
have established four healthcare markets to integrate
healthcare in specific regions of the country. We will be
establishing additional markets throughout this year.
Local military and medical leaders will have the authority
and responsibility to allocate resources in a way that improves
patient care and our readiness functions. I am grateful for the
opportunity to provide further detail on our efforts to
standardize military medical support to combatant commands, the
military departments, and to our patients.
Thank you to the members of this committee for your
commitment to the men and women of our armed forces and the
families who support them.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. McCaffery, please.
Statement of Secretary McCaffery
Mr. McCaffery. Vice Chairwoman McCollum, Ranking Member
Calvert, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
Secretary of Defense, it is an honor to speak before you today
representing the dedicated military and civilian professionals
of the military health system who support our warfighters and
care for the 9.6 million beneficiaries that our system serves.
I am pleased to present to you the defense health budget
for fiscal year 2021, a budget that prioritizes the medical
readiness of our military force and their readiness of our
medical force while sustaining access to quality healthcare for
our beneficiaries.
Our proposed fiscal year 2021 budget requests $33.1 billion
for the Defense Health Program. This proposed budget reflects
our continued implementation of a number of comprehensive
reforms to our health system as directed by Congress and
department leadership.
Some of the significant reforms are the following:
consolidated administration and management of our military
hospitals and clinics under the Defense Health Agency;
rightsizing our military medical infrastructure to focus on
readiness within our direct care system; and, finally,
optimizing the size and composition of the military medical
force to best meet our readiness mission.
In implementing these reforms, the Department is guided by
two critical principles: first, that our military hospitals and
clinics are first and foremost military facilities whose
operations need to be focused on meeting military readiness
requirements.
That means that our MTFs serve as the primary platform by
which we ensure servicemembers are medically ready to train and
deploy. It also means that our MTFs are effectively utilized as
training platforms that enable our military medical personnel
to acquire and maintain the clinical skills that prepare them
for deployment in support of combat operations. Second, that as
we reform the military health system, we continue to make good
on our commitment to provide our beneficiaries with access to
quality healthcare.
While we implement these changes to the health system, we
also continue to pursue our other priority initiatives that
have contributed to the achievement of the highest battlefield
survival rates in history while providing world-class
healthcare to our millions of beneficiaries.
That includes our continued deployment of our electronic
health record and our ongoing operation of our cutting-edge
research and development programs, which Congress and this
committee have long championed. That work in that area is
playing a significant role in support of the whole-of-
government effort on the COVID-19 issue.
I want to thank the committee for your continued support of
these efforts and to the men and women of the military health
system and the millions depending on us. Your support has
helped us achieve and continue to drive forward unparalleled
success in building and sustaining a military health system
that delivers for our servicemembers, our beneficiaries, and
our Nation.
Thank you.
[The written statements of Secretary McCaffery and
Lieutenant Place follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Tinston.
Statement of Mr. Tinston
Mr. Tinston. Vice Chairwoman McCollum, Ranking Member
Calvert, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for your invitation. I represent the Program Executive
Office Defense Healthcare Management Systems, also known as the
PEODHMS. It is my honor to represent this team of professionals
in their efforts to achieve a single common electronic health
record for our servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
Patient-centered care is not only an ethos we use to
describe our mission, it is fundamental to our design, from
capturing critical data on the battlefield to documenting care
at military and veteran medical facilities, we understand the
patient is our focus. Our patient-centered model highlights the
broad spectrum of people who depend on MHS Genesis.
Systems do not create success; people do. Our progress
depends on the hard work and talent of clinicians, engineers,
and other business professionals who comprise our MHS Genesis
team. I want to thank our functional champion, Major General
Payne, and my VA counterpart, Mr. John Windom, for their
partnership as we deliver a single, common record.
In September 2019, we completed Wave Travis at four
installations across California and Idaho without any patient
safety issues. The medical staff at Travis Air Force Base
demonstrated confidence in MHS Genesis. On day one, when a
patient arrived at the emergency room in sudden cardiac arrest
2 hours before the official go-live, the team had a choice.
They chose MHS Genesis, and that was the right decision.
With every deployment, we hone our process and improve
capability delivery. For instance, establishing peer-to-peer
training proved very successful, so successful, in fact, that
Major General Payne initiated a commanders workshop to
strengthen commanders' engagement as we move forward with
deployments.
This summer, MHS Genesis will deploy to Wave Nellis, more
than doubling the number of deployed sites. As we move forward
we seek to industrialize our process while meeting the unique
needs of each site in order to optimize delivery to the
enterprise.
We have proven that MHS Genesis significantly improves the
patient experience. Any time we can enhance patient care we
absolutely should. As part of that process, we will continue to
assess risks and ensure fiscal stewardship making every dollar
count.
Critical to making every dollar count is optimizing
decisions with the VA to increase efficiencies. For example,
within the next few months, we will launch a joint health
information exchange with the VA expanding DOD connections with
private sector healthcare providers.
In closing, as the son and brother of veterans, I am truly
invested in the success of this program. Spending significant
time at Walter Reed with my parents, I understand the
criticality of delivering patient-centered care. I am confident
we have the right people in the right place to complete this
mission. We value transparency, and we value you, the
committee.
As the wise sentiment goes, it is amazing what can be
achieved as long as we don't care who gets the credit. The MHS
Genesis team exemplifies this wisdom. Together we have the
opportunity to make a tangible difference in the lives of
millions of Americans.
Thank you again for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The written statement of Mr. Tinston follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
And with great humility and honor, I turn to the full chair
of the Appropriations Committee, Mrs. Lowey, for her first
questions.
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Oh, boy. Thank you. I need some
healthcare, I think, at this moment. But it was all checked
out. I just lost my voice. But I wanted to come to this hearing
because, as you probably know, this committee and the other
committee focusing on veterans has been waiting with bated
breath to get a healthcare records system that works.
As you probably know, Mr. Tinston, for decades this
committee has funded efforts to modernize the health system at
both the VA and the Department of Defense, in particular,
efforts to address electronic health records. Now, I understand
because I have had briefings, hearings on this for the last 5
years at least. So I know it is difficult, but, frankly, our
servicemembers and their families have been waiting for far too
long, and the taxpayers have invested too much to continue with
problems and delays.
I am not saying that it is all VA and that DOD is perfect,
but are you learning anything by this? We had a hearing not too
long ago with the VA, and the last number I looked at is the
Department is requesting another billion--billion, in case
anyone in the audience think I said million--another billion in
fiscal year 2021. I don't get it. Maybe you can explain why
this has taken so long.
If this happened in the private sector, they would probably
be out of business, but you are too valuable and no way can you
be out of business. But I don't understand why you can't get
this done.
My colleague, Mr. Rogers, is not here. We have had closed-
door hearings, open hearings, private discussions. Another
billion dollars? Why can't you get this right?
Mr. Tinston. Ma'am, in September, we deployed--the DOD
deployed to Wave Travis, which doubled our installed base. It
was a very successful deployment. We changed the way we
delivered the infrastructure. We changed the way we delivered
the training. We prepared people to be effective at doing their
jobs, and we found it to be a very effective deployment.
At this point, we have 66 sites underway with Wave Nellis
coming up next with 10 sites. So I think we are making
tremendous progress in getting MHS Genesis, the modern
electronic health record, deployed to the military health
system.
We also work very, very closely with the VA program because
we are really deploying a joint system here. It is a single
record for both departments, and so, as the VA starts to bring
their sites on, we will have one instance of the record about
the patient, not where the care was delivered or who delivered
the care, available to any provider about the patient when it
is necessary.
Mrs. Lowey. Can you give me a better explanation as to why
you are still bringing on sites? Why is this so complicated?
Mr. Tinston. So when you----
Mrs. Lowey. If the VA isn't up to standards and they can't
get records from a disaster incident that may have happened 2
years ago, 3 years ago, they are not getting adequate
healthcare.
Mr. Tinston. So, when you are delivering an enterprise
system like an enterprise health records, electronic health
record that MHS Genesis is, the IT element of it is a small
piece of the transformation that has to happen in the
organization. It is an organizational transformation. It is a
training challenge.
So you have to work--you deliver the right capability in
the record, which we have done. You then have to customize that
record to meet the physical plant of the facilities that you
are supporting. Then you have to train people to be effective
clinically with the new workflows that you have introduced.
So it is not just a turn it on and let everyone start using
it. You have to be very deliberate about bringing people up to
speed so that they can be effective so that we don't comprise
the healthcare delivery as we deploy MHS Genesis.
Mrs. Lowey. $4.6 billion. Now you want another $1 billion.
I am sure that our great military has had many, many
complicated missions, and, frankly, I don't understand. I
understand what you are saying, but I don't understand why you
can't get it right. I just hope that next year you won't ask
for another $1 billion again and another $1 billion with $4.6
billion.
And the expertise that you have in the military, it would
seem to me that this task could have been completed. But I have
been hearing one excuse after another, year after year. And if
my colleague, Mr. Rogers, was here, he would probably get even
redder faced than I am because we have had public meetings,
private meetings, one-to-one meetings, two-to-one meetings.
Okay, I guess we are going to have to give you another $1
billion. I could think of a lot of other things, so I sure hope
you get it right this time. Can you guarantee that this is
going to do it; you have finally the expertise to do it?
Mr. Tinston. Congresswoman we have the right people in the
right place to be effective at delivering MHS Genesis.
Mrs. Lowey. I have heard this for the last 5 years, you
know.
Mr. Tinston. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Lowey. These people are more expert? They really
understand the systems?
Mr. Tinston. Yes.
Mrs. Lowey. Okay. Mark that down in the record.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. McCollum. So noted.
I recognize Mr. Calvert.
COVID-19
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you again for your all being here. I would like
to start off with a question on the COVID-19 since we are all
aware of the significant impact it is having around the world.
I was speaking to General Townsend, the AFRICOM commander
earlier this week, and he noted that a map showed the U.S. Army
Africa headquarters, the part they have over in Vicenza, Italy,
it was surrounded by new cases of the virus in a local
community. He indicated that fortunately so far they have not--
unless there is anything new this morning--they have not been
affected, and that that is a testament to the great work that
people have done in their preparedness to protect our force.
As this virus continues to spread, what steps are you
taking to ensure installations both overseas and in the United
States are protected? And do you need additional resources
beyond the fiscal year 2021 President's budget request--or in
the supplemental there may be--some assistance may be available
to the military also, but to continue to safeguard for the
force against COVID-19? So I don't know where to start, so
maybe we will start with the admiral or start down here at the
end.
Mr. McCaffery. I would be happy to kick it off, and my
colleagues can chime in, Mr. Calvert.
So, when the DOD looks at the COVID-19 issue, there is
really a handful of priorities we look at: First, it is the
safety and health and well-being of our servicemembers; that is
very much tied to then our ability to as we deal with this
issue to continue to meet mission; and third, how we, the DOD,
can support the rest of the Federal Government in the all-of-
government approach and strategy on the COVID-19 issue.
With regard to the guidance we are giving on that first
priority around the health and well-being of our
servicemembers, the Department has issued a series of force
health protection guidance to our servicemembers and our
commanders built largely around CDC guidance. And so things
around identifying best science and CDC guidance on risks to
personnel, healthcare worker protection, protocols for
screening of patients and reporting any detected virus.
It is also around giving guidance to self-protection, you
know, common hygiene in terms of protection against viruses.
And we also are giving guidance with regard to working with the
CDC and the Department of State travel guidance in terms of
restriction of travel to and from select countries.
And then most recently, sir, giving guidance to
installation commanders, the combatant commanders with regard
to how to assess their particular situation on the ground, be
it installations here or overseas, and what kind of guidance
they should use in making their flexible judgments about
protections to put in place on their bases, again, everything
from restricted travel and access to their bases.
As the CDC issues additional guidance or things change in
terms of travel advisories, we will continue to update that
guidance for the field.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for that.
Any other comments on the force itself? I was curious,
since yesterday, has there been any other transmissions?
General Hogg. Not that I am aware of, sir, but for many
years, we have had disease containment plans and pandemic
influenza plans that we have exercised at different points in
time, and so now we are using those plans to help guide and
direct our actions in relationship to the CDC and Health and
Human Services guidance.
Mr. Calvert. Yes.
General.
General Dingle. And, sir, from the Army perspective, we
have taken a three-prong approach of prevent, detect, and
treat. The prevention is the education awareness of all the
soldiers and family members within that installation commander,
our senior commander's footprint. The detection piece or the
screenings that we are doing as well as the testing to verify
the presence to acknowledge if it is, in fact, symptomatic and
those who have been identified that----
Mr. Calvert. Well, South Korea specifically----
General Dingle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. You still have not had any
additional transmissions you are aware of?
General Dingle. No additional. Right now, we have one
soldier, and we have two dependents right now in the treatment
mode, and then that is the last phase is the treatment, where
we have implemented our pandemic expansion plans or response
plans, and every installation, emergency preparedness, and we
are even going as far as worst-case scenarios on bed expansion
plans. So we are taking a holistic approach of prevent, detect,
and treat as an Army.
Mr. Calvert. And South Korea, specifically, is it General
Abrams pretty much has all the facilities shut down at this
point?
General Dingle. Sir, the prevention piece to ensure that we
are not spreading and they have not implemented some of the
normal activities that bring together large gatherings. So
whether--if it is school, each installation commander makes
that call under the guidance of General Abrams, yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Okay.
Admiral, anything to add?
Admiral Gillingham. Yes, sir. I would just say that I would
like to thank the committee for the investment that has been
made over the years in the President's budget for our network,
worldwide network, tri-service network of research labs.
I can specifically say for Navy, our research labs that are
in NAMRU 2 in Singapore, as well as NAMRU in Sigonella, Italy
are at the forefront of the global response to this emerging
pandemic. But that investment in our scientists and really
world-leading knowledge and research is now bearing fruit, and
you are seeing that dividend in the sense that we now have 12
of 14 DOD labs actively able to do diagnostic testing around
the world.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. McCaffery. And, Congressman, just DOD-wide. So we have
as of last night 4 confirmed cases and 12 suspected that are
being tested.
Mr. Calvert. And where are those cases at?
Mr. McCaffery. I don't have that break down, so this is
across the DOD, both, you know, here and----
Mr. Calvert. Both CONUS and outside the United States?
Mr. McCaffery. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. Are there any cases within the United States
that you are aware of?
Mr. McCaffery. I do not believe DOD cases as of yet, but I
can get you the updated numbers today and break it down.
Mr. Calvert. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
DEVELOPMENT OF A VACCINE FOR COVID-19
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I am going to ask you to submit a
report to the committee as soon as possible on the two
following questions, following up on my colleague from
California on COVID-19: The $3 billion of the supplemental will
go towards research and development of vaccines. Considering
the Department's experience in working with SARS and MERS over
the past 20 years, two respiratory illnesses that are similar
to COVID-19, I would like to know what the Department of
Defense and the Army in particular are doing to work with our
other Federal agencies and partners, the FDA, CDC, and HHS in
developing a vaccine.
STOCKPILE OF CRITICAL MEDICAL SUPPLIES
The other information I would like you to share back with
us as soon as possible, for example, the Federal Government
maintains stockpiles of respirators, and it has come to all of
our attention that a number of these respirators have been
allowed to expire.
Once again, the military usually does logistics and
stockpiling with great, great precision. So we would like
information on the Department in how you have been maintaining
your own stockpile of respirators and masks and how you would
distribute them within the different branches of service, if
needed.
And, also, again, with your knowledge in this area, what
role should the DOD play or could play in working with our
public agencies to maintain proper stockpiles of critical
medical supplies so our country can be better prepared for
future healthcare crisis? If you would please follow up and get
that information to us.
MILITARY DOWNSIZING AND CLOSURES
My question is on military downsizing. Secretary McCaffery,
as you know, the Department provided Congress with a report on
February 19 for planned closing and downsizing of up to 50 DOD
military treatment facilities. And I would stress the word
``report'' here because most of it is just a list of impacted
facilities.
Some of the comments on the downsizing were there would be
no out-of-pocket cost to families or soldiers or airmen and
that their prescriptions wouldn't change. But there are other
things that can impact the delivery of healthcare, not only to
the person wearing the uniform but the family that is behind
that person, and our uniform members need to know their
families are well taken care of.
So bottom line is, we still don't have a timeline,
projections of cost savings, a real plan for implementation of
these downsizing and closures. Now, while I understand the
Department wants to focus on increased medical readiness of our
troops and medical forces, the impacts of this organization
will be significant. And trust me, we will hear from the
individuals that are impacted by these changes.
Some numbers I have seen indicate up to 200,000 family
members and retirees across the country would be pushed away
from DOD medical treatment facilities and onto civilian
providers. We need to understand what that plan looks like.
So, Mr. Secretary, your office has clearly been thinking
about this for a long time since you do have a list of
facilities that have been impacted. So there must be a document
somewhere to back up these facilities in how they were chosen.
So, Mr. Secretary, how can you expect us to, you know, do
due diligence with our appropriate, necessary funds to
reorganize the military's treatment facilities when we haven't
seen a comprehensive transparent plan from the Department on
what, when, or how this restructuring will be implemented.
Additionally, the report submitted on February 19 states,
and I quote: Upon submission of this report, detailed
implementation planning will begin with implementation
beginning not less than 90 days later. We need the information.
That language, to me, and to many, sounds as though the
Department believes it does not require congressional approval
prior to moving forward with the implementation.
Secretary McCaffery, does the Congress need to stamp its
approval on the recommendation prior to the Department's moving
forward with the implementation plans to do scope services at
military treatment facilities?
And the final question, for now, as we await your written
response as soon as possible, if you are not ready to transmit
to us a comprehensive and transparent plan, why not just ask
for a delay of the reorganization so we can get it right and
not cause any confusion for Congress in appropriating its funds
when your patients, our soldiers, airmen, and marines ask us
what is happening to them and their families?
Mr. McCaffery.
Mr. McCaffery. Yes. So I will try to go through each of the
questions, and if I have missed something, let me know, and we
will follow up.
With regard to the review that the Department has done,
this was coming out of NDAA 17 direction from Congress to
assess all of our military hospitals and clinics to ensure that
we were aligned and matched with their primary mission being
military facilities and being training platforms for our
medical force, as well as ensuring that our Active Duty are
getting convenient access to care in order to be medically
ready to do their jobs.
So that is the focus. The reason why in our report to
Congress we identify some facilities that we are recommending
for a reduction of services available to MTF, it is because of
this attempt to tie the operation of the MTF to that readiness
mission.
What do I mean by that? There are some facilities where the
volume of caseload and the type of patient caseload that is
provided at that particular MTF is not a good match for the
type of caseload and acuity that our uniformed military
providers need to maintain proficiency. And those skills that
we expect them to have currency in----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. McCaffery, we have limited time. When can
we expect the followup? You seem to have made--I believe that
you did due diligence in making your decisions, but we were
given none of the supporting documents to follow up with them.
We are being asked to make decisions in a timeframe within a
matter of months. And as you said, Congress charged you with
this. So when can we expect a followup and the supporting
documents?
Mr. McCaffery. So I will outline that. So the report to
Congress identified and shared that we did a screen of 348
U.S.-based hospitals and clinics. Out of those, the Department
determined 77 needed a deep-dive examination. The report went
through the methodology we used to identify those, the
methodology that was used in looking at the community
availability of community care healthcare. We then--out of the
77, we actually determined 21----
Ms. McCollum. Sir, so we have the report, as you pointed
out.
Mr. McCaffery. Yes. And----
Ms. McCollum. When is the implementation plan coming?
Mr. McCaffery. Well, and including in the report, there is
for each of the 50 facilities that are being recommended for a
change, there is an entire use case that goes through all of
the data that we use specific to that MTF. The report very
clearly says there is not going to be any immediate change to
operations, that it is not a one-size-fits-all implementation
timeline. It will be based upon our work with the individual
MTF in that community. Some of these----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. McCaffery, our staff seems to think, and
I would agree with based on what I and others have seen, that
we need some more information here. So I will ask you to please
follow up with the committee because I have a lot of members
here who have a lot of other questions that I know you are
going to want to hear about what is on the mind of other
Members of Congress.
So I thank you for that, but at this point in time, I would
say that the Appropriations Committee doesn't feel that it is
fully informed and ready to go.
Mr. McCaffery. We will be happy to provide you additional
information.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Carter. Thank you.
TRANSITION OF MILITARY TREATMENT FACILITIES TO DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY
Mr. Carter. Thank you. I have got a voice problem too.
Appreciate all of you being here.
I am trying to learn all this stuff. This gets pretty dang
complicated. Lieutenant General Place, how is the transition of
military treatment facilities to the DHA going? What are some
of the successes you have seen? What are the biggest challenges
you are facing? And while these treatment facilities
transitioned to DHS this past October, the services are still
supporting DHA to keep the train on the tracks. Surgeons
general describes the support that you continued to provide to
the military treatment facilities in DHA.
Lieutenant General Place, what is the plan to decrease
reliance on support from the services? Forgive my voice.
General Place. Sir, thanks for that question. So, in terms
of the first part, how is it going, I would say that I agree
with you it is an extraordinarily complex and challenging
transformation. That said, overall, I think we are going very
smoothly according to the plan, not that everything is perfect,
not that there haven't been challenges associated with it.
But in general, as we measure the effectiveness of the care
that we are delivering and measure the effectiveness of our
actions to plan, we are actually making good improvements in
the quality of the care, in the speed with which we are
delivering the care, and the use of the resources that the
Congress has been generous enough to provide.
In terms of the successes, the success we are finding
actually is in a particular regional market--and I will use
here in D.C., for example--our ability to utilize all the
resources of each of the facilities, to include the staff, to
align them more appropriately to the location where they can
best provide healthcare.
Similarly, we are able to use the particular location,
whether you are enrolled to this particular military medical
treatment facility or another, to move patients around to
achieve the best quality of care. So the standardization within
a market has been a success.
In terms of the challenge, you are exactly right, and that
is the reliance on the service medical departments to continue
to provide direct support. The reason for that is the staffs
that have been doing it for decades in the services are slowly
but surely transferring into both our headquarters and into our
regional markets.
As we are doing that, we are sharing responsibility for the
delivery of healthcare and sharing responsibility for oversight
of that staff. That plan should continue for approximately
another 6 months or so. My anticipation, at the end of this
summer, the majority of the staff who will need to be
transferred will be transferred into the Defense Health Agency
headquarters. And the reliance on the service medical
departments, at least for a U.S.-based support, will be
significantly diminished in almost every area.
There are some challenges that are still there for the way
we do our financing, for example, because we use different
financing systems in each of the different services. So we
still have to collaborate on some functions, but the majority
of them will have transferred.
I think I got to all your questions, sir. If I didn't,
please remind me.
Mr. Carter. Any of the other services have any comments?
General Hogg. Yes, sir. I would echo, this is a very
complicated merger of four cultures, if you will. And we will
get there, as long as we get there using manageable risk. What
that means for me is we need to transition before we transform.
So we need to be able to continue supporting the Defense Health
Agency in standing up its capabilities to manage these military
treatment facilities because if you remember in the past, DHA
didn't come out of that.
They came out of the old Tricare management activity, and
their core competency was writing and managing contracts, not
managing MTFs. So we need to help them do this mission. And so
I would ask that we not add additional system changes until the
Defense Health Agency is standing on their own, is well
established, and has been managing the market with demonstrated
success for a period of time.
General Dingle. And, Mr. Carter, I would add, the
complexity, as you mentioned, is extremely difficult. And from
the Army perspective, you know, what we have always championed
is that we cannot fail at this. We have to get this right. And
in order to get it right, the focus should be on the MTF
transitions, which starts with the standup of that
headquarters. If the headquarters is not up and operational and
running, then it will continue to require that direct support.
After you get that headquarters stood up, then you can
start transitioning the military medical treatment facilities,
and then we should also be focusing in that transition on that
electronic health record. From the Army perspective, we believe
that is the most key thing, and anything else are just
distractors that are not allowing us to get it right.
PATIENT'S SATISFACTION
Mr. Carter. Is there anything in the Department of Defense
that is not complex? And the question, I guess, real question
we ought to be asking, maybe we need to talk to the NCOs when
they come before us, what do the patient--how are the patients
feeling about the care? Are they feeling anything that is
throwing them off balance or that they are not getting treated
well? Because that is who I am going to hear from in Florida is
the ordinary soldier, and he is going to be telling me because
he is not getting what he needs.
General Place. Sir, that is a great point. We continue to
track the patients' satisfaction at every location that has
already transitioned into the Defense Health Agency. And the
patient satisfaction scores at each of those installations are
at or above--at every single location that is transitioned is
at or above what they were at baseline before transition. So
not perfect--not trying to tell you that it is--but improving.
Mr. Carter. Well, that is good. Any other comment?
Admiral Gillingham. Sir, I would just add that we remain
committed in the Navy Medicine to creating a truly integrated
system of readiness and health. Going through this transition
has forced us to look very carefully at our medical readiness
requirements, and I will tell you that, as we have done that,
we have identified opportunities for focus.
I mentioned in my opening remarks we now have almost one-
third of our mental health professionals embedded in the fleet
and Fleet Marine Force. So we believe that we are seeing--as
citing a success, we are seeing increased focus on the wellness
and readiness of our warfighters.
Mr. Carter. Well, and not to change--take too much more
time, but this morning I was thinking about the Navy because a
cruise ship is coming back into the United States waters
because of, once again, the virus. And I thought, my gosh, what
happens if we get that on an aircraft carrier or submarine and
the complications that is going to make for our naval forces?
Admiral Gillingham. Yes, sir, I appreciate that concern,
and that is something that we have thought very carefully
about. And as Mr. McCaffery said, we have worked closely with
the CDC, World Health Organization, NORTHCOM, and other Joint
Staff to understand how to eliminate that risk. And so that is
why one of the requirements that we have established in the
fleet is that no ship having left port will go to another port
or arrive in another port and disembark within 14 days.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Judge Carter.
Mr. Cuellar.
MODIFICATION OF CDC PROTOCOLS
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being here. I appreciate your work.
I want to direct my question on the coronavirus and the use
of bases, as you know. The Secretary of Defense, Mr. Esper,
approved a request for assistance from the Department of Health
and Human Services for housing support for those that had to be
quarantined. One of those places is in my area in San Antonio,
Lackland Air Force Base.
As you know, there was a particular situation that they
released an individual. And I know that you all are providing
support services, but I just want to know if you all are
coordinating. They released somebody that was still pending a
test. That person went to North Star Mall, went around San
Antonio. Of course, that caused a problem because the second
test came back. There was a protocol modification that the CDC
Director sent off. Are you all familiar with this letter that
got sent off on the modification of protocols? Anybody?
Mr. McCaffery. I am not sure which communication you are
referring to, but----
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, just basically the modification on CDC
changes, that is--there were two changes: One, that is if you
have a quarantined individual, that person will only be
released if that person has had two sequential negative tests
within 24 hours, modification number one; modification number
two, which is the most important one, where I think they messed
up, was that no person will be released if there is a pending
test result, and that is what we saw in the San Antonio area.
My request is that I know that you all are supporting--
providing support services, but I think these modifications
should be something that we should apply, whether it is in
South Korea or wherever the case might be. I would ask you, if
you are not familiar with this, I would ask you to please be
familiar with this. Any thoughts or comments on this? And then
I want to ask you a second question.
Mr. McCaffery. Sure. We will make sure that we have the
same guidance. I believe we do have what you are showing us.
And as you pointed out, this is a good example of where the
Department is in a supporting role to the all-of-government
effort.
And so the use of military installations in terms of
receiving repatriated citizens, the role there was we made
available our installations and then Health and Human Services
and the CDC were really--once those folks were on the ground,
had that responsibility in terms of managing them, providing
them care, doing the testing and then any kind of referrals out
into the private healthcare sector. And so we defer to them on
making and managing that area, but we will take a look at----
Mr. Cuellar. Yes. And that I understand, but even if you
are providing support services, if you are off abroad
somewhere, let's say South Korea, then we better be familiar
with this protocol. So I would ask you to do that.
WALTER REED ARMY INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH
Second thing is, what I would ask you is, the Walter Reed
Army Institute of Research is working on a vaccine against the
coronavirus. Can you give us the status on that progress,
number one? And also, I think they are working on diagnostic
testing kits, and how close are we on those two points on that?
Mr. McCaffery. Yes. So the Military Health System is part
of the broader interagency on looking at everything from
diagnostics, vaccine research, as well as antiviral therapies
for, if you have the condition, how it can be treated. So, in
fact, we, CDC, NIH, are all--have in progress, have research
going on on a vaccine, and it has been ongoing. I believe
clinical trials for that will not be for another few months,
and so, in terms of a final determined FDA-approved vaccine,
likely we are looking at, you know, 16 or 18 to 24 months. That
is from the research that we are doing. I can't speak to
similar research NIH or CDC are doing on that.
Similarly, on an antiviral therapy, we may be closer there
in terms of having something that can be usable. It is actually
in clinical trials right now for testing of efficacy.
Mr. Cuellar. Well, as I close, I just ask you all to--I
know we are putting a lot of Federal dollars in research, and I
understand that, in different areas. I just want to make sure
that we are coordinating working together as we use this large
amount of Federal dollars. And as you saw, the House passed the
supplemental bill yesterday appropriations. So I just want to
make sure we are all coordinating.
Thank you for your service all of you. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Womack.
TACTICAL COMBAT CASUALTY PROGRAM
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to the
entire panel.
I want to direct my question to General Dingle and Admiral
Gillingham, and I am going to pivot away from all of these
flavors of the month, COVID-19, et cetera, et cetera, and I
want to come back to tactical medicine for just a minute.
It is my strong belief that in the last two decades, thanks
to the efforts in the entire readiness scenario to better
prepare our men and women in uniform to perform battlefield
medicine has saved a lot of lives. There are a lot of people
that have been able to go home to their families, albeit maybe
banged up a lot, that in many previous wars would have died on
the battlefield. And in my regiment back many years ago, we had
a robust Combat Lifesaver Program, and I think that Combat
Lifesaver Program was probably the reason we have done so well.
I know that the military services are transitioning from
the traditional Combat Lifesaver Program to a more robust
Tactical Combat Casualty program. So I would like an update. It
is my understanding that that process is still evolving and
that the Tier 2 TC3 program is going to become that bedrock
training for our readiness posture that in the event that we
were to engage in a near-peer combat scenario more force-on-
force scenario, that a much more robust combat program, combat
medic program would be important.
So can you explain to me where we are in this process, how
it is going, and what you see unfolding in the next year or
two?
General Dingle. Mr. Womack, first and foremost, let me
thank you for recognizing the first responders. Oftentimes, the
combat medic, the combat lifesaver do not get the recognition
that they deserve when they are the very first responders that
stop the bleeding that are enablers to the sustainment of life
in combat.
With that said, you are absolutely correct, our program is
going tremendously within the Army. We call it the Army
Medicine Medical Skill Sustainment Program, which it involves
everything from expeditionary combat medic care where we are
teaching them expeditionary medicine and how to provide
prolonged care in austere environments, all the way to where we
are taking our trauma teams, as you mentioned, and embedded
them in our civilian facilities, those trauma centers, so that
they can get the touches not just as a trauma surgeon but as a
trauma team.
Right now, as we expand that, we currently have three
programs going on right now across the country. We are going to
expand that this year in fiscal year 2020 for those trauma
teams to three more, and then we have about another eight more
that are right behind those.
In reference to those enlisted training, also we have what
we call our Strategic Medical Asset Readiness Training. So that
SMART focuses, once again, on that combat medic, not just
training them in simple training environments but also pulling
them out and putting them into some of those trauma centers,
too, so they can get those individual critical task lists
trained to proficiency so, when they are called upon, they will
be ready to respond.
Bruce.
Admiral Gillingham. Thank you, Congressman Womack.
As an orthopedic surgeon who served as the officer in
charge of a surgical shock platoon in Fallujah in 2004, I can
tell you this is of particular interest to me that we continue
to get this right, particularly as the nature of our adversary
potentially changes. I will tell you that, in addition to
moving up in terms of the capability for our enlisted providers
for TCCC, we are actually in the process of training the
entirety of the ship to have those basic skills because as
terrific as our independent duty corpsmen are who are
responsible for the medical care on our smaller ships, they
would be rapidly overwhelmed. So we are in the process of
training the entire crew in fundamentals of tactical casualty
care, sir.
CLOTTING MATERIAL AND TECHNIQUES
Mr. Womack. I have one followup question regarding new
medicine, and that is that there is a lot of technology out
there regarding clotting material in the application of certain
bandages and this sort of thing. Are we okay with our
stockpiles? Are we procuring these new technological advances
in a timely way so that we can use the very best that we have?
Because, you know, in that golden hour or in those first few
minutes, that type of equipment is going to be critical to
helping save lives when otherwise they would be lost
immediately.
Admiral Gillingham. Yes, sir. I can't speak directly to the
supply that we have, but I will tell you that they are--and
perhaps General Place or Mr. McCaffery can speak in greater
detail, but I can tell you that there is a tremendous
commitment in our research enterprise to make sure that we have
absolutely the best possible, you know, equipment and
technology in the hands of our first providers.
General Place. Yes, sir, I will add on to that.
Both in terms of quality and in terms of the quantity, the
research that has been occurring within the Military Health
System, specifically for intraabdominal clotting, for example,
which is a problem on the battlefield, or junctional hemorrhage
cases. So where extremities come into the thorax or into the
abdomen, those are also important. We have cutting-edge
research that has given us new clotting technologies to be able
to use in those conditions. So it is not just the quantity of
them, yes, sir, we have good stocks of them, but it is also new
qualities of hemorrhage control capacities that we have.
Mr. Womack. Thank you for the service, for all of your
service, and I appreciate the answers to my questions here this
morning.
I yield back.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
I saw some of the clotting techniques that they were
working on out at Fort Detrick just recently, truly amazing and
will later on have application in the civilian healthcare world
as well.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all of the panel, excuse me, for being
here.
Prior to coming to Congress, I was a hospital attorney. I
represented a regional hospital that had a number of smaller
clinics within it and spent a great deal of my time on medical
records completion. It is not easy. It is very complicated. And
one of the things that I discovered was that there was a real
reluctance by some members of the medical staff to use
electronic medical records. So they were used to dictating
their charts as they made their rounds, and then that chart
would go to medical records, and then somebody would transcribe
that chart in medical records so that it could be electronic.
It was very cumbersome, took weeks and weeks and weeks to
complete.
RECRUITMENT OF PEOPLE INTO THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
So I want to know a couple of things. The other thing we
found is that it is really difficult to attract young people to
residencies in the VA, and so I would like you to address what
you are doing to recruit and attract young people into the
healthcare system and the delivery system, and then what has
been done to improve the use of electronic records, let alone
interoperability? I mean, we can't even get to that until we
actually have the electronic records in the system.
So that is an open question to anyone on the panel who
feels like they can address that. Thank you.
Mr. McCaffery. Let me start with kind of the larger
question that you asked and probably would defer to the
military departments in terms of the specific question of
things that we are doing to recruit and retain young people
into--I mean, from our perspective, into the medical side of
the military. But you indicated the challenge of adopting an
electronic health record, and I think that is something that
really--to foot stomp here for everybody. My experience in the
private sector is even systems like Kaiser that have been
around, very sophisticated, when they adopted a new electronic
health record, it took several years for them to do for just
many of the reasons you pointed out. It is not so much the
technology. It is how do you train your workforce, including
clinicians, on that new technology, what are the workflows you
need to use to match it up, and it has changed management. And
I think--and I will let Mr. Tinston weigh in with some more
detail, but we purposely, when we rolled out for the Department
of Defense, rolled out the her, we did it in a test way in four
facilities to see what we needed to learn and informed the
larger deployment, and we learned many of those things. And I
think that is what has led to the most recent deployment in
September went far better, and we believe we are really well
positioned now as we pursue additional waves of getting it out
throughout the system.
But I don't know if you have anything to add, Mr. Tinston,
on that.
Mr. Tinston. So, Mr. McCaffery, Congresswoman, we did learn
a lot. We did the initial Pacific Northwest sites. We didn't
have all of the capabilities that we needed----
Ms. McCollum. Sir, if you would speak into a microphone so
that it can be picked up.
Mr. Tinston. Sorry about that.
Ms. McCollum. Not a problem.
Mr. Tinston. We took some time to make sure we had the
capabilities right with the record and the workflows, and we
began training those workflows to get people job-ready vice
teaching them how to use the IT, which is one of the mistakes
we made out the gate. So we have had much better results with
Wave Travis, and we anticipate continuous improvements as we
proceed to wave knowledge and future waves. And as I said
earlier, we have 66 sites in the deployment process at this
moment.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Are you working with medical schools to
train young doctors before they get to residency how to use
that IT software?
General Place. Well, ma'am, most of the medical students
who are on the scholarship programs that end up bringing them
into our system, they do rotations in our organizations
already. So, yes, they are being trained on our systems before
they ever get into it.
Let me add one other comment to it. We have been using an
electronic health record within the Military Health System for
two decades. So the challenge that you are describing is really
not a challenge that we are having. We are used to using
electronic health record. The downside of it was it was
homegrown. It was clunky. There were challenges with it. But
our culture has changed to accepting the electronic health
record. The challenges that we are having now is from our
homegrown electronic health record, where we did our own
workflows even locally sometimes differently, to the commercial
off-the-shelf that we purchased, transitioning to that. It is
not the reliance on the electronic health record that we are
having the challenge with.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Are you using software you just purchase
off the shelf?
General Place. Yes, ma'am. It is a commercial off-the-shelf
software program.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. The other challenge we ran into was
maintaining confidentiality. So when records are being
transferred around to different institutions, how do you
maintain the confidentiality of the medical record?
Mr. Tinston. So we are fortunate in that we are part of the
Department of Defense, and so from a cyber security and a data
protection perspective, we have the baseline of the
Department's cyber rules and standards to base our
implementation off of. So we manage the cyber protection with
the VA because it is a joint record that we are creating
between the DOD and the VA to meet the DOD standards. And as
far as the interoperability and exchange of data with external
providers, we do that through the--there is data use agreements
in place, and we do that through HL-7 standards, and we are
engaged with the standards agency organizations to make sure
that we have influence on how those are promulgated.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Well, it is a tremendous problem, and I
appreciate your attention to it. Anything that I can do to help
solve that problem, I have been working on it for decades, so
feel free to call on me. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
STRATEGIC MEDICAL ASSET READINESS PROGRAM (SMART)
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. General, thank you for being here.
What you do is very important. We appreciate your competence.
I want to get into the Strategic Medical Asset Readiness
Program, SMART. I know Congressman Womack dealt with it.
Lieutenant Dingle, we must ensure that we continue to take
care of our American soldiers. A few weeks ago I had the
privilege to accompany your Deputy Chief of Staff MG Crosland
to the Baltimore Shock Trauma at the University of Maryland,
and that is rated one of the top trauma centers in the world,
research, development. And the Air Force has been there for
many years and has a really good relationship, and we are
focused right now on the Army and maybe the Navy and Marines
later. In fact, that trauma center saved my life 50 years ago.
And if it weren't for their expertise and competence, I
wouldn't be here today. Maybe that is a good thing for some
people.
Anyhow, during our visit we discussed the SMART program,
which provides combat medics the opportunity to get hands-on
training alongside their civilian counterparts. The studies
show that, during the first few years of wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq, we could have saved 1 in 7 troops lost if they had
access to reliable trauma care.
Now, what are your plans to expand this vital program? Does
the fiscal year 2021 budget support this? And as our military
shifts to near-peer competition, can you explain why trauma
care experience is so important to our medical corps?
General Dingle. Thank you, Representative.
As you have experienced the great treatment from the
Baltimore Shock and Trauma, one of the beauties of the SMART
program is it is taking, again, that combat medic and
expounding and building upon something that we have had within
the Army called medical proficiency training in the old days
where we were leveraging just our military medical treatment
facilities. What Baltimore Shock and Trauma and then those
hospitals who are those civilian trauma centers, they are
exposing these medics in a 2-week rotation with the ability to
put hands on trauma injuries and trauma cases. So that is
exponentially increasing their skill set, their individual
critical task list, and it is just priceless.
We are expanding to two programs this fiscal year this
summer, with plans to expand to about six, seven more almost
each year. And, again, we have not had any issues with funding
as we continue to expand and are intending to expand this
across the country.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. That is good.
General Hogg.
General Hogg. Yes, sir. So, as you know, we have used
Baltimore for quite some time. We have other C-STARS
capabilities out there with Cincinnati and University Medical
Center in Nevada. What we are also looking at is embedding
entire teams in civilian facilities. 24/7, 365 days a year, we
are there getting the touches on a regular and consistent
basis.
ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH PROGRAM
Mr. Ruppersberger. That is good. You keep it up.
All right. I want to move to the Peer Reviewed Orthopaedic
Research Program.
Secretary McCaffery, I would like to ask you about this
program, the Orthopaedic Research Program. I have been
supporting this program for years. It is a research program
which has demonstrated results enrolling more than 15,000
patients to date in military-relevant research with the
potential to provide healthcare solutions for injured
servicemembers, veterans, and civilians. Now, the conflicts in
Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in 5,300 deaths and 52,000
battlefield injuries among American service personnel,
including more than 2,200 major limb amputations. The unique
nature of these wounds, which primarily resulted from explosive
glass and high velocity of gunshot, has been well documented.
The Orthopaedic Research Program has been funded since 2009 and
has received level funding at $30 million per year since fiscal
year 2012. These funds have allowed our orthopedic docs to work
miracles, stabilizing limbs, helping with tissue regeneration
and even a full face transplant. Those conducting the research
are asking for an increase to 35 million in work to provide
stable funding for the consortiums, which includes the major
extremity trauma research consortium metric, and that is
anchored at Johns Hopkins University.
Can you walk us through the history of the Orthopaedic
Research Program and the consortium it works? And also do you
believe the program could benefit from increased funding
designated to support the services on an ongoing basis? And do
you agree the services are a force multiplier that provide the
greatest return on investment?
Mr. McCaffery. So thank you for the question, Congressman.
To be candid, I cannot walk you through the history of this
particular research program. I would need to get back to you in
terms of----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I probably can more than you then
because I----
Mr. McCaffery. I am not aware of the request for increased
funding in this particular research program.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
Mr. McCaffery. But I am happy to take back your questions
and provide you the answers.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I will have my staff get in
contact with you or your staff today, and then I want to try
and make this a priority if we can.
Mr. McCaffery. Sure.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Yield back.
Ms. McCollum. If we could have the Army follow up on that
to the committee.
Mr. Crist.
STATUS OF SERVICEMEMBERS IN THE AL ASAD AIR BASE IN IRAQ
Mr. Crist. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And thank you all for being here today. We appreciate your
service to our country.
As you know, Iran launched 11 ballistic missiles at the Al
Asad Air Base in Iraq. While we thought that all servicemembers
were safe, over 100 servicemembers have since been diagnosed
with traumatic brain injury.
What is the status of the servicemembers who were in the
attack? And out of those who have returned to duty, how many
are on light or restricted service? And that is for any of you
who feel comfortable responding.
Mr. McCaffery. So, Congressman Crist, this may be a little
dated. This is probably numbers from a couple of days ago, but
my understanding, out of the roughly 100, 109 servicemembers
that were identified, 75 have been reviewed, evaluated, and are
actually back in duty in Iraq. The remainder I would need to go
back and check in terms of what is the status with regard to
their evaluation and have they been returned to duty and what
type of duty. I don't have that handy, but I can get back to
you on that.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that very much.
I am concerned obviously because, even though the bunkers
mostly held and had ample warning to take shelter, over 100
servicemembers were diagnosed, and that is very disconcerting
obviously. That number will likely increase, too, I am told. As
General Milley said, the troops in the attack will need to be
monitored for the rest of their lives. But he also said, quote,
that there is nothing we could have done, end quote, because
the missiles were so powerful. If we are making investments to
counter Russia and China, we also need to protect our
servicemembers against the powerful weapon systems, including
the ballistic missiles.
What are we doing to protect servicemembers from ballistic
missiles or other causes of TBI?
Mr. McCaffery. So a couple of things. One of the areas that
Congress has asked the Department to work on and we are in
process and that is focused especially on the implications of
blast exposure.
Mr. Crist. Right.
Mr. McCaffery. And we are in the middle of doing a study on
that to figure out better ways to measure it but then, more
importantly, what we find out about the impacts of blast
exposure on brain health that then needs to inform everything
from what weapons we acquire, the training we put in place, not
just in a deployed setting but training here at home, to inform
what we can do to best protect our servicemembers. And then,
most importantly, and I think you kind of referenced it, was
what we are doing, I believe it is the Special Forces Command
right now is really doing a good job at baselining all of their
servicemembers with regard to their cognitive abilities and
have that as the benchmark then to evaluate over time to see if
any of their, you know, in training, in deployments, any
potentially concussive events have affected that baseline as a
way to monitor and evaluate. So those are some of the things
that we are looking at.
Mr. Crist. Great. We have learned that brain injuries are a
problem, and we have known that our adversaries have these
weapons. So how have we not considered what would happen in an
attack like this?
Mr. McCaffery. So I believe we have considered, based upon,
you know, the evidence we have and what kind of protective
gear, based upon research we have done, what we believe, you
know, makes sense in terms of protection, and, most
importantly, we do have standard across-the-board policy with
regard to if a servicemember has experienced a concussive
event, there are very strict protocols around reporting that,
screening that servicemember, getting the evaluation and then
pursuing whatever medical care is required before return to
duty or something else.
STOPPING SPREAD OF COVID-19 AMONG SERVICEMEMBERS
Mr. Crist. Thank you, sir.
We have seen patches of coronavirus here at home, including
in my home of Tampa Bay, home to CENTCOM and SOCOM. As you
know, there are also larger outbreaks near military
installations overseas.
What are you doing to stop the spread of the coronavirus in
our troops?
Mr. McCaffery. So the Department has issued a series over
the last 4 to 5 weeks of force health protection guidance,
largely built around CDC guidance, and part of that, though, is
how we apply that guidance to the military environment and
guidance we give to installation commanders both here and
abroad and how they can apply that to their particular
situations on the ground to inform what they want to do with
their servicemembers in terms of screening, access to the
installation, as part of the effort to contain any infection at
their base or surrounding area.
Mr. Crist. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Just finally, do military installations have access to
testing? And then I yield back.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. McCaffery. The installations it would be--it is tied to
where we have the lab technology at military installations in
terms of our MTFs. Right now my last information is I thought
we had 9 or 10 of our military labs have the access for the
testing that is approved by the CDC. We are seeking to get all
of our labs, which is about 14 or 15, to have that ability.
Mr. Crist. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
If you would follow up with the committee on that, on the
testing.
Mr. Ryan.
OBESITY RATES FOR ACTIVE DUTY
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you for your service,
thank you for being here.
I want to go on a little bit of a different direction. I am
a little bit unique. I think I am the only one who sits on the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the Military
Construction-VA Subcommittee.
So the issue of health as it relates to all of you in
Active Duty and as it connects to veterans is important. And
one of the things--and I have tried to look through a lot of
your testimony. It is very technical. We are talking about
records and all of that. I want to talk to you about obesity
rates.
From what I can gather, the obesity rates for Active Duty
are going up: 15.8 percent a couple of years back and now 17.4
percent. In the Navy, it is 22 percent. Air Force is 18. Army
is 17. Males between 35 and 44 years old have almost a 30
percent obesity rate. And when you look at the increase in
blood pressure and diabetes and heart disease, all of this
stuff, you know way better than I do, this is a problem that we
are not even talking about, and it has got a relatively simple
or simpler solution than everything that we have just talked
about.
And for the last few years, my staff and I have been trying
to dig in on the food that is being fed to our soldiers, the
fact that, you know, the commissaries and cafeterias are closed
and people are working late and the only thing left on the
whole base is a Burger King that is open, and so they go and do
that over the course of many years.
Now, we need a big strategy to reverse the obesity rates.
And, I mean, I think most people would be shocked to think that
we watch Tom Brady, and we see these high-performing athletes,
and we look at their diets, and we look at their lifestyles,
and we are spending billions of dollars to have high-performing
men and women serving our country performing at peak levels in
very high-pressured situations. And for us to have an obesity
rate that is creeping up to 20 percent and zero strategy on how
to fix it, that is a real problem. And then you come back and
you want more money for this and more money for that, and there
is all kinds of research going on and reversing Type 2 diabetes
with food as medicine and all kind of innovative things that
are happening in the real world that we have got to make sure
that it is getting into the military.
Now, here is the connection for us who sit, you know, at
30,000 feet. The diabetes rate for veterans is 1 in 5; the
diabetes rate for average American is 1 in 10. So here we are
blowing all of this money. I have been on ships before and you
walk in, and it is all the sugary cereals. Now, look, I am not
a prude on this stuff. I am an 80 percenter, right: 80 percent
of the time, you do what is right. You work out; you eat
healthy 80 percent of the time. But we can't have this, folks.
This is unacceptable that we are going to continue.
Is there any strategy that is in place, Mr. Secretary, that
is addressing this in an aggressive way?
Mr. McCaffery. So we have, in part working with your
office, I know last year have been putting together what I
would call more of a framework or a skeleton in terms of what
would be the key components of the strategy. As you mentioned,
part of it, in terms of on the health side, are what are the
health guidelines and health recommendations that then feed
into how our installations are operated and the decisions made
about what types of food, access to that. And where we have not
completed that is that closure, that link between the medical
side and how we are operating our infrastructure, so to speak,
in delivery of food.
So there is more work to be done on that, and you make very
good points in terms of, you know, part of lethality is our
servicemembers and their health and their ability to do their
job, and this is a negative impact on that.
Mr. Ryan. Well, it is a waste of money is what it is. I
mean, it is inefficient. Obviously, it goes to production. Then
they go into the VA system, and they have diabetes. And then
diabetes, when you look at diabetes with any other sickness,
just jacks up the cost. It extends your stays in the hospital.
It complicates any other issue that you may have. If you have
to go to surgery or if you have got heart problem and diabetes,
it just makes it that much worse. So now I will leave here, and
I will go sit on another committee, the VA, and talk about how
we don't have any money. And so we have got to start seeing
these systems as integrated.
And the same--you know, we can have a whole discussion on K
through 12 school. When I walk into a school and these kids are
getting a Rice Krispies Treat and a thing of chocolate milk,
and they start their day out with about 80 grams of sugar. And
then they are on the Medicaid program, and they end up getting
diabetes with the public money that we spent to buy them Rice
Krispies Treats and chocolate milk, and then the public money
we spend to take care of them on Medicaid. The American people
are sick of this. This doesn't make any sense. And I want the
military in the United States to be the leader in this.
So I only have probably a little bit of time left, and I
would just like to give it to the Surgeon Generals if anybody--
if one of you have a comment on this.
General Dingle. Sir, I will be real quick, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
General Dingle. Within the Army we have a very pragmatic
approach to the health of the force, and we have many programs,
from Go Green, Healthy Choices, Spartan Board, that get after
the eating, as well as the activity, as well as the entire life
process or approach to living, and then our holistic health and
fitness, going after the spiritual, physical, and mental
wellbeing of our soldiers, the ACFT, APFT, the wellness
centers, all designed to, one, educate our soldiers where we
have got programs that have also inculcated this into the
units, not just special forces, but treating every soldier as
an athlete.
Admiral Gillingham. I would certainly agree. Very
similarly, in the Navy, we have a similar program. Certainly we
understand the importance of wellness. I think, sir, one of the
points you make are the social determinants of health that we
really have to get after in the environments in which our
sailors and marines and soldiers live. So we are working with
commissaries, for example, with our dieticians to provide
guidance so it is available in the commissary as individuals
purchase their groceries.
So, sir, we agree with you 100 percent, and we are working
very hard to get----
Mr. Ryan. We have a lot of work to do.
Admiral Gillingham. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. And this committee is going to push every single
one of you to make this happen.
MILITARY HEALTH PERSONNEL RESTRUCTURING
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I think everybody has
gotten the message, and I know there is more to say, but we are
actually out of time for a vote.
And I do want to follow up with one question, not to be
responded here today but reported back to the staff. And it
goes back to the military health personnel restructuring.
The DOD, in your announcement of the plan of healthcare
restructuring, roughly 18,000 uniformed health positions will
be gone with no plan to replace them, yet you are talking about
putting people into the marketplace. We know that there is a
shortage in our healthcare system throughout this country. We
are also concerned about your ability when these facilities
close to be able to retain some of the docs and high
specialized individuals that are serving us. You also function
as teaching hospitals, and teaching hospitals are closing and
limiting the number of training opportunities all across this
country. We can't afford to lose you as part of our backbone
for not only our military health but for our allover U.S.
healthcare system, especially when it comes to OB/GYN's and
pediatricians. And with more women serving, OB/GYN's, I have to
say I have some familiarity with them, having had an Army
doctor deliver both of my children, and, you know, we can't
afford to be losing those kinds of specialties and keep and
recruit and retrain women, as well as women who are family
members.
So we have got some serious questions on that. We want to
be helpful with you as you make that decision, but I think we
need to look at a whole of healthcare. So I want to thank you
so much for coming. And now this also goes to Mr. Carter's
question about, you know, some of the outside treatment
happening as well.
Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for your
service, and thank you for getting back to us promptly because
we are starting to mark up the bills.
With that, this meeting is adjourned. This hearing is
adjourned.
Tuesday, March 10, 2020.
UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND
WITNESS
ADMIRAL CRAIG S. FALLER, COMMANDER, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND
Opening Statement of Chairman Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. The committee will come to order. This
morning the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the posture of
the U.S. Southern Command, or SOUTHCOM.
Before we get started, I would like to recognize Ranking
Member Calvert for a motion.
Mr. Calvert. I move that those portions of the hearing
today which involve classified material be held in executive
session because of the classification of the material to be
discussed.
Mr. Visclosky. So ordered. Thank you very much, Mr.
Calvert.
Today we will receive testimony from SOUTHCOM Commander
Admiral Craig Faller. Admiral, welcome back to the
subcommittee, and we do look forward to your testimony. The
SOUTHCOM's area of responsibility lies at the doorstep of the
United States. Defense in this part of the world often has a
direct impact on the United States and its allies.
In Central America, economic and security conditions
continue to cost thousands to migrate north every year. In
South America the mismanagement of Venezuela's economy and
institutions have displaced millions, impacting that country's
neighbors and countries, including the Caribbean.
Across the SOUTHCOM area, the lack of economic opportunity
and law enforcement, along with continued demand, supports the
flow of drugs and criminal organizations. So more broadly,
great power competition is playing out in the region. China's
Belt and Road initiatives now extends to the majority of
countries, including areas critical to U.S. commerce and
security.
Russia's continued support of Cuba, Nicaragua, and
Venezuela works across purposes to U.S. interests in the
region. We do look forward to hearing about how SOUTHCOM is
postured and resourced to play its part to address these
challenges.
In addition, we would like to better understand how
SOUTHCOM is leveraging the assistance funding that we
appropriate. Even without a significant U.S. presence, our
longstanding partnerships with countries, like Colombia and
Peru, can help us advance our interest.
And we look forward to hearing about how new opportunities
in countries like Ecuador and Brazil are progressing. I know we
have a number of committee members who follow these issues very
closely, and so I am glad they were able to attend the hearing
today.
Admiral, we look forward to your testimony, but first, I
would recognize my friend and ranking member, Mr. Calvert, for
his opening comments.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Faller, welcome back to the subcommittee. I
appreciate the chairman for calling this hearing. He and I
recently had the opportunity to visit the Joint Interagency
Task Force South and Guantanamo Naval Base, and I want to
express my tremendous admiration for the professionalism and
hospitality of your team.
Like other combatant commands, SOUTHCOM is the subject of
ongoing review about the appropriate allocation of the U.S.
global military resources to implement the 2018 National
Defense Strategy. From a national interest perspective, the
case per greater not lesser U.S. engagement in the region is
compelling.
There are certainly no shortage of challenges facing the
U.S. in the region. Political, social unrest is on the rise;
corruption and transnational organized crime undermine
Democratic institutions; Venezuela is a virtual failed state;
and migrant flows from the Northern Triangle threaten our
homeland security.
I would also like--if any comments about the oil collapse
yesterday, how that is going to affect Venezuela in the short
term, because, obviously, cash flow in that part of the region
is extremely important.
China's footprint in Latin America and the Caribbean is
expanding rapidly, and the growing diplomatic and economic
reach there could enhance its military intelligence posture.
Meanwhile, Russia and Iran remain a malign presence in the
region, not to mention Cuba and its involvement in the drug
trade.
Frankly, many of these issues principally involve our
civilian agencies and broader interagency efforts to address
ongoing urgent governance challenges while advancing enhanced
U.S. cultural, political, and economic ties with Latin America.
But counternarcotics and homeland security issues also loom
large for the U.S. Many, many people die of drugs in this
country, far more than all the combatant commands combined. And
here in SOUTHCOM it certainly plays a critical role.
We all know the men and women under your command have done
more with less for years in carrying out their mission. Lack of
ISR capability has been a persistent concern, and an absence of
manned and unmanned assets for aerial detection and monitoring.
We deeply appreciate the efforts by you and the men and
women who serve under your command, and all they do on behalf
of the United States. I look forward to the testimony and the
dialogue to follow. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. I would now recognize the ranking member of
the full committee, Ms. Granger, for her opening comment.
Remarks of Ms. Granger
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Chairman Visclosky. Admiral Faller,
welcome back to the subcommittee. SOUTHCOM is a region of vital
importance that is often overlooked, but the threats you face
are just as complex as those of other combatant commands. This
subcommittee understands how important your work is, and we
look forward to hearing your needs and priorities.
As a former chair of the State Foreign Operations
Subcommittee, I spent a lot of time on issues in the area of
your responsibility. This is the region often focusing on the
Northern Triangle countries, and Costa Rica and Colombia.
I would like you to update the committee on the security
situation, including how these countries are working with the
Department of Defense and other U.S. Government agencies to
address drug smuggling and human trafficking. These problems
originate, or flow through these places and eventually reach
the United States.
I am also particularly interested in hearing your thoughts
about the influence of Russia and China in the region. We can't
afford to lose the strong cooperation we had with our neighbors
in the south, and we must do all we can to continue this
partnership.
I look forward--again, thank you for your service and look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Visclosky. Admiral, your statement is in the record, as
you know. If you want to summarize and then we will proceed
with questions. Go ahead. Thank you.
[The written statement of Admiral Faller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Clerk's Note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
be printed due to the classification of the material
discussed.]
Tuesday, March 10, 2020.
FISCAL 2021 UNITED STATES ARMY BUDGET
WITNESSES
HON. RYAN D. McCARTHY, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
GENERAL JAMES P. McCONVILLE, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY
Opening Statement of Chairman Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. The subcommittee will come to order. This
afternoon, subcommittee will receive testimony on the posture
of the United States Army and the fiscal year 2021 budget
request for the Army. Our two witnesses are the Honorable Ryan
D. McCarthy, Secretary of the Army, and General James C.
McConville, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Both
gentlemen have long and distinguished careers. They were
appointed to their current positions within the last year. So
this will be the first time testifying before us. Thank you
very much for being here.
We recognize that this is an extraordinary time for the
United States Army. Our Nation presently has over 187,000
soldiers deployed in 140 countries around the world. These
soldiers are the Army's most critical resource. We will talk
today about training, equipment, and resources needed to give
our soldiers the skills and tools needed to accomplish their
missions. But we would also like you to know that the members
of this committee care deeply about the welfare and quality of
life of our men and women in uniform, and we want to make sure
that we take care of their needs as well.
We are keenly aware of the need to modernize the Army of
today in order to meet potential great power competition in the
future. That process began with last year's budget request, and
I think you will agree that the subcommittee struck a balance
between supporting your strategy and assuring that successful
ongoing programs continue to receive an appropriate level of
resources.
The Army's fiscal year 2021 budget request continues to
focus on resourcing the National Defense Strategy. To achieve
this goal, the Army continues to conduct night court sessions
to review the necessity of existing programs. This process has
led to the proposed reduction or cancellation of more than 240
programs in fiscal years 2020 and 2021. Many of these programs
are on time and on budget and bring essential capabilities to
our soldiers of today. We do want to be your partner in
executing the strategy but not at the expense of key enablers
that lead to success on the battlefield today.
I support the idea of reviewing your existing programs to
determine if there is excess funding, but I do not support
funding future programs in which the requirements have not been
fully thought out. One example is the recently cancelled
optionally manned fighting vehicle. This the Army's third
attempt at replacing the Bradley fighting vehicle. One month
after Congress appropriated $205 million for this program, the
Army announced its intention to cancel the solicitation. As a
result, the optionally manned fighting vehicle program will now
be at least 2 years behind schedule, and the funding we
appropriated towards it could have been used to continue
supporting one of the fiscal year 2020 programs that were
reduced or eliminated.
This gives us great pause when evaluating the requests
before us to once again cancel or reduce 80 programs in the
fiscal 2021 budget. We have been told time and again that this
time it is different, yet the Army has a long history of
canceling high-profile programs after significant investment of
taxpayers' dollars due to the incomplete requirement process.
We supported the Army's Futures Command as a way for the
Army to consolidate its modernization process under one roof,
but the first large acquisition program that has come out of
the Army Futures Command has fallen flat. You do need to
convince this committee today that our continued support of
modernization will eventually be a good investment.
I would also like to highlight my concerns about the well-
being and quality of life of Army soldiers and their families.
Of particular interest to me, as you know, is childcare. We
continually hear about soldiers lacking available childcare.
The committee has made significant investments in fiscal year
2020 to mitigate this issue. I would like to know what the Army
is doing about it.
Gentlemen, I have seen the unfunded needs of the Army and
across the services, including readiness, improved facilities,
and your stated goal of modernizing the force. This committee
wants to be your partner in achieving the goals, but it is
imperative that we are investing wisely, and please assure us
today that your budget request prioritizes quality of life.
With that, before we hear your testimony, I will want to
turn to Mr. Calvert for any opening comments he has, but I
would also just suggest because both will potentially start in
the middle of this hearing that, given our prime location, we
will simply continue the hearing and each of us exit, go vote,
and please come back.
And, with that, Mr. Calvert, you are recognized.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, General McConville, welcome. Thank you for
taking the time to come talk to us. The fiscal year 2021 budget
request continues the second year of the Army's bold
modernization transformation. While I fully support the Army's
efforts to focus on near-peer threats, I have concerns with
implementation of your modernization enterprise thus far.
As you have noted, Mr. Secretary, the Army's modernization
plans assumes flat budgets. We cannot, therefore, afford costly
mistakes like those that have plagued the Army acquisition in
the past, nor can we afford excessive delays. So the chairman
and I are basically on the same page already. We have
discovered that the Russians, for instance, they fielded a
hypersonic weapon while we are still trying to develop one.
What was that? The Chinese have hacked in.
Mr. Ryan. I have Huawei on my phone.
Mr. Calvert. There you go. So failing is not an option, and
failing early is even a bad option, a worse option. But I share
the chairman's concern about this Army modernization effort,
specifically the optionally manned fighting vehicle, the OMFV,
and I would be interested in what lessons you have learned thus
far and what you think you can do to improve the process. And
so that will certainly be in my questions and I think the
chairman's questions also.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Ms. Granger.
Opening Remarks of Ms. Granger
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Thank you both for being here.
Our Nation faces unprecedented threats from near-peer
adversaries, such as Russia and China, and continued harassment
from the rogue regimes of North Korea and Iran. Because of
this, our soldiers need the absolute best equipment to defend
our Nation and the American way of life. I am interested to
hear how your modernizing the Army in the way that leverages
our industry partners and gives our soldiers and their families
the support they need and deserve.
While I wholly support the reasons we need to modernize, I
do have concerns that the Futures Command is trying to do too
much too quickly. I hope you will explain today how the Futures
Command plans to execute this bold strategy while assuring that
the Guard and Reserve are at the same level of readiness as the
Active Duty Army. Thank you both. I look forward to your
testimony.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
And with the indulgence of the members, I would want to
assure Mr. Calvert that I would usually recognize Mr. Ryan
first for questions so that he can leave, if that would be all
right.
So, in that event, I would recognize Secretary and General
for your testimony.
Secretary McCarthy. Am I recognized, sir?
General McConville. Yes. Go ahead.
Statement of Secretary McCarthy
Secretary McCarthy. Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member
Calvert, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for
your continued support to the Army and our people. In 2018, the
National Defense Strategy outlined the current and future
threat picture, drastically changing the Army's focus. The
strategy outlined great power competition, specifically Russia
and China, who are rapidly investing to modernize their
formations.
In order to achieve national objectives laid out in the
defense strategy, including deterrence, the Army with the
support of Congress developed three distinct priorities:
readiness, modernization, and reform, and aligned our budget
against the same. Two and a half years into our modernization
efforts, we are here to finish what we collectively started.
This budget request rests upon the funding and authorities
that Congress provided over the last 2 years. Together, we are
creating irreversible momentum towards a ready, modernized,
multidomain Army capable of meeting future demands highlighted
in the NDS. Our fiscal year 2021 budget request is $178
billion; 60 percent of that top line is invested in our people
and towards operations and maintenance, with the remainder of
our available budget aligned towards our modernization
priorities.
Despite a fixed top line and a flat budget, demand for Army
forces continues to rise. The Army currently fulfills 60
percent of the overall combatant commanders' demands with no
projected decrease in COCOM demand. Demand, paired with the
need to bring new systems online, will require us to grow the
budget 3 to 5 percent real growth in the outyears.
Readiness remains the Army's top one priority. We remain
ready today, capable of dynamic force projection. Take, for
example, this year on New Year's Eve. We pushed a brigade size
element on a no-notice, cold-start emergency deployment. Within
hours, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division went from
holiday parties to wheels up on a C-17. Within a day, soldiers
were operating in the Middle East. Nearly half of our brigade
combat teams are at the highest levels of readiness, pulling us
from a readiness trough to a readiness peak over the last 3
years.
On modernization, we are rapidly developing new
technologies across six modernization priorities and 31
signature systems, all geared towards meeting the demands of
the future battlefields. The creation of Army Futures Command
has allowed us to combine the stakeholders together and rapidly
increase the speed of the modernization process. We are seeing
real results. Prototypes that began in fiscal year 2018 and
2019 are maturing with real capability that will land in 2021
and 2022.
In this fiscal year, we will increase soldier touch points,
test shots, capability demonstrations, and the fielding of our
formations. The Army is investing $800 million across the next
5 years towards cloud computing, which is central to our
modernization effort. Long-range fires, including ERCA, PrSM,
hypersonic missiles flying further and hitting their targets
and increasing our reach in lethality, essential deterrence in
the joint fight. We have invested $1.3 billion towards these
efforts, and continued funding will allow the Army to field a
road-mobile battery and hypersonics in fiscal year 2023.
New aircraft in our Future Vertical Lift portfolio are
flying hundreds of test hours as we fly before we buy. We have
seen great advances in our soldier lethality portfolio for
individual kit with Integrated Visual Augmentation System that
links multiple sensors to multiple shooters and multiple
command-and-control notes, ultimately increasing lethality and
survivability for our men and women.
The demand for Army, forces, paired against a flat budget,
has forced tough fiscal decisions. In-depth program reviews
will continue in fiscal year 2021 with the total target of $9.1
billion in programs that will be delayed, reduced, or
eliminated.
The Army will continue to show fiscal responsibility with
taxpayer dollars. We view every dollar as we do with
ammunition. Each bullet matters and is aimed at a target. With
Congress' steadfast support, we are here to finish what we
collectively started.
I would like to share the floor with my teammate, General
McConville, and I look forward to your questions.
Statement of General McConville
General McConville. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member Calvert, distinguished
members of the committee, I also want to thank you for the
opportunity to be here today and for the support you all
continue to give the Army and our people, our soldiers, our
families, our civilians, and our soldiers for life, our
retirees and veterans.
As of this morning, the Army has over 189,000 soldiers
deployed in 140 countries around the world. Those soldiers form
the leading edge of an Army that stands ready to fight and win
whenever and wherever it is called. We are currently
demonstrating Army readiness with our Defender 20 exercise in
Europe, the largest of its kind in 25 years, and we will do the
same in the Pacific in the fall on a smaller scale. Both
exercises will further strengthen not only our readiness to
deploy U.S. Army forces but to also increase our ability to
fight alongside our allies and partners and deter those nations
or groups who wish America harm.
Going forward, we will sustain the tactical readiness of
our units while at the same time ensuring we are strategically
ready to mobilize, deploy, and sustain our combat forces in a
way that supports how we will fight in the future. To ensure
that the Army will be ready and can win the future, we must
also modernize, as the Secretary and I have discussed with many
of you. The National Defense Strategy has focused us on great
power competition, but great power competition does not have to
mean great power conflict. A ready, modern, and multidomain
Army provides the Nation's strategic leaders with flexible
options to compete below the threshold of armed conflict while
maximizing deterrence. With timely, adequate, predictable, and
sustained funding, we will deliver an Army that will never be
outranged, outgunned, or overmatched.
But to get to the Army we need in the future requires
transformational change, not incremental improvements. Our
fiscal year 2021 budget requests supports that transformational
change. It aligns resources with the National Defense Strategy
and our Army priorities. It also balances the demands for
readiness now and allows us to invest in the future.
Our budget request maintains 58 brigade combat teams, 23
aviation brigades, and 6 security force assistance brigades
across the regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army
Reserves. It enables 24 combat training center rotations,
including 4 for the National Guard. It funds strategic
readiness, including dynamic force employments to Europe and
the Indo-Pacific, and maintains the maintenance of key
prepositioned stocks and ammunition. It provides modest end-
strength growth to meet the expanding operational requirements
and promotes interopability with allies and partners through
combined exercises with countries around the world.
In terms of modernization, our request supports the
continued development of the Army's multidomain operation
concept which will inform our contributions to the emerging
joint warfighting concept. Our request funds multidomain task
forces in Europe and the Pacific to increase Army capabilities
in both competition and conflict. Our budget supports critical
steps in research and development that allow us to deliver key
systems across our six modernization priorities.
Finally, our budget helps us win the war for talent by
funding key quality-of-life initiatives and moving us from an
industrial age personnel management system to a 21st century
talent management system with the continued implementation of
the integrated personnel and pay system and initiatives like
talent-based branching, the Army talent alignment process, and
the Battalion Commander Assessment Program.
Thank you for your time and support of the Army. We look
forward to your questions.
[The written statement of Secretary McCarthy and General
McConville follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Visclosky. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert.
ARMY FUTURES COMMAND
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In 2018, the Army embarked on an ambitious modernization
effort by establishing Army Futures Command while shifting the
Army's focus from counterinsurgency to near-peer threats. One
of the primary benefits of Army Futures Command, we were told,
was that it would bring together all relevant stakeholders,
including industry, at earlier points in the requirements in
the development process. This would allow the Army to provide
capabilities to soldiers more quickly and more cost
effectively. Yet 2 months ago, the Army withdrew its
solicitation for the optionally manned fighting vehicle, or
OMFV, and decided to restart the program because it admitted
its own requirements were too stringent for industry. It is now
going back to square one.
Then, last month, we learned that the Army had decided to
defer a decision on selecting a system for its indirect fire
protection capability program, even though it said last year
that it would make a decision by the second quarter of this
year.
I have to tell you, gentlemen, that these decisions have
produced significant concern in Congress, obviously from both
sides of the aisle, and industry regarding the Army's
modernization process.
Looking specifically at the optionally manned vehicle
decision, I have two questions. First, I understand you all
conducted an after-action review to understand what went wrong
with the process. VAE pulled out early due to conflicting
requirements. Why didn't you stop then and reassess? Why should
we have confidence at this time that you will get it right,
especially when it seems you are returning to the normal Army
acquisition process?
And, secondly, the fielding for the OMFV was scheduled for
2026. As the chairman mentioned, he mentioned delay, but are
you still planning for a 2026 fielding, and if so, how can you
get there given that you have got to restart this whole
program?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, I will say a few things. If I
could pass also to General McConville, I would appreciate that.
With respect to the RFP, we did have a competitor in the
process that could bend the metal and develop a prototype in
the process. What the team learned as they went through the
whole process of RFP was that, in this case, they fell short of
the requirements that was in the RFP. And we took a step back
from the table, making the judicious decision not to keep going
down the path and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a
system that would never be able to achieve the outcomes we were
looking for.
So, from that standpoint, if you look at us historically,
we would have kept going, and we would have spent billions of
dollars. We think that the way that we are organized against
the problem now by fusing all of the stakeholders together, we
are getting the best, most informed recommendations from the
Army modernization enterprise.
General McConville. If I could add, I think we learned
early on in this program, and what we learned was there was
confusion over the requirements. And so we just came out with
the characteristics of what we want in this vehicle because we
don't want to get to our requirements until we actually see
what the prototype is going to be. And by doing this, we will
come out with the nine characteristics that we would like to
see in this vehicle.
And what we will do is go out to industry. We are working
with industry right now. We will go to industry and
nontraditional industry to see what type of technology they
would like to see in this vehicle. They will come back to us
with a design, and we will pick five designers for the build--
that come up with the best designs and also five technologies
that we look at inserting into the vehicle. From that, we will
refine the characteristics. We will go to a detailed design and
then do the same thing and go to prototype.
Once we get the prototype and see what they can actually
produce, not in Power Point, but actually what they can do so
we can drive, we will refine the requirements, and then we will
have the competition. We think we can save time up front, and
we can get the vehicle we need before we invest a lot of money
in it and have requirements that we know that industry can
meet.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I mean, you know, that sounds great,
General, but I wonder why we didn't start this process, you
know, a long time ago. I thought we were going to move down
this. What happened?
General McConville. I think what happened, Congressman, is
we have learned. We are learning with industry. We are learning
with our acquisition folks who are used to doing it the old way
where we spent a lot of time, 5 to 7 years developing
requirements and then 5 to 7 years developing a system, and
then investing a lot of money in it and finding out at the end
we didn't get what we wanted. So we are stopping early, and we
are redefining the way we do the process to encourage
innovation.
Mr. Calvert. Fine. Just one comment. I used to be in the
construction business. Usually the happiest day of my life was
when somebody asked for a redesign or, you know, some kind of
change order that I would understand would be more
profitability on my side of the transaction. So I would hope
that whatever you come up with, and hopefully it is soon, that
you get a set of plans, and you go to bid on those set of
plans, in effect, get the contractors to come forward and stick
with it because these changes can only cost the United States
Government money and time, which you don't have either one.
So that is my comment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ryan.
FOOD MODERNIZATION EFFORTS
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
indulgence here and want to associate myself with the gentleman
from California's line of questioning.
Mr. Secretary, I am going to switch gears here a little
bit, but there is some correlation. We know that the enlisted
soldiers are only using about half of their meal entitlement,
basic daily food allowance funds per day, and that is roughly
$170 unspent every month. Obviously, none of us want to see an
already cash-strapped soldier leave 170 bucks a month on the
table, let alone spend additional money out of their pocket to
eat. We also know that the reason soldiers so often fail to eat
in dining facilities is because those soldiers may not be able
to get to the dining facility in time for breakfast, lunch, or
dinner, given their training and the other demands that they
have.
That is why I have been pleased with the Army's commitment
to move to a campus-style dining concept whereby soldiers will
be able to use their full meal entitlement not just in the
dining facilities but in the AAFES facilities, MWR facilities,
and even someday at off-base establishments that offer a
healthier menu, essentially a system similar to that which most
colleges and universities have had for decades.
I understand that this is a work in progress, and it will
take time to work out the kinks, but I want to put a marker
down before the Army goes too far down any particular planning
path. The Army should expand where soldiers are allowed to
spend basic daily food allowance funds. The Army should not
seek alternative funding to be used to buy meals in nondining
facilities unless those funds are being requested for
technology or facility upgrades that are necessary to make the
campus-style dining concept work better.
And if there is a DOD policy that you believe prevents the
Army from using DDFA funding for the full cost of a meal,
outside dining facilities, or otherwise limits the ability of
the Army to create an efficient and well-integrated campus-
style dining model, I encourage you to pursue such a waiver,
similar to what the Air Force was granted when the Air Force
began its food transformation initiative, which included a
campus dining model. We want to work with you to get this right
because if we do it correctly, we can save soldiers money,
greatly improve their health and mission performance, and save
the U.S. taxpayer money.
So, with that all said, can you provide the subcommittee
any updates on the Army's progress with respect to its food
modernization efforts and campus-style dining reform?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, I can tell you a specific example
from just the first week of February. I was out at Fort
Wainwright, and they are doing that in the barracks there,
developing, constructing a very similar concept like you just
mentioned. It has been a challenge because we have seen the
lack of participation in large volumes in the chow halls. There
have been a lot of investments that have been made in the chow
halls to also change the menus, putting dieticians down at unit
level. So we made a lot of investments with holistic health and
fitness to address this, and to your point, configuring the
barracks in the case of Fort Wainwright, to do just that. We
could also provide more information on how we are doing this
comprehensively across the Army to the committee.
Mr. Ryan. I just want you to know this is something that I
feel very, very strongly about. One of the other committees I
sit on in the Appropriations Subcommittees is the Veterans
Affairs, the VA. And when you look at, you know, what we want
from a performance level, obviously there is a money issue here
of leaving this money on the table, and I have one followup
question to that.
But we have got to make sure, when you are looking at the
obesity rates in the Army, Navy, Air Force, it is unacceptable.
I mean, it really is unacceptable that we are spending this
much money, and the number one and best investment we could
make is into the men and women who serve, and to making sure
that, as you said, they have dieticians nutritionists, making
sure that they are functioning at a very, very high level. I
mean, you look at these peak athletes and what they do to make
sure they are performing at the highest level. Well, it is the
same thing here, and I want us to start adopting that
mentality.
So we are going to work with you. We want to stay on this
issue and continue to try to drive down the cost because then,
on the other end, I will leave here, and I will go to a VA
subcommittee hearing and look at how much we are spending on VA
healthcare around diabetes and obesity and all these things
that started when they were Active Duty. And then we go to the
taxpayer and say we need more money. The taxpayer thinks we are
crazy. So we need to figure out how to make this happen.
BUDGET FOR FEEDING SOLDIERS
So one followup question. I know when you as the Army put
together the budget for feeding soldiers, my understanding is
that it uses a simple calculation of number of soldiers
entitled to meals times the basic daily food allowance per
soldier, and so now soldiers are leaving approximately $170
spent every month. That adds up to hundreds of millions of
dollars over the course of a year that is unaccounted for.
Either the Army dining facilities are purchasing and preparing
three meals a day per soldier and then wasting half the food,
or the money is not being spent on the soldiers' food, and it
is being spent on something it wasn't appropriated for. So I am
not really sure what is worse, but if you could, Mr. Secretary,
share with us maybe where these unspent funds are going.
Secretary McCarthy. Congressman, I would have to check with
our finance folks and get back to the committee on that.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. I mean, these are the kind of things that I
think we--I sit here and listen to my Republican colleagues
talk about this. The Democrats are talking about this. We are
spending a ton of money on these programs, and this is just one
example around food, that there is 170 bucks, hundreds of
millions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, we don't know where it is
going.
And I understand, Mr. Secretary, you have got a lot of
interests and a lot of things and a lot of programming that you
have got to keep your eye on, but here is a perfect example of
how we can save money in the military. And you know, we are
talking about cutting SNAP programs and cutting other programs.
And you look at the budget for the next year, only 2 and a half
billion dollars to spread over--nondefense discretionary money
to spread across 11 other subcommittees: 2 and a half billion
dollars. And you are talking about near-peer competition with
China and Russia, and we don't have the resources to invest
into STEM and education and research and infrastructure and all
these things that are a core component to our competition with
them.
We only have 330 million people in the country. So we
better all be at our best, and I want it to start with the men
and women in the military. I want to know where this money is
going so that we can find out how to repurpose it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. I would associate myself with Mr. Ryan's
concerns and assume that you will get back to the committee in
detail, okay.
Ms. Granger.
FUTURE VERTICAL LIFT PROGRAM
Ms. Granger. The Future Vertical Lift program is the first
major aviation modernization program in years and the Army's
number three modernization priority. Can you please update us
on the progress of the program and tell us if it remains on
schedule?
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, Congresswoman Granger. We are
trying to bring on two platforms into the formation, an attack
reconnaissance version as well as a long-range assault
aircraft. At present, we are looking at the down select in the
competition for both platforms, looking to do that later this
month, which will get us down to--I think it is what, two
competitors. Two competitors for the lift. There is two
competitors for the assault platform and then one on the long-
range assault platform that will build prototypes. So that down
select, they will go out and produce full up prototype variants
for us to test, and then we will continue to ramp the
investment. We have over a billion dollars invested in vertical
lift platform this year.
So we are making some very big decisions here and continue
to work with and really yield the benefit of industry who is
investing about $4 to $1 with their development dollars. So we
have harnessed a lot of good--the positive industry from the
industry and bringing the capabilities into formation.
General McConville. We are very excited about what industry
is doing because they are investing a lot of their own money.
They are showing us that they can actually fly and demonstrate
for us that capability, you know. There is two major
competitors out there we are seeing right now that have very
innovative capabilities that are going to provide us a
significant overmatch in the future.
So the fact that we can see what they are doing, this goes
along the line that we are trying to get to. If we can see what
they can do when we write the actual requirements from the
prototyping, we know they can do this. We won't be investing in
a program that is unattainable because we asked for something
that they can't do.
Ms. Granger. Good. Thank you very much.
ARMY FUTURES COMMAND
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, gentleman. I am going to go back
to Army Futures Command. So for the Army to achieve its
modernization goals, the Army Futures Command is going to need
some help from industry, small business, not just in Texas--and
I like Texas; I can actually sing the State song--or on the
coast, but from all over the country. Now, I live in a State
where we don't have a large military presence, and because of
our business community that is located there, it is often
overlooked by the Department of Defense. And I can tell you
that States like Minnesota and our commercial sector have a lot
to offer the Army. I can just think of healthcare, personal
protection, equipment, engineering, computing, a whole host of
things.
You know, my region, other regions like mine, we want to
help you find the best solutions for your requirements, but it
is going to take engagement from the Army to build those
relationships.
Now, you are well aware the GAO report last summer was
critical of Army Futures Command's small business engagement.
So can you tell the committee what changes have been made to
Army's future outreach to small businesses since then,
particularly in the area of research and development? And how
is Army Futures Command ensuring that they reach business
communities across the Nation, including areas in which the
Army normally doesn't do much business because there aren't
bases located there, but that doesn't mean there aren't great
ideas and great opportunities.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, Congresswoman. We established a
footprint in an accelerator hub in Austin, Texas, which will
provide us a venue to work with small businesses in particular,
which is attracting a great deal of attention, very similar to
an accelerator hub that I saw in Minneapolis as well when we
were conducting the due diligence for where we were going to
put the headquarters. So what the accelerator hub is, it
provides an opportunity for Army leaders to sit there and talk
about what are the types of capabilities that we need. It
creates a venue for small business to learn about where the
opportunities lie for Army.
Some of the things that we need to improve upon to the
point of the report is just the business practices of how we
can get contracts written quickly and to get people start
funding flowing because small business's greatest challenge is
usually cash flow. How can we get our contract writers to
embrace a lot of the authorities that we have been granted from
Congress over the past 3 years so that they can get small
businesses on contract very quickly. So procuring this
capability, develop prototypes, and then ultimately turn this
into a program of record. So we are getting better, but a lot
of it came to just developing that platform to do business
differently and attract more attention.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ACCOUNT
Ms. McCollum. And I think this will be a rather quick
question. In 2021, the Army budget request $44 million cut to
the Army's environmental restoration account. This is a 17-
percent decrease overall from the fiscal year 2020 enacted
level which is an 18-percent reduction to remedial actions
specifically. Congress has prioritized environmental
remediation very clearly in the last appropriations bill for
the services. It is particularly important given the emerging
threat of PFOS chemicals, given the scope of remediation issues
facing Army. In addition to facilities across the country that
still need remediation work, how can a 17-percent reduction
possibly be adequate to fund the work that the Army needs to
do----
Secretary McCarthy. Congresswoman, I am not up to speed on
the issue. If I could take that for the record and get back to
the committee, I would appreciate that.
Ms. McCollum. That is a 70-percent reduction (off mic) has
there been less pollution and that PFOS, so could you please
get back to us on why that is there? Maybe we can fix that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Visclosky. I was absent during Ms. McCollum's question,
but in fact, it was a question I was going to ask about small
business, and I would, one, associate myself with her concerns.
In fact, I was going to quote from the GAO report. And while I
appreciate it, I assume the answer was that you are creating a
venue and addressing the issue of small business. I would point
out the Army's Futures Command has been existence for 18
months, and we are--creating a venue to address small business
is not acceptable.
Secretary McCarthy. No, sir. It does exist. We have had it
in place about a year, and then what we have learned in the
process is just really it is the contractual mechanisms which
discourages, in most cases, small businesses from doing
business with the Department of Defense because of the span
time required to go through an RFP and to go back and forth and
ultimately get on contract to where the funding flows. We have
started to use more of the OTA authority that has been granted
to us by Congress. And it has been able to get us more
businesses involved, in many cases, as subs on other existing
contractual mechanisms. But we have been able to get more
attention from small business community and get more of them
involved with our programs.
General McConville. And, Chairman, one of the things we
discussed, we found out with industry is these industry days
where we lay out some of the problem sets, and I talked about
the characteristics of a problem rather than going to a
requirements document, which allows them to participate, which
allows them to bring in their technologies and do it at a
beginning level where it is just an idea where we can bring in
ideas. We can give them a little money for their idea, and they
can develop that idea. As they compete, they have chance to
grow in that process.
Mr. Visclosky. I would encourage you. I will not be here
for next year's hearing, and I would hope it is a more positive
message. I just having, been on this subcommittee since 1993,
do not believe the Department of Defense has done an adequate
job by any measure in engaging small business people. So I
would really encourage you to step on the gas here.
Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Did you call on me, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Visclosky. Yes.
PIM INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I wasn't quite sure.
I want to associate myself very much with the remarks of
the chairman and the ranking member on concerns just about the
procurement process and, you know, constantly making maybe
perfect the enemy of the good. I have been on this committee
long--well, I have been in Congress long enough, I should say,
to have gotten here just after Crusader. I represent Fort Sill.
Then lived through the future combat system, which was billions
of dollars down the drain for nothing, no fieldable, then the
NLOC debacle. And now we finally seem to get something going
with PIM integrated management, had some rough spots, but
starting to move. If I understand the fiscal year 2020 budget,
we allocated enough money for 53 units, and you only procured
48. Can you tell me why?
Secretary McCarthy. With respect to pellet and PIM, sir?
Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.
Secretary McCarthy. There were some issues with the
production line for pellet and PIM. Over the last 6 months,
they are getting on track, and that is why we made the--
ultimately made the full rate decision. But there were issues
with the manufacturer getting the tack time down so they could
produce the quantities that were on contract.
Mr. Cole. So they couldn't have produced the 53?
Secretary McCarthy. To get to that point, yes, sir. But we
are on track now and have confidence that----
Mr. Cole. And can you tell me what you are asking for in
the 2021 budget?
Secretary McCarthy. What is that, sir?
Mr. Cole. How many units are you asking for in 2021?
Secretary McCarthy. I don't have the exact number off the
top of my head.
Mr. Cole. I think it is, like, 30, so it is, like, way
down, and I am wondering why that big a disparity. I mean, we
have got a real problem here where we are outgunned, quite
frankly, by our peer competitors. Made some progress here, and
I am wondering why we are that dramatically slashing the
acquisition and slowing down the program.
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, the challenge that we had with the
manufacture was just getting the quantities produced on time.
We couldn't reach the tack times and hit them every month, so
Dr. Jette was up there personally getting involved with the
manufacturer, went up there three or four times last year
alone. We have been about five for five for the last 5 months.
So we are starting to ramp those quantities back up, but we had
to work with the manufacturer on their processes, working with
them to make appropriate investments tooling so that we could
decrease those span times so we could make the products faster.
Mr. Cole. So, if we are back up, again, why that big a
disparity between 48 and 30?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, we had challenges hitting the
targets, you know. I would refer to Dr. Jette ultimately, but
when we went through this process, it was about can we hit the
targets that we put on contract.
Mr. Cole. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
HYPERSONICS
Mr. Ruppersberger. First thing. I have been here for a
while. I think Mr. Cole and I came in the same class. In the
very beginning on Armed Services, I was really concerned about
a lot of issues involving the Army, but I think from what I
have seen, you have come a long way, and I think first under
General Milley and Esper and then you two that are taking over
now, I have confidence that you are going to do the job. You do
have to understand that our job is oversight, and in oversight,
we need to ask you hard questions and to make sure that, you
know, you are directing and that we are spending money the
right way. Judge Carter and I are co-chair of the Army caucus.
We work very closely with you, and you know, we want you to
keep doing what you are doing.
Anything involving contracts and those type of issues,
there always seem to be issues. You have bidding, who has the
right person, and we try to do the best there, but there are
issues there, and we have always got to stay on top of that
issue.
I want to get into hypersonics. I know especially you, Mr.
Secretary, when you were Deputy Secretary or whatever your
former job was, we have talked a lot about hypersonic weapons.
Other than nuclear weapons and maybe cyber security, it is
probably, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous issues we
deal with. And, unfortunately, Russia and China are ahead of us
because of our crazy shutdowns of government and those types of
things. But now we are together, we are on a roll, and I am
going to ask you this question.
Again, I said I am very concerned about the hypersonic
missile development, and our adversaries are developing
hypersonic weapons at a rapid pace. President Putin recently
claimed to have developed a hypersonic weapon, and news outlets
have shown images of China displaying its platforms during a
military parade marking China's 70th anniversary.
At last month's Army caucus breakfast, I was encouraged by
the progress Lieutenant General Thurgood and his team at Army
Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office have made
to develop and test our systems and also working very closely
with Secretary Griffin at the Pentagon. Can you explain the
importance of the Rapid Capabilities Critical Technology Office
to our strategic modernization efforts and how its role is
different from that of cross functional teams and Army Futures
Command. And can you explain the role the Army as playing in
the development of a common hypersonic glide body? Did you get
that? Okay.
And I also have concerns that inefficient government
shutdowns have put us behind our adversaries in hypersonic
development, and many believe we are 2 years behind. Do you
agree with that? The Army has requested $800 million in this
year's budget to support hypersonic missile testing and
prototyping. When do you expect to transition from prototypes
to production, and does this funding also support development
of defensive hypersonic measures?
General McConville. And, Congressman, I will go ahead and
take that and just talk a little about what General Thurgood is
doing. As you saw and we demonstrated, the hypersonics program
is moving out extremely quickly. We are going to be announcing
very soon the capability to actually test that system and
demonstrate that capability. We can talk about that in another
venue and how soon that is going to happen.
Not only are they doing hypersonics and moving out very
aggressively, that is a joint team that is doing that. We are
working very, very closely with the Navy. We anticipate having
a battery, a mobile battery capability in fiscal year 2023. We
are also aggressively moving out on directed energy. We have
that capability at the 50 KW range and looking at the 300
capability on directed energy. And then we are working with our
integrated battle command system that is bringing sensors to
shooters together. So what he is doing is taking critical
technologies and bringing them together, working very closely
with our Futures Command and bringing these very, very
important top priority systems into being very, very quickly.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Could you discuss where you are on
offense and defense?
General McConville. Well, we are much better on the offense
right now, and the defense--we have some work to do on the
defense.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And do you agree we are 2 and a half, at
least 2 and a half years behind China and Russia?
General McConville. I am not sure that we are 2 and a half
years behind as far as in capability. We will know more in a
short period of time where we are in relationship to them.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Is the funding that we have in this
year's budget enough for you to move forward to do what you
need to do?
General McConville. Yes, it is.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Womack.
MODERNIZATION INITIATIVES
Mr. Womack. Thank you. I thank both the gentleman for their
testimony here today.
I want to go back to the modernization initiatives. And,
man, I know all of them are important. I mean, all you have got
to do is read the list. But as has been said before, in
comparing it to a menu, a lot of entrees here, but you can't
eat it all. And we can't have all of these things, but I still
know we have to have a prioritization list. So two questions
about it.
One, what are the absolute gotta-haves in these
initiatives? And then my second question is, given the
discussion that is already happened on the Bradley replacement,
how has that shifted the priorities, if they have shifted at
all?
General McConville. Well, Congressman, I will start. You
know, the number one priority is long-range precision fires,
and I would say within long-range precision fires, the number
one priority is hypersonics because we have talked about that,
and that has got to happen. Within that portfolio also, we have
a precision strike missile system, which is going to go out
past 500 kilometers. That is going to give us ability to
penetrate competitors' anti-access/area-denial capability and
hold their ships at risk in the future. We have got to have
that.
When it comes to extended range cannon, what we call ERCA,
that is the ability--you know, we are basically improving what
we have, and we have got to have that. The optionally manned
fighting vehicle, I think we need to have, you know. Right now,
with the Bradley fighting vehicle, it is coming up on 40 years.
We have incrementally improved it. We need to get a new
vehicle. We have got to get that right, and I think we are
going to make that happen.
As far as our aircraft, the Future Vertical Lift, the
future attack reconnaissance aircraft, and the future long-
range assault aircraft, we need them both. Again, we are
looking over the next 40 to 50 years. These are the systems
that we are going to have to have.
The network we are putting together, we are going to tie in
on air and missile defense. The future on air and missile
defense is sensors to shooters. We are going to use artificial
intelligence. We are going to use an integrated battle command
system. Every radar is a sensor. We are going to have different
types of shooters, whether it is directed energy, whether it is
Patriot missiles, whether it is THAAD. We will pick the right
arrow, depending on the system that we are having, but there is
multiple threats that we are dealing with from hypersonic
missiles to theater ballistic missiles to swarming unmanned
aerial systems to rockets to mortars. We have got to have that
capability.
And certainly last, but very important on the soldier
lethality side, we are giving our soldiers, our combat soldiers
who take most of the casualties, what they need, and that is an
Integrated Visual Augmentation System. It is also new rifle, a
new SAR. And these programs are setting us up for the next 40
to 50 years so we will have the overmass that we need in the
future.
Secretary McCarthy. The only thing I would add, sir, is
cloud architecture. So we have to be able to capture data and
be able to put it into a standard protocol to be able to pass
information seamlessly between our Navy and Air Force
counterparts to truly weaponize data and to move at the speed
of relevance in the future.
SOLDIER LETHALITY PORTFOLIO
Mr. Womack. General McConville, you did a pretty good job
of articulating the needs for really all of the initiatives in
your discussion. Noteworthy to me is the fact that, when you
look at the lower priorities that have been outlined, still
needs but down on the priority list, I see soldier lethality,
400 percent increase. That is the request? But for your long-
range precision fires, a 4-percent increase. So help me
understand the request for increases versus the prioritized
list that you have outlined here today. I know there is a good
answer for it. It is just that I am looking at the math and
thinking, man, there is something not right here.
General McConville. One of our most transformational
programs within the soldier lethality portfolio is the
Integrated Visual Augmentation System, which is going to
fundamentally change the way our soldiers operate. The other
thing is, as we talked about, working with small businesses and
working with non-traditional defense partners and going ahead
and working this new acquisition process. This thing is moving
very, very quickly, and it is transformational in nature for
our soldiers. That is why you are seeing the large increased
investment in this portfolio because it is happening very, very
quickly.
Secretary McCarthy. It is a 26-percent increase year over
year for the entire modernization effort, sir. But to your
point about some portfolios moving faster than the others, that
is largely the mature of the technology and how quickly we can
integrate into a soldier or air formation.
Mr. Womack. Thank you. Go Army.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Kilmer.
CHINOOK BLOCK II UPGRADE
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thanks to you both for being with us.
Mr. Secretary, I have some questions about the Chinook
Block II upgrade, which the committee talked about at length
last year. In 2017, General Milley determined that the Block II
was necessary to fill critical capability gaps such as moving
more people, more material, heavier vehicles around the
battlefield, and since that time, Congress has been supportive
of the program. Yet, you decided to continue to delay the
program, even though both the House and the Senate included
funding and report language in fiscal year 2020 which was
intended to keep the program on schedule. Can you tell me the
plan for the Block II upgrade of the Chinook helicopter and why
the program can continue to be delayed without loss of
capability to the warfighter?
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir. So the aviation portfolio, we
are bringing in two new platforms into the entire fleet, the
future attack reconnaissance as well as long-range assault
platform. When looking at the determination of the overall
health of the aviation portfolio, the Chinook is on average
about 8 to 10 years old. It has north of 20 years left on the
lifecycle for that platform.
Over the course of the last 2 years, Army leadership has
worked to develop additional foreign military sales to the
United Kingdom, the UAE, as well as the Afghan national
security forces to keep the line warm until fiscal year 2026
and to be able to keep flexibility in the outyears. We are also
procuring G models for our Army special operations aviation
platform. So we believe we have flexibility in the outyears as
well as the health of the youngest helicopter in the formation.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD HUMVEE MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
Mr. Kilmer. I also want to ask about the Army National
Guard Humvee modernization program. That has had an immediate
positive impact on readiness in the Army National Guard units,
including the Guard in the State of Washington. However, there
is a significant shortfall that remains. More than half of the
National Guard Humvees currently are beyond their expected
useful lives. The Army didn't request funding for the program.
Rather, Congress has added funding of about $100 million in the
past several years to ensure the program's success. Recently,
the $100 million appropriated in fiscal year 2020 was part of
the funding reprogrammed to build the border wall. Can you
describe the benefit provided to the Army by the Army National
Guard Humvee modernization program, and why doesn't the Army
request funding in the budget for it?
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir. The program has performed
well, working antilock brakes, reconfiguring the ambulances,
the Humvee ambulances. Right now, Dr. Jette and General Murray
are conducting a vehicle study for the entire track-wheeled
portfolio for the Army. We have about 50,000 Humvees in the
portfolio or in the program of record for JLTVs, over 49,000.
It is, like, a thousand in the program of record for the
infantry fighting vehicle. We just need to make sure that we
are right sizing what vehicles we have in the formation. So we
are taking a hard look at that. It will be reflected in the
investments of all of those programs that I mentioned, and we
should be able to report that out to Congress in the near
future.
CMAT CONCEPT
Mr. Kilmer. I just have one other quick question. I am very
interested in the continuation and expansion of the cyber
mission assurance team concept in the Army and Air National
Guard. I think it is helpful to address these cyber
vulnerabilities.
General, can I just get your thought on the CMAT concept?
Are there cyber vulnerabilities faced by the Army that can be
addressed through this program?
General McConville. Well, as you know, Congressman, we have
got tremendous talent in the Guard and Reserve that does cyber.
We are doing a lot of innovative programs. One of the biggest
things that we are looking at on talent management is, first of
all, how we bring these folks in, how we keep them. There is
tremendous opportunities in the Guard and Reserve because there
are civilian jobs to bring them together and work those type of
things. So I think there are possibilities in that area, but I
am a firm believer in a talent management system where we can
recognize those with these cyber capabilities so we get them in
the right place at the right time.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Carter.
RECAPITALIZATING OLDER COMBAT SYSTEMS
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, both of you.
We talked about the Bradley replacement. You gave us
briefly some lessons learned because what we have created is an
interesting thing, and we are really excited about it. Speed
and accuracy is what we are trying to do in procurement, and
that is interesting and challenging. When you look at the
history of the military, it is very challenging. You learned
some stuff from the Bradley, and if you apply it to anything
else you are working on, it is going to be a learning process
no matter what you do because a lot of things are going to be
new. But the most important thing is to apply the learning
process to the next project.
And I think something my colleague to the right was
thinking about when he was asking his questions, there is an
awful lot here. Are you thinking to make sure that it is not
all going to drop on our plate the same year? We have to fund
all that as a completion project because there is a lot here.
And are you thinking in terms of phasing it as it comes to us
to fund because I would hate to think that all those things
came to fruition in 1 year. It would be pretty tough for us to
be able to finance it.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, Congressman. You kind of referring
to a potential bow wave of capability that could land.
Obviously, it would be a good problem to have, but ultimately
what we are looking at is a flat fiscal environment. Would that
force us into some, first, major decisions of flattening end
strength, or do you get a budgetary increase? So the balance
sheet, yes, we look very hard at that. This is where Dr. Jette
and General Murray would then turn to the chief and I and make
recommendations. Do you cycle them in based off of the
priorities, and then would you tier them into certain units
over time? There is a lot of that work underway right now, but
that is an environment that we will probably face in the 2023-
2024 timeframe.
General McConville. One of the things that we are seeing
with even some of our older combat systems. You get to a
certain point, you are going to have to recapitalize them.
Really, when you start recapitalizating, you almost take them
down to the bare bones, and you almost spend just as much money
as if you had to purchase a new system. So the intent will be
as the new systems get ready, we will have to divest of all
systems, of the older systems.
Mr. Carter. Right.
General McConville. That is what we are trying to work our
way through right now.
INTEGRATED VISUAL AUGMENTATION SYSTEM
Mr. Carter. While I still have some time, tell us about the
new night vision capability.
General McConville. Well, you know, the night vision
capability which, as you know, Congressman, is the Integrated
Visual Augmentation System. And the difference with that is
that is not only improving the night vision capability, which
is the track we were on. We are taking our night vision
systems, which started without a PVS-5, and then we went to a
PVS-6 which gave us better night capability. And then we
integrated a thermal capability in a night vision system
together. The difference with this, we are going to be able to
bring in the ability to train in virtual reality in these
systems. So the future will be when our soldiers go to a
target, they will be actually trained in the mission in virtual
reality, do it 50 times, flick a switch, go off and do the
mission. And they will have night vision capability, thermal
capability, and also be able to see the type of information
they need for the mission.
Mr. Carter. Fantastic. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
SYNTHETIC TRAINING ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Thank you for your
service.
Obviously, training is a hugely important part of what
makes our military the best in the world. I would like to
understand, or if you can actually help me understand this next
generation training system under the STE, the synthetic
training environment. If you can describe the program briefly,
why it is important, and, you know, does it work? Just help me
understand it.
General McConville. If I could take that, Congressman. You
know, we always have a war. The synthetic training environment,
what that allows us to do is really to conduct deep practice
before we actually go ahead or rehearsals before we actually
have to go do it on the combat battlefield. And so these
systems that we have today that are coming on board, these
trainers are not--you know, back in the day we used
broomsticks. You know, soldiers during World War II didn't have
weapons. So they ran around with broomsticks. These simulators,
these rehearsal platforms, these virtual reality capabilities
are cutting edge. We can put our soldiers or our pilots or our
artillery men into situations where they get an opportunity to
rehearse a mission 50 times before they actually have to go out
there and do it in combat and do it live. I think it is
extremely important.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, General, so correct me if I am wrong.
So are they, in essence, training with actual, for example,
what it is going to look like there, whether it is buildings,
fields, whatever it may be?
General McConville. Absolutely. And the system that I was
talking to Congressman Carter about is you will be in that. In
fact, the Secretary and I have actually done it and gone
through a virtual reality shooting house with a scenario that
we set up, and it is as real as you can get. You can get all
the training that you need, plus you have the ability to see
what soldiers are doing during the actual rehearsal. And then
you come back and do a very good after-action review and get
lessons learned and go back and do it again.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. If I may follow up on that, Mr. Chairman.
So my understanding is that--what is it, $33 million? Is that
the part of the unfunded request, I believe?
General McConville. I think that was on the UFR. That was
actually on the UFR, yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So those funds would be for what?
General McConville. Those funds----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. To expand or to do what? I mean----
General McConville. Well, those funds are for prototyping.
One was on the MILES system, which we use to work our way
through, you know, actual combat so, when people are shooting
laser-type things at each other, but it is the ability to
conduct training exercises without actually using live bullets.
The other one is on the virtual trainers that I talked
about, you know, to go ahead and to begin the development of
those trainers that our soldiers will use for rehearsals,
whether it is fire or driving or those type of things.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And so those are--is that an effective way
to train folks?
General McConville. Oh, absolutely. And it is--really, it
is a lot cheaper way, too. It is a lot less expensive than
actually doing it with a real----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So cheaper and potentially even more
effective because you are actually able to be in theater
almost, right?
General McConville. That is right. That is right. You can
do it at home station, and you know, a lot of people don't
have--you know, if you are in the National Guard, the Reserves,
you are in an armory or something like that, or you have access
to that training, you get a chance before you actually go and
do it. I think it is valuable.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH TRANSFER TO THE DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary, you had a memo recently that
became public, in which you expressed your concerns regarding
the transfer of the Army's medical research to the Defense
Health Agency while they were undergoing reorganization at the
military treatment facilities. I too have some concerns. Can
you share with us what your specific concerns are with the
transferring of Army medical research to the Defense Health
Agency?
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, Congresswoman. This whole process
is like a massive merger where we are divesting assets to the
Defense Health Agency. And, ultimately, what it comes down to
is how do you break apart the readiness piece of medicine to
what we--the home station--and understanding the operating
model of how the Defense Health Agency is going to work, how do
did they budget, how do we recruit people and develop
professionals career tracks and, you know, recruit and retain
our personnel. It is not altogether clear how it works.
And so, ultimately, I reached out to my colleague Deputy
Secretary Norquist and told him that the pacing of the
changeover was of concern, as well as the moving the Medical
Research and Development Command to Defense Health Agency,
MRDC, who has been instrumental in the work that we are doing
to combat COVID-19 in particular. So I just put in the request
to slow the pacing of this merger until we had greater fidelity
of just how all of it is going to work.
If you want to answer, General.
Ms. McCollum. Yes, please.
General McConville. I was just going to add that, you know,
the Army is a people business, you know. Our soldiers,
families, civilians, they depend on those medical treatment
facilities. We have a sacred obligation to provide them quality
healthcare. We just want to be make sure we are able to do
that. And this is a very important endeavor, and we just want
to make sure that we can take care of people while it is going
on.
Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you, gentlemen. And as I shared
with you, I too, have some concerns, and I brought those up
when we were talking to the different military service health
sectors and that on there. So do you know if you are thinking
of asking Congress for a delay on this transfer at all?
Secretary McCarthy. No. Congresswoman, we are trying to
work it internally. When Matt Donovan was the acting, I know he
went through confirmation today, but we have been working with
him about these very specific challenges. In many cases, our
installations are in some very rural locations around the
country, and how are we going to be in a position to ask our
soldiers and their families to go get healthcare on the local
economy, which may not be in a position to absorb thousands of
people. So, for an example, how do you work through these
relationships to ensure that we can work together and get the
support that they need. In many cases, these local communities
rely on us.
COVID-19
Ms. McCollum. Right. Well, I have a lot of concerns about
the way that this is moving forward. And for medical doctor
training to what you said about rural communities and to tell
me that you can--you know, there won't be any change in
prescriptions because we can do them over the mail is not an
answer.
You mentioned COVID-19. The Army has suspended travel for
soldiers and families from South Korea over the weekend because
of outbreak of COVID-19 in the country. Can you give us an
update on where you are and what U.S. Forces is telling
soldiers and families? And then I think what has been on a lot
of our minds, and you know, whether it is in the States or
looking at the DOD family, do you have the kits that you need
to even find out what is going on?
Secretary McCarthy. So, ma'am, first, your question with
respect to the PCS decision on Friday that we made. That was a
60-day delay to the PCS decisions, and it is to see, will the
flu season burn out? Will this actually reduce our risk? We
don't know, but we want to buy some time. So we made this
decision Friday night because we have got thousands of people
moving to these locations all the time. So we, you know, saw
the President put the guidance out about South Korea and Italy
in particular. We followed suit.
With respect to test kits, the Army has been organized for
about last month against three lines of effort, which are
prevent, detect, and treat. So, on the prevent standpoint, we
have General Martin. The vice chief every day does a meeting
and looks at where every soldier, civil servant, and family
member is moving around the earth. And we are looking at risk-
based decisions about TDY and PCS, all of these related
decisions.
The Medical Research and Development Command is working
with the CDC and NIH on vaccines. We are testing mice right now
on one of our own solutions. So a lot of great work going
there. Many of our people are former colleagues and proteges of
an Anthony Fauci and Dr. Redfield at CDC, so wonderful
relationships there and folks that have worked together for
decades.
Ms. McCollum. Getting back to the kits, if I may.
Secretary McCarthy. Yeah. I was going to get there, ma'am,
the kits.
Ms. McCollum. Okay. Because you can't prevent if you
haven't detected.
Secretary McCarthy. I was going to get to detect. On the
detect line of effort, nine of the Army labs are validated to
build the test kits. We put in a request for more funding so we
can open up our capacity to produce thousands a day. We are
working through that funding right now from the supplemental
that was granted by Congress last week.
Ms. McCollum. In South Korea, do you have test kits was the
more specific question?
Secretary McCarthy. We are buying those. I believe General
Abrams is buying those off of the local economy as well as has
some on hand as well.
Ms. McCollum. And you can get the lab results how soon?
Secretary McCarthy. I don't know the answer to that.
Ms. McCollum. Would you get back to us with that----
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. Because some places are having
to send them. Other places are being able to do it.
General McConville. That is one of the things, ma'am, we
are working on is we've got these master testers that have done
it for other type of diseases or viruses, and we need to ramp
that up. It was, like, 50 or 60 a day. We have got to get up to
thousands so we can actually get this----
Ms. McCollum. So I would assume as part of prevent, you are
telling others stationed in Germany to stay home, use abundance
of precaution, not be moving around a lot?
Secretary McCarthy. We have been putting these protocols in
place, and they are developing additional CONOPS as the risk
continues to grow.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Rogers.
NEAR-PEER ADVERSARY AND TACTICAL READINESS
Mr. Rogers. Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
After of two decades of focusing on counterinsurgency and
counterterrorism, the Army needs to refocus on preparations to
oppose a near-peer adversary. The 2018 National Defense
Strategy emphasizes the threats posed by, quote, great powers
and specifically highlights Russia and China as the greatest
threats to our interests.
China, naturally at the forefront of many of our minds,
whether it is their military modernization and mobilization,
economic pressure on countries in the region, or continuing to
militarize the South China Sea, it is clear that they seek to
increase their influence in the region and, indeed, the world.
Similarly, Russia continues to expand it is global influence,
conducting mass misinformation campaigns, inserting itself into
the domestic policies of foreign nations.
I understand one of the Army's top priorities in the
upcoming fiscal year is improving its tactical readiness when
it comes to the near-peer adversary which will be critical
after 2 decades of fighting in the Middle East. When it comes
to training from the team and squad level all the way to
brigade and higher, how are you preparing for potential combat
or opposition against a near-peer adversary like China or
Russia? Are there any specific training-related areas in which
we could improve upon to ensure we are ready for this kind of a
world? Lastly, is there anything we as a committee can do to
help you achieve maximum tactical readiness levels?
General McConville. If I could, Congressman, again, we are
going through a major change for a lot of our officers, NCOs,
as you said, prosecuting wars of what we would call irregular
warfare, counterterrorism, counterinsurgencies, and we are
going back to what many of us grew up with when we came in the
Army in the 1980s, which was really large scale, ground combat-
type operations, although the difference now is we believe we
will be contested in every single domain. Not only will we have
large formations that will have to fight various advanced
equipment--and when we start talking about armored-type
vehicles, we are talking about artillery, mass type artillery--
we are also going to be contested from the air, you know. The
last time we lost an American soldier from the air is April 15,
1953, and that is why somewhere in our request, we are starting
to develop the mobile short-range artillery capability. We are
going to be contested on the sea, which we are going to have to
think our way through how that works, and also contested in
space and contested in cyber.
So a lot of--you know, we are hardening a lot of our
communications, you know. We are making sure that we have the
ability to use the systems that may be affected from those
areas. And so we go out to the national training center. We go
to the joint readiness center. We are taking these--our threat
forces, exercise these capabilities, and then we are training
our soldiers and our officers and units how to fight against
them.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary.
Secretary McCarthy. Having the maxed-out number of CTC
rotations with these changed scenarios is greatly enhancing
their ability. Those repetitions are key. If you look at--I
mean, whenever I talk with General McConville or the other four
stars, many of them had had eight or nine repetitions at the
CTC rotations before they hit the berm in Iraq or the invasion
of Afghanistan. So when you get repetitions of these large
collective exercises, that is really what makes the change.
But the investments that have been made in the CTCs have
made a dramatic difference in fighting against real scenarios
for near-peer competitors.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Visclosky. Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
FAMILY READINESS
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here today.
My district is home to Fort Huachuca. The fort is home to
more than a thousand servicemembers and their families and has
about 1,100 housing units. More than 6,000 enlisted individuals
serve at Fort Huachuca.
Family readiness is essential to our military's mission
readiness. The military families' ability to maintain a stable
home front is imperative for our troops to keep their eyes on
the mission.
Childcare is a necessary tool, essential to a military
family's quality of life. Once again, the Army is not investing
funds in childcare activities.
So I have three questions about that. Could you please give
the committee a justification for the lack of attention to
these vital programs? How is that possibly going to help with
retention and quality of life? And what is the Army budgeting
for these programs in future years?
As a source of stress for military families, I would think
this would be an easy problem to attack.
Secretary McCarthy. Congresswoman, we have grown the budget
over the last couple of years. We have brought down the backlog
from over 7,000 down to just under--just over 3,000 for the
Active uniform personnel. Secretary Esper just released a
Department of Defense-wide memorandum to prioritize military
families first and availability for the childcare opportunities
that exist on the installations.
But clearly we need to do more. And we are developing a
plan to how do we get to buy down this whole--burn down this
whole backlog and to get it done in the next 2 to 3 years.
General McConville has requests also on his UFR list for
additional locations for some of the more----
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Secretary, I am having a very hard time
hearing you.
Secretary McCarthy. Can you hear me now, sir?
Mr. Visclosky. Yes. If you could continue where you
referenced the General was going to have remarks. No, I am not
interrupting. I just couldn't hear you.
Secretary McCarthy. Oh. Sorry. General McConville also has
a request on his UFR list as well for additional----
Mr. Visclosky. On the unfunded?
Secretary McCarthy. On the unfunded, yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Yes. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I
heard that right.
Secretary McCarthy. For three additional CDCs. I believe it
is two in Hawaii and one in Fort Wainwright, right?
General McConville. That is correct. There is also the
ability to--there is some other money in there.
Congressman, like you said, we need to do more on that, and
here is why. Eighty-eight percent of our sergeants have
families. And we have a lot of dual families. And the Secretary
and I have talked about this, and I put--I think it is $190
million in my unfunded requirement list. We need to work with
the committee to make sure we can get that funded.
We have got about 4,000 folks on the waiting list and they
shouldn't be waiting, and we just need to get after that, and I
hope we can work with the committee to do better on that. We
need to do better on that in the future.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Well, I can't stress it enough. My
district in Arizona is largely a military district, so we have
Fort Huachuca Army Base, but we also have an Air Force base,
Davis-Monthan, and then five of the major defense contractors
are in Tucson. So it is a huge segment of our economy.
And also, because of our proximity to the border, it is
really important to maintain those bases and make sure they
have got the resources that they need.
So thank you for your attention to that.
I yield back.
BUDGETING FOR CHILDCARE
Mr. Visclosky. Well, I would like to follow up on the
gentlewoman's questions as well as the answers from the panel.
But, first of all, Mr. Secretary, you said we have grown
the budget for childcare over the last several years, and the
numbers would prove you correct. In fiscal year 2019, the Army
had $326.6 million for childcare programs. In fiscal year 2020,
our current year, it is $371.5 million.
I would point out that is because we added the money. I
would point out that the request for the Army for 2021 is a
reduction of $36.8 million from current year levels. Your
request for this year is $334.7 million. That is a cut in
funding for childcare of $36.8 million.
I would note, and you are correct, Mr. Secretary, that you
have reduced the backlog. The backlog figures from the
Department of the Army for fiscal year 2019 were 5,561
children. Those are people. The backlog for the current year is
estimated to be, it is not done, 5,350. So there is a reduction
of 211 people.
It is interesting that despite the fact that you have asked
to cut the budget for childcare by $36.8 million, and you
estimate you will have 900 more people in the United States
Army next year, that your estimate for backlog for childcare is
exactly the same number for this year, so you are making no
progress.
The second point I would make, as far as budgeting, we
received notice from the Department of the Army this past week
that relative to certain procurement programs--and the budget
was just introduced to the Congress in the second week of
February--that there are $145.4 million of assets identified
that are over budget that will not be required.
That is a huge amount of money that now is not going to be
needed but was requested in the budget submission a month ago.
But we cut daycare. I don't know who is doing the budgeting
here.
And I would also point out, and you are correct in your
testimony, there are two unfunded requests for additional money
for daycare. I want to be fair with you. One is for $171
million. The other is for $150 million. I would point out they
are unfunded. That means you didn't ask for them in this
budget.
Mr. Aguilar.
PRESENT AND FUTURE THREATS AND RECRUITMENT
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, as you know, when we talk about workforce, the
U.S. workforce and our ability to stay competitive from a
technological environment is important.
Looking at present and future threats, I think cyber,
hypersonics, and directed energy are at the forefront of those
changes. Specifically, what is the Army doing to develop
military and civilian workforce in those areas?
Secretary McCarthy. General McConville started a talent
management effort when he was the G1 about 5 years ago, and we
have matured over time with our ability to recruit and retain
really unique skill sets, like you mentioned, with the STEM
talent.
We have also enhanced our relationships with academia and
business and using direct hire authorities to find individuals
like data scientists that have very unique capabilities and
educational experience in particular.
This is a challenge. With a lot of opportunity, with 3.5
percent unemployment, we have worked this very hard even at our
level of getting involved and personally recruiting people to
join the Army. But it has been a difficult challenge not only
getting them but retaining them. The compensation is just very
competitive.
Mr. Aguilar. What more can we do? What more needs to be
done at your level and at our level to address some of those
challenges?
Secretary McCarthy. Well, some of the things we are looking
at is on the compensation side, you know. We will never really
achieve Silicon Valley kind of money, but are there ways that
we can compensate people differently, different hiring
authorities related to that.
So we may need to come back to that next year, but right
now we have developed these platforms to recruit people, and we
brought them into ASOL and Futures Command like organizations
to help us with the development of weapon systems in
particular. We have been able to hire some very talented civil
servants to help us with our cloud efforts.
It may require a change with how we compensate people in
the future.
Mr. Aguilar. Anything to offer, General?
General McConville. I just think that we have some very
highly talented people that want to come into the Army,
especially young people today. They seem to be motivated by
purpose, being part of a team, and that is what we offer them,
and they can do things that they can't do anywhere else.
I have seen some amazing people who want to join the Army,
both as civilians and the military, so we are very proud of
their service.
WORKING AND INTEGRATING WITH THE SPACE FORCE
Mr. Aguilar. Another question, gentleman, on space
operations. Can you talk to me a little bit about the Army's
space forces that are employed, and how do you anticipate them
working and integrating with the Space Force in the future?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, I would defer to the chief as well
here. But we are going through the process of the joint
warfighting concept, which is largely driven in the Tank with
the Chiefs, and that is how will this change the operating
model of the entire Department of Defense.
What you will see over the next couple of years is the
divestiture of some space assets from the Army. But ultimately
it is finding where is that line of demarcation between Army
responsibilities and the Space Force, Air Force, Navy, Marine
Corps.
So a lot of that will unfold over the next 24 months. But
we have done some--we have made a lot of investments with low
Earth orbit, satellite architecture in particular. This is a
key capability that we are going to need to have that very
resilient COMs as well as position navigation and timing so
that we can have a unique capability for targeting at lower
echelons.
The speed of combat is continually getting tougher, and to
have that capability at lower echelons to be able to help
improve our targeting will be necessary. We are the largest
consumer of space in the Department of Defense.
Chief.
General McConville. I absolutely agree with what the
Secretary said. We use space. Every single vehicle has
something that is derived from space, whether it is a global
positioning satellite or it is a long range communication or it
is early warning. So we have got to keep those mechanisms in
place, and we will work with the Space Force.
We do some things with satellites that probably will go to
Space Force. We don't need to be actually operating in space.
But we need to keep the capabilities on the ground that we draw
from space, and they will be with our soldiers that are forward
in the battlefield. So we are working on that right now.
Mr. Aguilar. Appreciate it, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Crist.
SYNTHETIC TRAINING ENVIRONMENT CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAM
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. Appreciate your
service to our country.
As you know, the Synthetic Training Environment Cross
Functional Team in my State of Florida is working to modernize
training. Can you talk about the timeline for incorporating
some of the things the Army is developing out of Orlando and
into the force? I think Congressman Diaz-Balart had a similar
question.
General McConville. One of the things that, Congressman, we
did talk about was the Integrated Visual Augmentation System,
which we think is the most transformational system we have
going. That came together because of the Synthetic Training
Environment Team worked with the Soldier Lethality Team, and
this is what made that whole program transformational, the fact
that soldiers will be able to train on missions in virtual
reality before they actually get to do that.
And one of the things that the synthetic training
environment is developing is what we call One World Terrain. So
you can go anywhere in the world eventually and be able to
rehearse and practice on that terrain.
And so, we talked a little bit this before, that the
capability of training today in simulation is unbelievable,
whether it is flying an aircraft or it is driving vehicles or
it is shooting weapons systems. We can do it a lot faster. We
can do it a lot quicker. We can do multiple rehearsals without
expending all the money that you would do if you were shooting
live ammunition.
Mr. Crist. Do you have anything to add, sir?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, looking at fiscal year 2022 for
fielding event capability, to the point that the Chief made, is
that it will spiral additional applications over time, day/
night sights, as well as pumping synthetic training scenarios
like room clearing and others, as well as the maps.
So once the actual goggle is fielded over time, more
implications can be squirted in there because it is an open
system architecture.
COVID-19 VACCINE
Mr. Crist. All right. Thank you.
Can you provide an update on the Army's effort to develop a
COVID-19 vaccine? And are you working in coordination with any
outside organizations, like National Institute of Health,
American universities, or foreign governments?
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir. We met with our experts. We
meet with them every week. It depends on the day. We met with
them last night.
Right now, we are developing additional test kits, and we
are looking at increasing the capacity of our test kits to
thousands a day. We are working within the Vice President's
task force to request additional funding over the course of the
next couple of days.
With respect to the vaccine, the Army has a vaccine that it
is testing on mice right now, and we believe we are less than a
couple months away from starting to test human specimens.
There are about four or five total that are on different
tracks. This is all being driven by the CDC. Our scientists, in
particular, our lead scientists are proteges of Dr. Fauci. They
have wonderful relationships. They all worked together over
decades.
We have, in particular, Dr. Modjarrad, who is one of three
people on the Earth that has ever published on coronavirus. He
works for us in Army Medical Research and Development Command,
and he is the point man on this. He was a key figure in the
Zika vaccine.
So we feel very confident in our people. We just need to
keep pushing the resources to them. But they are working really
hard, and we are going to have options here very soon.
Mr. Crist. Thank you for that.
How many testing kits do you have available? How many
testing sites are available for Army personnel? And do spouses
and dependents have access to testing, particularly overseas?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, we have nine validated labs that
can build test kits.
Mr. Crist. Right.
Secretary McCarthy. Right now, the quantities are very low,
50, 60 a day. We are moving the funding, and they can get to
thousands a day once we get the funding in place and start
cranking this through.
So it is a matter of weeks where we will be getting this
going. We have just got to get the funding in place. But we are
confident in our team's ability to start cranking more
capacity.
With respect to the quantities that are available to
soldiers and their families around the globe, I would have to
get back to you on the specifics of that, sir.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Crist, if you would yield?
Mr. Crist. Of course.
Ms. McCollum. You said, sir, 50 or 60 kits a day being
manufactured. Is that total? Or is that 50 or 60 kits per day
per----
Secretary McCarthy. I will get you a paper, Congresswoman,
but I believe that is per lab. So we will get you the
specifics.
Ms. McCollum. And then you said you were getting money from
the supplemental for tests?
Secretary McCarthy. We are looking for additional funding
internally to the executive branch.
Ms. McCollum. Internally.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes.
Ms. McCollum. Because there is no DOD language in the
supplemental.
Secretary McCarthy. That is right. So we would have to go
to either HHS or other entities within the Department of
Defense. We are working that internally right now.
Ms. McCollum. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Of course. Of course.
So you mentioned about the funding. What is the issue
there? You don't have the money?
Secretary McCarthy. The MRDC--I am sorry, sir--the MRDC is
on a----
Mr. Crist. I was trying to be polite. I am sorry.
Secretary McCarthy. MRDC is on a reimbursable model.
Mr. Crist. Yeah. Yes, sir.
Secretary McCarthy. So CDC, your NIH, and other government
entities would turn to them and say, do you have the scientific
capability here to do the work? In this case, we do.
But we are moving to a different model where it will be on
rate boards where we have budgets that you can lay into. But
the current operating model of how we would do business is on a
reimbursable basis. So someone has to come with the funding to
say, can you do this? We are capable of doing this. We are
working this out internally to turn on additional funding.
Mr. Crist. So who would be the one who would come to you
with the money?
Secretary McCarthy. CDC, NIH, other entities within the
U.S. Government.
Mr. Crist. Have you sought it out?
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crist. How does it look?
Secretary McCarthy. I could probably tell you here in a
couple days, sir.
Mr. Crist. Perfect. Thank you very much.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Cuellar.
REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
Good seeing you all again.
Can I ask you a little bit on the Army's Night Court review
that have led to reduction or elimination of 240 existing
programs and ask you, I think in fiscal year 2020, you all
proposed to eliminate or delay or cancel 186 programs, and
Congress pretty much supported what you all did.
Fiscal year 2021, you are again proposing to reduce or
eliminate an additional 80 programs, which will shift another
$2.4 billion this year and $13.5 billion across the 5-year
program.
Is this going to be an annual review that you all are going
to be doing? Give us a little bit more. And again, I am one of
those big believers in getting rid of any duplication,
elimination of anything that has been done, so I appreciate
this type of work, but give us a little bit more of your
thought process on this.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir. The Army's balance sheet of
$178 billion, if we get this budget through, is over half of
it, north of 60 percent of it is people and operations and
maintenance. So we are fixed with the number of dollars we have
to modernize the force because you have got almost 190,000
people deployed worldwide.
So readiness is our number one priority. We have to
continue to grow the force because we have about a 1 to 1 dwell
between boots on the ground and deployments and dwell time
boots on the ground. So we need more people to meet global
demand and not wear people out.
So when you look at the modernization effort, the research
and development and acquisition dollars, we are fixed. We have
to divest if we want to continue to modernize our formation. So
we have made some very hard choices over the last 24 months in
particular, and I think more of that will come in the future.
But to the points that we have had in the discussion today,
it is going to get much harder. The divestiture of systems that
have served the Nation very well for 40, 50 years are going to
come to an end as long as we have weapon systems that go
through the development process, that have the maturity. So
some very difficult decisions are in front of us.
Mr. Cuellar. Is this your idea? How did these reviews come
about?
Secretary McCarthy. Well, I think it is really the four of
us, Secretary Esper, General Milley, General McConville, and I.
We looked at just the realities we face. We had to meet
national objectives. We had to have units that could deploy and
be ready to go. But we wanted to modernize the force. We knew
we had to do this.
So, you know, the four of us came together, took the blood
oath, and we have taken this on. And that is why General
McConville and I have maintained the same priorities, just
putting greater emphasis on people, and we are going to pursue
this for as long as we are in the seat.
WORK WITH HOSPITALS ON THE BORDER
Mr. Cuellar. Well, I have to congratulate you. Mr. Carter,
this kind of reminds me of the John Sharp performance review
that we went over the State government in Texas. And they did
all of this, and it saved the State of Texas billions of
dollars. So this kind of reminds me of what we did in Texas. I
know you have spent a little bit of time in Texas also.
But I just have to say that I really appreciate this type
of exercise that you all are doing.
Can I ask you one last question quickly? Your folks in San
Antonio are going to start doing some work with hospitals on
the border. We changed the language to allow them to do that in
the NDAA. And I think sometime in June, I think some of your
folks will be going down there to the border.
That works out for areas that don't have trauma one, tier
one, trauma one. That helps the community. But at the same
time, it helps your men and women to give them that type of
training. So I highly encourage you that you continue doing
that, not only for the border, but other parts of the country.
And I would ask you as you do that training that is
beneficial not only for areas that don't have--I think our area
has about a tier three and not a tier one like in San Antonio--
that if you have any surplus equipment or anything you can help
some of those communities that don't have the resources, I ask
you to look at that possibility.
But it is a win-win situation for communities that don't
have that type of capacity. And then your men and women, so
when they go abroad, will have that training there. So I just
want to say thank you for that.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir. We will look at that very
closely. As we mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of a
merger inside the Department with the Defense Health Agency, so
we will have to see what the implications are. Whether or not
we have the authorities depends upon the organization in
question.
But this is great training, it is great opportunities to
work with local communities, and those sorts of things we
continue to pursue all over the country.
Mr. Cuellar. Well, thank you for bringing an innovative--
and I am not talking only about this project, but I am talking
about the--I will call it a performance review evaluation and
getting rid of any duplication and unnecessary programs on
that. Thank you, both of you.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Mrs. Bustos.
ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL ADVANCED MANUFACTURING CENTER
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary and General, thank you very much for being
here.
You know, Mr. Secretary, every time we have a chance to
talk, we talk about the Rock Island Arsenal. We are very proud
of the advanced manufacturing center that we have there. We
really appreciate when you visited there along with me and
Senator Durbin.
With that in mind, you released an advanced manufacturing
policy, and so I want to ask if you can elaborate how you see
our center of advance manufacturing, center of excellence,
supporting your strategy moving forward.
Secretary McCarthy. This is a capability that we need to
have from an expeditionary standpoint. So as much as having the
technology to be able to produce parts is that they are going
to have to help us figure out how to make it expeditionary in
nature, so you can put these 3D printing machines in a ConEx
and forward deploy it with a formation. Because that is where
you will be able to quickly get a part produced, put it into a
combat vehicle or a helicopter so they can get it back up, and
keep those OR rates very high.
So this is a very strategic priority of ours. The challenge
that we think we are going to face with that on the
manufacturing, we are working hard with industry because this
is a place where intellectual property with a part is something
where we have general purpose rights on everything, but it is
how we write this into contracts so that over time we can
produce them.
So what we see the challenges ahead is going to take a lot
of communication in particular, but this is something that we
are going to have in all of our platforms in the future, along
with predictive maintenance as well, so we can make those right
calls before the part breaks while you are in the middle of an
operation.
Mrs. Bustos. General.
General McConville. I absolutely agree, Congresswoman. This
is transformational for how we do logistics in the field.
Rather than carrying around thousands of parts, if we can make
them.
Mrs. Bustos. Right.
General McConville. It keeps kids off the roads. They don't
have to drive trucks. I mean, it saves money. We never quite
get right which part we may need, so we have to carry them all,
and it can take weeks to get them. So I think this is the
future.
Mrs. Bustos. So how can the center help with establishing a
database of spare parts?
General McConville. Well, I think the way it can help, and
the Secretary mentioned that, is as we contract in the future,
you can probably see this in the contract. We want to be able
to manufacture so much of these parts.
It may not be all of them because we will still have a
logistics chain, but we will have to get a little more finesse
in how we can get the intellectual capital to do these type of
things. Because that is how industry makes money. They make
money on the logistics and the sustainment. That is going to be
all part of the deal as we move into the future.
Secretary McCarthy. And with the older platforms,
Congresswoman, we are going to have to get really college
students who go to graduate engineering programs so that we can
convert these old drawings into digital drawings. Because that
is how you perfect the tensile strength, so when you reproduce
it, it is within the percentage of being 100 percent accurate
to the drawing that was written 30 or 40 years ago.
So we are going to have a lot of these platforms in the
formation for a long time, so it is perfecting that. We have
relationships with Northwestern University, with Wichita State
and others around the country, and they are helping us, looking
at these old drawings of these weapon systems, turning them
into digital drawings so you can--a machine can produce the
part in real-time.
Mrs. Bustos. So are you looking at the center that we have
at the arsenal to help be the test bed for new concepts in
advanced and additive manufacturing that can help fulfill the
strategy?
Secretary McCarthy. Absolutely.
Mrs. Bustos. Okay. General, anything else to add?
General McConville. I just think it is really important
transformational work. It is what we are going to be doing in
the future. And that is going to be, like, a center of
excellence, and we need to move in the future. We need to get
in the information age. That is what it is all about.
Mrs. Bustos. Very good.
Mr. Secretary, we would love to have you back there. Come
visit us again.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
ARMY FUTURES COMMAND
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, the Army Futures Command was created about 18
months ago, and each command is different. The Space Force was
in last week and said that they aim to be agile.
I would note, after 18 months, there are 404 people
connected with the Army Futures Command, and in your budget
request for 2021, you ask for an additional 150 people. That is
a 37 percent increase in personnel. Could you explain that
increase?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, Army Futures Command is about--you
are talking about just the headquarters element? Because there
are 36,000 people in Army Futures Command. They have the lab
networks. They have Futures and Concepts Division. They have
cross-functional teams.
With respect to the, I believe, the 150----
Mr. Visclosky. I am having a hard time hearing you. I am
sorry.
Secretary McCarthy. Sorry, sir. I am looking right into
this. Can you hear me now?
Sir, the 100--you said 100 and how many again, I am sorry?
Mr. Visclosky. We have a request for 150 new FTEs for the
Army Futures Command.
Secretary McCarthy. So Army Futures Command is about 36,000
people. It has the Futures and Concepts Division, combat
development, combat systems, it has cross-functional teams.
And so you are referring directly to the headquarters
element in Texas? Is that----
Mr. Visclosky. If I can back you up, you are asking for the
headquarters.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes. I thought you said Futures Command
was only 400 people. I am sorry.
Mr. Visclosky. For the headquarters. I am sorry. I will
correct it.
My understanding is there are 404 people at the
headquarters for Army Futures Command.
Secretary McCarthy. And we want it to be around 500.
Mr. Visclosky. You asked for an additional 150 people.
Secretary McCarthy. And we want it to be around 500 people.
That was intent from its inception, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Why do you need those people?
Secretary McCarthy. They are managing an organization of
about 36,000 people. So it is the support that General Murray
needs to run his command, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. At this point, the committee knows you
want 150 more people. We have no justification as to what each
of those individuals are going to be doing and why they are
required to help manage 36,000 other people. So if you could
supply that for the committee, I would appreciate it very much.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir.
END STRENGTH
Mr. Visclosky. On the good news front, the Army's estimated
end strength for this current year is 485,000. It would also
appear that there then would be a shortfall of about $400
million to pay for that increase. I think it is terrific that
recruiting is going well.
Could you explain to the committee how you are going to
meet that shortfall?
General McConville. Well, Chairman, the way that we plan to
meet that shortfall is the way that recruiting works over the
year. It won't be for the entire year. We will meet end
strength at the end of the year.
So it basically goes through cycles. It comes down, then it
comes back up as we bring more people in. That is how we plan
to meet the request.
Mr. Visclosky. So there will be savings on average to cover
the 400. Is that what you are saying?
General McConville. No. What I am saying is as far as how
we manage the end strength during the year, it varies during
the year and tends to come down and then come up at the end as
far as how do we manage----
Mr. Visclosky. So you will not have a shortfall of $400
million.
General McConville. I will have to check and take that for
the record then.
AFGHAN SPECIAL MISSION WING
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. There was earlier conversation about
the Block II upgrade for the Chinook. I would like to continue
the conversation about the Chinook and plans for the Afghan
Special Mission Wing. It is my understanding there are
discussions about transferring older models of the Chinook to
the Afghans Special Mission Wing. Is that true?
Secretary McCarthy. The specific mechanics of what type of
platform that would get to the--you know, I would defer to the
commander, but I think that they have looked at options of
moving what would be the Block I variant to the Afghan Special,
yes, that is correct.
Mr. Visclosky. My understanding is they would be older
models of the Chinook that would be transferred.
Secretary McCarthy. They would be Block I, yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. If I could ask, what is the strategy if we
are drawing down? I mean, why are we going to provide a
helicopter that has never, my understanding, been provided to
the Afghans before? Why are we going to give it to them now?
General McConville. I would defer that question to the
commander in the field. But I mean, the aircraft is--the CH-47
Fox is a very good aircraft there. It is for the Special
Mission Wing. I think it is the right aircraft. The CH-47 is a
great aircraft. And that provides the capability that they
think they need, and they are working through how they are
going to purchase that and make that happen, and I think it is
a good recommendation.
Mr. Visclosky. When you say they need, are you talking
about our command or the Afghans?
General McConville. In order to give the Afghan Special
Mission Wing the capability.
Mr. Visclosky. They would buy it from the Army.
General McConville. They would--there will be some type of
purchase agreement. I will defer----
Secretary McCarthy. With foreign military financing or some
relationship like that, yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. But the moneys would go to United States
Army.
Secretary McCarthy. The platforms would go--well, you mean
how would they cycle the funding through the Department and
then ultimately provide them to the Afghans, sir? Is that what
you are asking?
Mr. Visclosky. It is my understanding that if you transfer
those assets, the Afghans would have money from somewhere to
pay for that, but the money would be transferred back to the
United States Army.
Secretary McCarthy. On the sale itself?
Mr. Visclosky. Yes.
Secretary McCarthy. It would presumably go through DSCA and
then ultimately to the Afghan National Security Forces, sir.
You are talking about the actual transfer, the transaction?
Mr. Visclosky. My understanding----
Ms. McCollum. They buy it; we take the money.
Mr. Visclosky. The Army would get the proceeds from the
sale of these helicopters from the Army. Is that correct?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, the specifics to the transaction,
I would get a technical expert to give you all of the
specifics, sir.
Sorry. Sir, can you hear me?
Mr. Visclosky. So as you testify here before us today, Mr.
Secretary, you have no anticipation that there is going to be a
transfer of old Chinooks to the Afghan forces?
Secretary McCarthy. That is the option we are looking at,
sir.
Mr. Visclosky. You are looking at that option. So if you
are looking at that option, it would also be your assumption,
if that option is exercised, there would be a transfer of
money.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. If there is that transfer of money and
you are looking at that option, the conclusion of the option is
the Army has more money.
Secretary McCarthy. If the transaction went that way, yes,
sir.
Mr. Visclosky. They are short helicopters. They have got
money, right?
Secretary McCarthy. Theoretically, yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay. What is the Army's plans as you are
looking at the option? What would be the Army's option as to
what they are going to do with that money?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, I would have to get back to you
with specifics.
Mr. Visclosky. I would appreciate it if you would, Mr.
Secretary.
I might also just ask that my impression, and I stand to be
corrected here today, that the Afghans have had a very
difficult time for 19 years maintaining any aircraft, the most
recent ones, the helicopters they have. They have not dealt
with the Chinooks. And, General, I would absolutely agree that
they are terrific aircraft.
What assurance after 19 years of failure in our drawdown
that they are going to be able to do this? And are we going to
end up having to pay someone else to stay in Afghanistan and
maintain these if that option is exercised? Have people thought
about who is going to maintain these as part of that option?
Secretary McCarthy. That would be part of what we would
come back with you on, sir, yes.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Calvert.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think what they are trying to do is take money out of one
pocket and put it in the other pocket, because the Afghans
don't have the money to buy the helicopters in the first place,
I suspect. But we will get into that later.
You know, I think I have told you the story, my favorite
procurement story of all time was Kelly Johnson, who was a
renowned aircraft designer at the Skunk Works, you know. At the
beginning of World War II, we were losing, and he went to a bar
in El Segundo with a couple engineers, and with cocktail
napkins he laid out the P-38. Nine months later it came across
the assembly line.
They asked him at the end of his life how come you did it
that quickly? He said, because we were going to lose the war.
And today we are having a discussion about various systems
that we can't seem to get to for years, including the
hypersonics, which is obvious. But, obviously, the replacement
for the Bradley isn't all that technical, it seems to me, and
these delays and delays and delays is remarkable to me.
And now I get a memo the other day that Secretary Esper, in
his former role as Secretary of the Army, approved a waiver for
the use of a compound called HNS-2, an organic compound, from a
prohibited source. That source was a Chinese military company.
Apparently, the Army didn't realize that the manufacturers of
our Abrams active protection system used a compound that nobody
else could provide. Nobody else could provide it.
The waiver notification indicated that the manufacturers
are working on qualifying two nonprohibited sources, but that
would take 18 to 24 months.
So I thought it was kind of the ultimate irony that Kelly
Johnson designed the P-38 aircraft in 9 months--I mean, not
designed it, it was coming across the assembly line in 9
months--and we can't get a waiver to take away a critical
resource for the Chinese military that provides protection for
the Abrams tank. We have got a problem, and we have got to fix
this problem in our procurement process.
This gets to my comment, is program managers. I don't know
who the program manager is on the Abram modernization program
or the program manager for the Bradley replacement or the
program manager--I know the program manager for the hypersonic.
That would be Mike Griffin. Mike is on that full time, I think.
At least that is what he tells me.
Do we have program management on this, or are we changing
these people out too often? That is the question I have got.
Secretary McCarthy. With respect to the program manager for
Abrams, we have had--we have a PEO, a two-star general that
falls under him, Jeff Cummings. I think we are looking at about
24, 36 months on station for these program managers.
Mr. Calvert. How come it takes 18 to 24 months to get a
signoff to take away ordering this prohibited--this material
from the Chinese? I mean, we shouldn't be doing it in the first
place, but you think they could--somebody could go upstairs and
knock this thing out right away.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes. It is entirely too long, very
bureaucratic, going through different entities within the
Department of Defense and other government agencies.
Mr. Calvert. Don't you think it is a little bit ironic that
we are buying this from the Chinese military? I mean, that is--
whoa.
But anyway, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
MATERIALS IN EXTREME DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTS PROGRAM
Mr. Ruppersberger. I want to talk to you about the
Materials in Extreme Dynamic Environments program.
General McConville, today, about the Materials in Extreme
Dynamic, it is called MEDE, I believe it is, program led by the
Army Research Lab and Johns Hopkins University at Aberdeen
Proving Grounds. Through this program, Army scientists and
engineers partner with industry and academia to test and
develop advanced body armor ceramic blends and innovative
manufacturing techniques. This research has already paid
dividends, resulting in a significant 16 percent reduction in
the way that body armor used in the Army's next generation
Personal Protective Equipment system.
While 16 percent doesn't sound like a lot, I am told when
you are jumping out of a C-130 it makes a hell of a difference.
In my opinion, this is program is an example of a
successful Army research partnership and one that directly
affects our frontline troops on the battlefield. Unfortunately,
the MEDE program is in the last year of funding. Are there
plans to extend this program into the future? And as we work to
modernize our Army, how important are Army research programs
like MEDE to the advancement of new armor materials for our
soldiers and equipment?
General McConville. Yes, Congressman. As you said, this is
some incredible work that was done. It is cutting edge
technology as far as what it has done for body armor.
As I understand, this has reached the end of a 10-year
contract, and we will come back to you with some more details.
But I believe they are going through the process of doing
another contract. I am not sure exactly where the details are
on that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Womack.
TRAINING GROUND AT CAMP BUCKNER
Mr. Womack. Thank you, from a different vantage point.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Look where you are sitting?
Mr. Womack. I kind of like this seat. Just kidding.
Secretary McCarthy, I know you would think I would be a
remiss if I didn't throw a West Point question into our
discussion today given the fact that everybody that sits at
this dais has young men and women that they have nominated and
ultimately had appointments to the U.S. Military Academy.
And now, having the benefit of serving on that board since
2017, and now as chair for the fourth straight year, I just
want to put in a plug for the proactive nature in which our
West Point leadership is approaching the modernization of the
post.
As you know, that has got some age on it, and it has some
stressors, notably Camp Buckner, where a lot of very important
and critical training takes place. We have done a very good job
with and still doing a good job with the Barracks Improvement
Program, the beautiful Davis Barracks, the Academic Improvement
Program.
So down the road, how are we going to address and is it
going to be the intention of our Army to pay some attention to
the training ground out of Camp Buckner and Camp Natural
Bridge?
Secretary McCarthy. Congressman, we have put the initial
request into this budget for the refit of the Buckner site. We
put the request in this year on Buckner and we are starting the
process. But that is something that is way overdue.
Mr. Womack. Yeah. General McConville, you have obviously
trained there. Hasn't changed much since you were there, Camp
Buckner, so you probably have at least a little bit of
parochial interest in that training ground, do you not?
General McConville. I certainly think that it needs to be
replaced, and we have had that discussion. I have talked to the
superintendent. We also support the engineering facility. That
also needs to get done. So those are out there, and those are--
we want those in the program.
I know with Buckner, we have talked about that. That is in
the future. I just want to give you exactly where that sits.
BATTALION COMMANDER ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Womack. Sure. But you know General Williams would drop
me for pushups if I didn't throw that subject out on the table.
One other question. This is for General McConville.
Your work as a G1 was noteworthy, and I really appreciate
and admire the strategy behind the talent management piece of
what we are trying to do with people. I personally think it is
long overdue, but particularly in the area of the Battalion
Commander Assessment Program. And I want to give you a chance
here for the committee to articulate the need for a process
that was conducted in January and February that was designed to
better identify those officers who should be commanding at the
battalion level.
And a follow-up question to that is, do you sense, given
what you have been through in January and February, that we
could see this thing also applied to the brigade command
selection process, even the sergeants major process? So just a
few random thoughts on it.
General McConville. Yes, Congressman. And we took an
assessment, and we started at the battalion command level, and
we believe--I personally believe the battalion command is the
most consequential command position in the United States Army
because they deal with our new soldiers, new officers. And
based on that experience, a lot of soldiers and officers decide
whether they are going to stay in the Army or get out of the
Army.
They are also our future leaders. We pick 435 battalion
commanders. We pick about 450 colonels. It is not the one to
one. But that is where our future leaders are going to come
from.
And we took a look at the way we are assessing these very
important leaders, and we are basically looking at their
evaluation reports for about 2.5 minutes during the board, and
we decided that we should give them some more time. So we set
up a 5-day assessment that looks at a lot of knowledge, skills,
and attributes that we think they should have, and we got some
good results.
And we are going to look at doing the same thing both for
command sergeant majors and brigade commanders. One size
doesn't fit all. But these assessments, I think, are extremely
important.
Mr. Womack. Thank you for your work in this particular
regard because I agree. I think it is one of the threshold--
probably the threshold command that has as much of an impact on
the success of our Army as about anything.
And in order to get a rise out of Dutch, I am going to end
by saying beat Navy.
Mr. Visclosky. The gentleman from Maryland?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Nope. I wasn't listening.
Mr. Womack. That, I know. I said----
Mr. Ruppersberger. What did you say?
Mr. Womack. I said beat Navy.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, you know, I am Army Caucus. I
don't watch Army-Navy games.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT
Mr. Visclosky. Gentlemen, there was a transfer of money
from the National Guard and Reserve equipment account totaling
about $1.3 billion. We won't get into the details, except for
the Army Reserve $205 million were involved, and for the Army
National Guard there was $395 million involved. That is a loss
of $600 million for those accounts.
Do you have any plans or thoughts as to how you will
proceed in 2020 given that loss of $600 million?
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, we are going to have to look back
and reevaluate how we are going to be able to adjust. But those
were program funds that we did not program for, so we will have
to go back and look at how we could adjust to that.
Mr. Visclosky. I would acknowledge to you it is a
congressional add, and we do it annually. Was there any
anticipation by the Army that we wouldn't do it again? I mean,
the money was there.
Secretary McCarthy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
GRAY EAGLES
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually will
be brief.
So the Gray Eagle, was it MQ-1C, which is an enduring
component, frankly, of future force structure of the Army, and
then I noticed that there was a report commissioned by the Army
that recommended procurement of 14 aircraft per year as a
minimum just to sustain the industrial base.
And yet my understanding is the Army now has, in essence,
zeroed out that airplane, that drone, whatever you want to call
it, for fiscal year 2021.
So again, if the report says that just to--forget about
anything else--just to keep the industrial base alive it
requires 14 aircraft, how do we then zero it out overnight?
General McConville. I think--and we have got to--I will get
you the exact details, but the way I understand it is we met
our acquisition objectives. We bought all the Gray Eagles that
we required to fill our organizations, and now we are starting
to look at what is the future of our unmanned aerial systems
that manufacturing and others can compete for so we keep the
base going.
But as we talked, in the future--first of all, these
aircraft have done great things for us in the environment we
are in. But we are moving to great power competition where the
airspace will be contested, so that is going to drive the type
of aircraft that we are going to need in the future.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. No. I get that, General. I am just
concerned that we don't destroy the industrial, because again,
when that report talks about 14 aircraft per year minimum to
sustain the industrial base, I think that is something that we
have to also look at. So I would just be interested to kind of
follow up on how that is going to look, how do we make sure
that we don't jeopardize the possibility that some of those
that are providing these amazing platforms, that we don't
jeopardize them. So I would like to follow up with you.
General McConville. Sure.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FORCE EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Visclosky. The next question I would have is on the
dynamic of force employment. The Army has requested 500----
General McConville. 588, sir.
Mr. Visclosky [continuing]. $588 million for the force. And
the question I have is about the justification that has been
submitted.
I would, again, in all fairness, indicate that we do have
four pieces of paper from the Department of the Army justifying
$588 million. I would point out that for $458 million we have
one piece of paper with three sentences. The three sentences
are repeated on each of the other three sheets.
In an effort to find out more detail, our committee has
requested information about these forces, how they will be
deployed, how long the deployments will be, how large of the
contingencies, and other details, recognizing that you want
some flexibility for this force, and to date, we have received
no information.
So you might, if you could, Mr. Secretary, explain to me
why the details have been lacking and why your office has not
responded to our request for information.
Secretary McCarthy. Sir, we will get the G3 up here to
explain.
Mr. Visclosky. When will you do that, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary McCarthy. As soon as possible, sir. As soon as
you are ready we will bring them up here. That is unexcusable.
We should get you the information.
Mr. Visclosky. Okay.
Ms. McCollum.
MERGER OF THE HEALTHCARE PROGRAM
Ms. McCollum. I want to go back to our discussion earlier
about the merger of the healthcare programs. 171 doctors on
average graduate every year from our military schools. We
graduate highly proficient nurses, master's, dentists. And of
the 171 doctors that graduate, we are still short in the
military 15 to 18 percent, and that is with the 7-year
enlistment.
That is a great opportunity to get your medical school paid
for. Many of us in this room probably don't even know it, but
our doctors--one of my doctors, my gynecologist, was an Army
doctor. That is how a poor kid from South St. Paul was able to
go to school.
We have a shortage of physicians and doctors in this
country. And so, Mr. Chair, I think we need to work with the
staff to really figure out if we know where this is heading,
because if this isn't done right, we are heading to compound a
physician, nurse, and possibly even a dental shortage in this
country, not only for ourselves, but for our military men and
women.
And you don't know when you are going to get called in to
fight the battle. And these doctors and nurses and techs and
radiologists and everybody else that comes with the finest in
the world, do some of the most advanced healthcare in the
world, they are working with military families and soldiers,
airmen, and marines, and their families, keeping their skills
fresh and learning all the time to be better healthcare
professionals.
Ms. McCollum. And I am very concerned that we are not
thinking this out thoughtfully and about not only what we are
doing to the research side, but the healthcare delivery side.
And if we don't get this right, it will mean less people
either, you know, re-upping to stay in the military service
part of it, the military core, or families walking with their
feet if there is a shortage of pediatricians and gynecologists,
which are the two that I have seen that they really want to
scale down.
And what that signals to women, that we are trying to keep
and retain and move through rank and do the important jobs in
the military, is we don't care about your healthcare. Now, I
know that is not what you gentlemen are about, but that is what
I am becoming very, very concerned about.
So, Mr. Chair, with your permission, you know, I am ready
to slow this down and do a deep dive and do some research
because I think this has repercussions that we don't even
realize, not only in the military healthcare but in civilian
healthcare, and I am very concerned about it.
I am not saying we can't do it, but all the articles I am
reading, everybody is like nobody has proved that this isn't
going to cause a shortage.
And so that--Mr. Chair, we are going to have to--you know,
based on the previous hearing--and you were at a very important
meeting while that was taking place. I have become more alarmed
over the last week about--that we are rushing into this.
And so I appreciate what Secretary McCarthy said about him
having concerns, but he is not asking for a delay, Mr. Chair. I
might be looking to work with you to talk about how we make
sure all our ducks are in a row before we do this because it
could have severe consequences to our healthcare.
General McConville. Can I just stress the importance of the
military medical education? Just like you said, all the doctors
that graduate with military education, that is how we get folks
to serve in the Army, and we really appreciate that.
Ms. McCollum. We can be short people when we need them the
most.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Visclosky. We are close to the end.
Mr. Secretary, General, a number of questions have been
left for the record, and additional information is to be
supplied. We would expect that that would be done in detail and
promptly. Again, we would reiterate the request of the chair
for some detail about those additional 150 people for the
headquarters at Futures Command.
Additionally, I just would make the observation that I felt
all of the answers for the Chinook questions were lacking.
And I would close on childcare. The Department of the Army
left this brochure for us. You know, the five initiatives that
are highlighted in your brochure--initiatives--is childcare,
which you propose cutting by over $36 million. So I wouldn't
want to characterize what I think of that, but I will simply
say this hearing is adjourned.
Wednesday, March 11, 2020.
UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND
WITNESS
GENERAL KENNETH F. McKENZIE, JR., COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND
Opening Statement of Chairman Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. The committee will come to order. This
morning the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the posture of
the U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM.
Before we start, I would like to recognize Ranking Member
Calvert for a motion.
Mr. Calvert. I move those portions of the hearing today
which involve classified material be held in executive session
because of the classification of the material to be discussed.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
I would like to remind members that any material placed in
front of you marked ``classified'' should be left at your chair
at the conclusion of the hearing.
General, before I begin, I do understand that you lost two
Marines in Iraq on Sunday. And all of us obviously send our
condolences to their family and understand we all have
responsibility we do everything we can to make sure people are
as safe as they can be.
Today we will hear and receive testimony from our witness,
Central Command General Kenneth McKenzie. General, we do
welcome you to your first hearing before the subcommittee.
Less than 2 weeks ago, the United States signed a peace
agreement with the Taliban. The U.S. has agreed to withdraw all
U.S. and coalition forces within 14 months in exchange for the
Taliban cutting ties with Al Qaeda. While the Afghan Government
is not a party to this agreement. talks between the government
and the Taliban are imminent, as I understand it. According to
the administration, these intra-Afghan negotiations will lead
to a ceasefire and the prospect for peace after two decades of
war.
Administration officials also argue that protections for
Afghan women are likely to continue because the Afghan of today
is different from that of two decades ago, and the Taliban
wants support from the international community. I believe that
our Nation's military operations in Afghanistan should wind
down. Unfortunately, I remain deeply skeptical that this
agreement will enable the United States to depart Afghanistan
in a responsible fashion.
The agreement does not contain a ceasefire. It does not
contain verifiable metrics to ensure the Taliban is holding up
their end of the bargain. It does not include serious timeline
or end date for the intra-Afghan talks, and the agreement makes
no mention of democracy nor includes any protections for human
rights or women's rights. Moreover, it is hard to understand
how we can continue our counterterrorism mission or train and
equip Afghan forces if we pull out all of our forces within 14
months.
The administration has recognized some of these
shortcomings, and their response has been to state that our
withdrawal is conditions based. Unfortunately, this is not
reassuring since there appears to be no common understanding of
what those conditions are or what is or not acceptable under
the agreement.
Meanwhile, since the agreement was signed, the Taliban has
resumed attacks against the Afghan Security Forces, and the
United States has responded with air strikes. It is in this
environment of uncertainty that the committee must review the
administration's budget request, which is now dated--through no
fault of your own, General.
General, we do need your best assessment of the situation
as it is today. With respect to plans for U.S. troop
withdrawals, the committee needs to understand which bases are
closing, which of our units are coming out and when. We need to
know the cost attributable to the drawdown and where the money
will come from. This is made more problematic since the
administration has used nearly all of the transfer authority to
build a wall.
With respect to the billions of funding requested to
support the Afghan Security Forces, we also need to understand
what is absolutely necessary and what can wait. After nearly
two decades, I do not believe now is the time to make major
investments or to start new programs. Instead, we should be
focusing on making sure that what we have already provided is
being used and maintained properly.
General, I hope we can get your best advice. I have a
lengthy opening statement. I will enter the rest of it into the
record and would now recognize Mr. Calvert.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chairman Visclosky.
And welcome, General McKenzie, to your first appearance
before this subcommittee. We are committed to helping ensure
the readiness and capability of your command and supporting our
men and women in uniform with the tools they need to accomplish
their mission. From political uprisings to ongoing civil wars
and an expanding Russia and Chinese footprint in the region,
there is no shortage of issues to discuss with you today.
The big picture context involves implementation of the
National Defense Strategy and what our realignment of global
military resources to better counter China and Russia means for
CENTCOM and our other combatant commands.
Iranian aggression and attacks against Americans and our
partners in the region have helped drive our current force
posture. Perhaps not all my colleagues would agree, but in my
view, the strike on General Soleimani was appropriate and
helped strengthen deterrence. However, further Iranian
miscalculation cannot be ruled out.
I also, as a side note, would be interested in hearing
about the Iranian outbreak of the COVID-19 and how that is
affecting their leadership chain of command.
One spillover of the strike on Soleimani has been its
impact on our relationship with Iraq and on the counter-ISIS
campaign. I hope you will be able to manage these difficulties
in a way that supports Iraqi sovereignty and against Iranian
interference and prevents an ISIS resurgence.
In addition to a host of other pressing issues, there is,
of course, the future of U.S. and coalition efforts against
terrorist threats in Afghanistan and prospects of a durable
political settlement with the Taliban.
We are eager for your assessment of the situation on the
ground, the conditionality and verification relating to a
proposed U.S. and NATO drawdown and its impact on Afghan
security. I want to conclude by thanking you once again for
your service and look forward to your testimony.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Calvert.
General, if you want to proceed, your entire statement will
be entered into the record.
[The written statement of General McKenzie follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Clerk's Note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
be printed due to the classification of the material
discussed.]
Wednesday, March 11, 2020.
UNITED STATES AFRICA COMMAND
WITNESS
STEPHEN TOWNSEND, COMMANDER, U.S. AFRICA COMMAND, (AFRICOM)
Opening Statement of Chairman Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. The subcommittee will come to order. This
afternoon, the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the posture
of U.S. Africa Commander, AFRICOM.
Before we get started, I would like to recognize Mr.
Calvert for a motion.
Mr. Calvert. I move that those portions of the hearing
today which involve classified material be held in executive
session because of the classification of the material to be
discussed.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. So ordered. I would
remind members that any material placed in front of you marked
classified should be left at your chair at the conclusion of
the hearing.
Today, we will receive testimony from our witness, AFRICOM
Commander Stephen Townsend.
General, we welcome you to your first hearing before the
subcommittee. This hearing takes place at an important time for
U.S. foreign policy and our military presence around the world.
As those in the room are aware, the 2018 and National Defense
Strategy emphasizes competition between great powers as a
greater long-term challenge to U.S. national security than the
threat of terrorism.
Over the past two decades, China has deepened its reach in
Africa, financing large infrastructure projects, opening up a
base in Africa, and deploying peacekeepers and spreading its
culture and language by funding Confucius Institutes across the
continent. Further, as you will note in your testimony, Russia
has aggressively increased its activity in Africa and is the
continent's top arms dealer. Not only does AFRICOM contend with
the growing presence of China and Russia, but also, as our
intelligence officials point out, the threat to our national
security from terrorism and violent extremism continues to be
substantial.
Despite these troubling data points, the Defense Secretary
is weighing proposals for a major reduction in American forces
from West Africa as one phase of reviewing global deployments
that could reshuffle thousands of troops around the world. I
assume AFRICOM has been making the case that its bases and
missions run from them are integral to U.S. interests. We would
appreciate hearing these details today.
As I have said in our COCOM hearings, all of this brings me
to our oversight responsibilities. First, as long as we have
troops in the region in harm's way, we should make sure they
receive the best training and equipment and are not left
exposed.
Second, we need to make sure that the funds we appropriate
to carry out programs in the region are executed efficiently
and effectively.
And finally, if the administration is going to change our
posture in the region, we need to look at the tradeoffs and how
such changes would affect our national security and, very
important to us, the fiscal year 2021 budget. In that context,
I hope we can discuss several of these issues today.
But, General, before we turn to your testimony, I would
turn to Mr. Calvert, our ranking member, for any statement he
would have.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, General Townsend, for your first appearance
before the subcommittee. The macro level backdrop for this
hearing is Secretary Esper's ongoing review of all combatant
commands, with a goal of realigning our military resources in
line with the National Defense Strategy.
We all understand that competition with China and Russia
extends to the African continent and that terrorist threats
pose significant, perhaps growing, threats to the stability of
both East and West Africa. We have seen firsthand the deadly
attacks on U.S. and Kenyan personnel by al-Shabaab earlier this
year and by what one official has called an unprecedented rise
in terrorism across the Sahel and West Africa.
In other words, for these and many other reasons, the
United States needs more rather than less engagement across the
full range of our interests in Africa, including on security.
The challenge is determining what issues are best addressed by
our civilian agencies, whether our allies can contribute more,
assessing where the Department's unique assets are critical to
the national security.
I want to conclude my brief statement by thanking you and
the men and women under your command for your service, and I
look forward to your testimony.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
General, your entire statement will be entered in the
record, as you know. You may summarize and then we will get
into questions. Thank you so much. Go ahead.
[The written statement of General Townsend follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Clerk's Note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
be printed due to the classification of the material
discussed.]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Opening Statement of Chairman Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. The committee will come to order.
Today, we will be hearing testimony from our colleagues in
the House of Representatives relative to their concerns. We
would like to learn from them and their experiences, also to
potentially help with any needs that they see, whether it be in
their district, State, or the Nation.
Before we begin with our friend and colleague Mr. Williams
from Texas, I would point out for the record that three of our
colleagues have submitted written testimony for the record:
Congressman Ron Estes from Kansas; Congressman Buddy Carter
from Georgia, who usually is able to join us; as well as
Congressman Tom Suozzi from the State of New York.
----------
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. ROGER WILLIAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Williams, the floor is yours. Welcome to
the committee.
Summary Statement of Congressman Williams
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
and my friend, my colleague from Texas. I will be brief today.
I know there is a lot going on. But, Chairman Visclosky and
Ranking Member Calvert, I thank you for the opportunity to
testify before this subcommittee and for all that you do for
our men and women in uniform.
Today, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about
Fort Hood, about the military's readiness and what is needed to
continue America's superiority in the future.
Fort Hood we know as the ``Great Place,'' as it is commonly
known, is home to over 36,000 soldiers and airmen, with
thousands of troops currently deployed in South Korea, Europe,
Afghanistan, and the Middle East in support of global combat,
peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations. Our soldiers bring
to central Texas over 48,000 family members, making Fort Hood
one of the largest and most populous military installations in
the world. Its economic contributions are also significant,
delivering roughly $25 billion to the Texas economy last year.
And I also would like to call attention to North Fort Hood,
home to the First Army Division West and a staple in my
district. Division West serves a critical function in the pre-,
post-, and de-mobilization operations, a mission that has
likely affected your States' U.S. Army Reserve or National
Guard units in some way.
I encourage this committee to make every possible dollar
available to support this critical mission. As the DOD and
FORSCOM continue to rely on the U.S. Army Reserve and National
Guard units to supplement manpower shortages, we must ensure
that we are providing the training, funding, and resources
available to maintain their effectiveness and lethality on the
battlefield.
The modernization of our force is pivotal in our ability to
develop the force of the future, and I remain supportive of
every effort to build the most lethal and modern fighting force
on the planet.
With that said, if there were an opportunity to identify
specific defense accounts that don't require an increase this
year but are projected to have one, I hope that, instead of
returning the entirety to the defense account, the full
committee would consider providing a reasonable percentage
towards MILCON projects that have been pending or underfunded
far too long.
Fort Hood's top priorities continue to be improvements to
barracks, motor pools, and aircraft hangars. Each one of these
infrastructure types are critical for the health and welfare of
the soldiers as well as their professional ability to carry out
their assigned duties.
And I hope when 302(b) levels are determined that there
will be significant plus-ups in the MILCON account for these
projects in the same way that I hope that there will be
practical increases in the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Lastly, I trust this committee will continue to prioritize
the overall modernization and readiness of the total force and,
most importantly, to not sacrifice one for the other.
Last year, the Army Futures Command stood up in Austin,
Texas. In their own words, Army Futures Command, or AFC, is on
a quest to modernize the way the Army does business by creating
a space of endless possibilities to explore, develop, and test
new methods, organizations, and technologies. Above all else,
we want to make sure soldiers have what they need before they
need it to protect tomorrow today.
These innovations within the DOD are essential to
modernizing the force and utilizing the expertise and solutions
that will put combat enablers on the field of battle in less
time and at a better cost. I hope the utmost of consideration
will be given to AFC and that our defense committees will
ensure that they have the talent and the resources necessary to
achieve their mission.
In order do that, we must guarantee that they can hire top
talent through already-existing, streamlined hiring processes
that provide competitive compensation and long-term retention
strategies. There are countless Americans who are excited for
the opportunity to serve their country in this innovative
field. It is our future. Our goal should be to welcome these
talents, not create barriers to entry.
In May of 2018, I had the privilege of traveling to Iraq
and Kuwait with my colleague and the ranking member of the
MILCON-VA Subcommittee, Chairman John Carter, who I am honored
to represent Fort Hood with him. During our travels, I enjoyed
spending time with our III Corps soldiers deployed to the
region as part of Operation Inherent Resolve. The experience is
one that I will never forget, I will always treasure, and
reaffirms why our tireless advocacy for the military in this
body is so vitally important.
America's adversaries are working every day to defeat us,
and if we are tested, we must be prepared to deliver a
resounding response of America's strength and resolve. We
cannot afford to put Band-Aids on a problem and hope that we
can keep a helicopter, a plane, a ship, or a tank in use for
another day past its prime.
The investment in our modernization is key not only to
maintaining a competitive edge against our near-peers and
terrorists but to guarantee the safety of our servicemembers,
who so selflessly volunteer to get behind the stick of that
helicopter or the wheel of that ship.
We have a longstanding bipartisan tradition of coming
together to provide the Pentagon with the resources necessary
to fight and win in any domain, and I am committed to
continuing that cooperation.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you again for
providing me the opportunity to discuss the defense priorities
on Fort Hood and throughout the DOD. Your steadfast support for
our servicemen and -women does not go unnoticed.
The United States of America has the greatest military the
world has ever known, and it is the honor of my lifetime to
represent our servicemembers in Congress.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. I yield my
time back.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Williams, thank you very much for your
testimony.
I certainly hear a clear bill here on the military
construction accounts. We share that concern. And, also, the
investment as far as the mobilization platforms I think are
critical, because you want to make sure everyone is as safe and
as effective as they can be. So we certainly appreciate that.
As I think I asked last year, though, are you still showing
Judge Carter the way?
Mr. Williams. Oh, that is part of the hardest thing I do in
Congress, but I am still at it.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I want to thank the gentleman. I have
been to Fort Hood. It is a wonderful facility. And the men and
women who serve there are fabulous, and I am sure you are very
proud of them, as the rest of the country is. And go, Dodgers.
Thank you.
Mr. Williams. You are with a winner. Thank you. God bless.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Secretary, I also want to thank you for
what you and John Carter do to represent that area. So thank
you so much.
Mr. Williams. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Williams, thank you so much.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The written statement of Congressman Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. JAMES MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much. I am sorry I am late. We
are in Rules Committee----
Mr. Visclosky. You are on time.
Summary Statement of Congressman McGovern
Mr. McGovern [continuing]. And we are hold on right now.
But I want to thank you, Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member
Calvert, for giving me the opportunity to talk about a few of
my priorities for the Fiscal Year 2021 Defense Appropriations
Act.
First, I respectfully ask the committee to honor the
service of a specific cohort of former members of the Armed
Forces who were exposed to radiation during the years following
World War II, known collectively as the atomic veterans.
Specifically, I ask the committee to provide $4 million for the
creation and distribution of an atomic veterans service medal.
You know, year after year, House-passed language to create
this medal has been stripped from the NDAA final conference
reports. This is particularly galling when the provision has
received overwhelming bipartisan support in the House for
years.
For 5 years, my good friend and Republican colleague, Tom
Emmer, and I have offered this provision as an amendment,
receiving unanimous votes in the House. And, last year, the
provision was included in the base text of the House NDAA. And
so, in light of this, I respectfully ask the committee to take
the lead and provide the necessary funding to honor these
veterans with a service medal.
As you know, between 1945 and 1962, about 225,000 members
of our Armed Forces participated in hundreds of nuclear weapons
tests. Thousands of other GIs were exposed to dangerous levels
of radiation as part of the U.S. military occupation forces in
Japan and those who were POWs in and around Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
All were sworn to secrecy, unable to talk to their doctors
about their exposure to radiation. And the Pentagon stubbornly
refuses to honor their service, arguing that it would somehow
diminish other military personnel tasked with dangerous
missions. Mr. Chair and members of this committee, that is just
ridiculous, and it is offensive.
So this is a unique group of veterans. No other cohort has
been recognized for specialized testing and treatment by the
Department of Veterans Affairs. No other cohort has been
recognized by three former Presidents for their unique service.
President Reagan designated July 16, 1983, as Atomic Veterans
Day. President George H.W. Bush recognized them as a discrete
cohort of American veterans eligible for compensation under the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990. And President
Clinton issued a public apology in 1995 following the Advisory
Committee on Human Radiation Experiments' landmark report.
So it is beyond comprehension for the Pentagon to assert
that these veterans are just like any other veteran who faced
hazardous duty. They are not.
In 2007, our allies Great Britain, New Zealand, and
Australia awarded such medals to their atomic veterans who
served alongside our GIs. There is no reason for us not to do
the same.
Tragically, upwards of 80 percent of American atomic
veterans have already passed away, never having received this
recognition.
So, Mr. Chairman, we can't wait any longer to honor them.
Please recognize this unique group of veterans, their sacrifice
and selfless service. Please fund and create an atomic veterans
service medal, please, before they all pass away. Time is
running out.
Second, I want to thank you for your consistent support of
the Wounded Warriors Service Dog Grants Program. Since fiscal
year 2015, this committee has led the way in creating and
funding this program that provides grants to qualified
nonprofits to offset the cost of training service dogs for our
veterans. I ask that you continue funding this program at $11
million, the same as last year.
And, finally, I would like to thank the committee for
recognizing the importance of prioritizing research to address
enteric disease, or ETEC, in last year's bill. For fiscal year
2021, I ask the committee to provide $10 million under Navy
RDT&E Medical Development to support ETEC research.
Among our servicemembers deployed around the world, ETEC is
the leading cause of bacterial diarrhea. It results in millions
of days of diminished readiness. It incapacitates a
servicemember for 3 to 5 days, and half of all affected report
decreased job performance afterwards. So 1 in 10 will develop
post-infection bowel problems.
So the Navy, DARPA, and academic partners have made
significant progress in developing effective countermeasures,
but without further funding, the antibodies developed will not
go on to the next stages of development and testing. So it is
urgent that the committee advance this research, which will
benefit literally tens of thousands of our uniformed men and
women deployed abroad.
So, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to
thank you. I appreciate your hard work. And that concludes my
testimony.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. McGovern, thank you very much for your
testimony and your concerns.
I would point out that we will do our very best to maintain
the funding for the military service dogs.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. You were an advocate last year.
And we did provide some funds for the atomic veterans
service medal, but, as you know--and I know you are working
with the authorization committee too--we still have to solve
that particular part, but would want to stay in touch with that
committee as well as yourselves----
Mr. McGovern. We will.
Mr. Visclosky [continuing]. To see if we can have some
success.
So, again, realize you have a full plate, and appreciate
you taking the time to be down here.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony and,
certainly, concern about the atomic veterans. I knew one
myself. Unfortunately, he is no longer with us, like most of
them. But they certainly should be recognized.
And, certainly, the dogs that go to service are necessary
in times of war, and they should be treated properly. So I
appreciate that.
Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes. And I just wanted to say, certainly, on
the military dogs, that is something that we support, and we
will work with you on that. Thank you for pointing that out.
Mr. McGovern. And I should just say, the support that you
have provided over the years, in terms of grant assistance to
help train these dogs, benefited countless veterans. And it
literally changed their lives, I would argue even saved their
lives. So thank you for your great work. Appreciate it.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you for your leadership.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
[The written statement of Congressman McGovern follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Hudson, welcome to the committee. You
may proceed.
Summary Statement of Congressman Hudson
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member
Calvert, members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate this
opportunity to be here today to discuss the pressing needs of
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and the surrounding community.
As many of you know, Fort Bragg is a very special and
unique place. Fondly referred to as the ``epicenter of the
universe,'' it is not only home to the Airborne and Special
Operation Forces but also our Nation's largest military
installation in terms of personnel, which is a fight I had with
Judge Carter, who has the largest base, I believe, by land
mass.
Each of these commands and their subordinate units are
specifically designed to meet the most unique challenges facing
our Nation. Simply put, when a President calls 911, the phone
rings at Fort Bragg, as they are the tip of the spear.
One of these units, the 82nd Airborne Division, has the
unique designation as the immediate response force, in which
they must be able to deploy anywhere in the world within 18
hours. Combine this with increased reliance on Special
Operations Forces over the last 20 years, and it is clear that
Fort Bragg deploys more personnel to more countries on shorter
notice than anyone else.
Maintaining such a capability requires investments in not
only lethality and modernization but also in the infrastructure
to make it all work, which has not been sufficiently funded.
Our men and women in uniform cannot win the next fight if they
can't get there quickly and safely.
Fort Bragg is at a critical juncture. Our primary and
alternative airfields, rail systems, roads, training areas,
maintenance facilities, and infrastructure are in desperate
need.
The roads that connect Fort Bragg with neighboring
communities and serve a disproportionately high concentration
of our Special Operations Forces and their families are in
utter disrepair. The roads are so bad they cost Fort Bragg $2.5
million annually in accident and death payments alone.
The State of North Carolina wants to take over maintenance
of these roads but needs the Army to first raise them to State
standards. That alone would cost approximately $43 million.
Unfortunately, conventional forces at Fort Bragg, including
the 82nd, have suffered from a lack of MILCON funding,
receiving only one project since 2010. With this in mind, the
command has been forced to try to mitigate the effects of this
financial drought by utilizing Facilities Sustainment,
Restoration, and Modernization, FSRM, funding.
This applies to barracks that had their roofs ripped off
during recent hurricanes, motor pools that can't physically fit
modern vehicles, and an airfield that desperately needs
resurfacing.
The fact is, we are dangerously close to losing the
capabilities that our Nation relies on. During the recent rapid
deployment of the 82nd on New Year's Eve, the lights on the
runway that have been there since 1938 actually failed.
One of the most concerning issues to me is that the
Department of Defense won't even request what it has identified
as true needs. For years, they have been forced to undercut
themselves and request less than 100 percent of their
requirement. This year, that request has come to 81 percent of
the actual need.
I urge the committee to see what effect this is having on
the force. I understand we have limited resources to fund
competing priorities and acknowledge that members of this
committee have done an exceptional job at finding that very
tough balance. Yet, as Fort Bragg's Congressman, I am here to
tell you, these decisions have a cost that is jeopardizing the
safety of our men and women in uniform. With this in mind, I
would ask that the committee fund the FSRM budget for the Army
at the highest levels possible.
Additionally, I would like to bring your attention to a
program within USSOCOM known as the Preservation of the Force
and Family, or POTFF. POTFF was established to create a
holistic approach to address pressures on the force and
increased stress on operators' families. This program touches
all aspects of the operator--physical, mental, social, and
spiritual.
The success of POTFF is demonstrated through a notable
decrease in the rate of physical and emotional injuries from
all causes, significantly accelerating return to duty times,
increasing retention, and improving overall morale of the
force, to include their families. POTFF is the embodiment of
the SOF truth that people are our most valuable asset.
As you know, it takes years to build a special forces
operator. The demands of SOF continue throughout their career
and are compounded by a high deployment-to-dwell ratio. Simply
put, the demand is there, and the job isn't getting any easier.
Thankfully, programs like POTFF are exactly what we need to be
able to maintain a ready force.
I ask this committee to fund the POTFF program as robustly
as possible.
Finally, I would like to highlight a relatively small but
extremely valuable program from the Department of Defense. As
you know, the Department of Education administers the Impact
Aid program to provide financial assistance to compensate for
the lost tax revenue for school districts that contain Federal
property. Similarly, the Department of Defense Education
Activity administers a supplemental DOD Impact Aid program.
As you can imagine, each of the counties surrounding Fort
Bragg are recipients of Impact Aid, which serves as a critical
lifeline to school districts that would otherwise lose funding
they desperately need.
In fiscal year 2020, the Department of Defense included $40
billion of supplemental funding for the program and a separate
$10 million for additional funding for children with severe
disabilities.
Fort Bragg is one of the few installations across the
country that has an Exceptional Family Member Program for
children with special needs. As such, families from across the
country are stationed here solely based on the fact that their
children need access to these resources. Because not all of
these children are in schools on post, the DOD Impact Aid for
children with severe disabilities is increasingly important for
our communities.
With this in mind, I would ask that you continue to build
on the progress made in last year's defense appropriations bill
and further increase both the DOD Impact Aid supplemental and
DOD Impact Aid for children with severe disabilities when
looking at fiscal year 2021.
Again, I would like to thank you, Chairman Visclosky and
Ranking Member Calvert, for allowing me to testify today, and I
stand ready to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Hudson, thank you very much for taking
the time to appear. Do appreciate your commitment, one, to
national defense, as well as the United States Army, and
attentive to the needs in your district.
Would point out--and I am an infrastructure guy; I am from
Gary, Indiana--that for Facilities Sustainment, Repair, and
Maintenance in fiscal year 2020, we increased the budget by
$600 million for the Army's line, to a total of $4.1 billion. I
regret that the administration only asked for 3.5, not that
that is not a lot of money, but it is a cut. So we are aware of
that. Appreciate your concern.
Also share your concern, we all do, on Impact Aid. I don't
have that particular issue in my district, but it is
immediately across the line, and deal with people who have that
issue. And, again, would just point out that, in this year's
bill, we increased Impact Aid from the Department by $50
million.
And also--and you mentioned, I appreciate--that children
with disabilities, we increased that account this year for $20
million. No one knows what the future holds, but obviously we
will do our very best.
Mr. Hudson. Well, I really appreciate that.
And, again, you know, the requests that end up in front of
you don't represent the totality of the need. And you don't
have enough money to cover all the need that even is presented
to the committee. And so you guys have a tough job, you men and
women here, and I appreciate the job you do. But keep in mind
that you are not even seeing all the need that is out there.
And a place like Fort Bragg that hasn't had a MILCON since
2010, the place is crumbling.
Mr. Visclosky. Is that near where you live, Fort Bragg?
Mr. Hudson. Well, pretty close, pretty close. Yes, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Well, the men and women that serve at Fort
Bragg are at the point of the spear, and we should certainly
support them as much as we can, any way we can. And I will be
working with the chairman to do exactly that. And we will stay
in touch to see what we can do under the constraints we have on
the appropriations process.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hudson. All right. Thank you.
[The written statement of Congressman Hudson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. BRIAN FITZPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Fitzpatrick, welcome. You may proceed.
Summary Statement of Congressman Fitzpatrick
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chairman
Visclosky, Ranking Member Calvert, members of the committee.
Thank you for hosting today's hearing and giving me the
opportunity to discuss two priorities that are very, very
important to this subcommittee for fiscal year 2021
appropriations.
First, as co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Ukraine
Caucus, I come here today in strong support of robust funding
levels for Ukraine in the fiscal year 2021. At a minimum, we
ask that this committee appropriate funds for Ukraine-related
programs at currently enacted levels, but I strongly encourage
that these programs receive an increase in funding.
It is in our national interest to help Ukraine succeed as a
democratic, independent, and prosperous nation and by
strengthening the security of our Central and Eastern European
allies in the face of increasing Russian aggression. Our
support for Ukraine also stems from our shared values of
sovereignty, human rights, and the rule of law.
These funds are essential to support Ukraine's democratic
progress, military readiness to combat Russian aggression, its
civil society capacity to combat corruption, which I personally
worked with and experienced over there as my time as an FBI
agent, and also efforts to care for Ukraine's veterans, and
efforts to boost economic development in key fields such as
agriculture and small business.
Robust American support remains critical to Ukraine's
independence and sovereignty. We especially encourage strong
support in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which is
directed by the Department of Defense.
Moreover, I would like to express my support for funding
programs that promote transparency and accountability to end
corruption, especially programs that strengthen the parliament,
judiciary, media, and civil society in Ukraine; also, to help
Ukraine defend its territorial borders and its territorial
sovereignty from outside aggression--Russia's illegal seizure
of Crimea must never be recognized--alleviate human suffering,
especially in eastern Ukraine, including hundreds of thousands
of children who have been displaced.
These challenges require comprehensive and bipartisan
support, and the United States must continue to stand shoulder-
to-shoulder with the people of Ukraine and provide robust
funding for our strategic ally in the region. And I urge the
committee to ensure that the necessary funds are appropriated
to assist our friends in Ukraine.
Secondly, I would like to turn to an issue that is much
closer to home. For several years, I have been working very
hard to address the contamination of our drinking water by
toxic PFAS chemicals, because I believe these chemicals
represent one of the most widespread public health crises we as
a Nation face, so much so that myself and my friend and
colleague Dan Kildee from Michigan co-led and are co-leading a
bipartisan PFAS Task Force to unite all the area Members of
Congress whose districts have been impacted.
Advisory levels--a high percentage, exceedingly high
percentage, of our drinking water throughout the Nation,
particularly in some of our districts, contain an exceedingly
high percentage of PFOS and PFOA chemicals that exceed the
EPA's current lifetime health advisory level of 70 parts per
trillion of combined PFOA and PFOS. However, toxicological
profiles of these chemicals released by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry suggest that tens of millions
more Americans than previously thought are drinking water with
harmful levels of these chemicals.
An example of how my constituents have been impacted by
this issue is in West Rockhill Township. In 1986, a team of
firefighters from the former naval air station in Willow Grove,
Pennsylvania, and also the Naval Air Development Center in
Warminster use AFFF-spraying trucks to assist firefighting in a
massive tire fire. And the AFFF foam is a firefighting foam
made up of PFAS chemicals. And now the water supply for many
households in West Rockhill Township test at some of the
highest levels of PFOA and PFOS in the entire Nation.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
first started sending notices to affected households in 2016.
That means that for 30 years many were drinking water and
bathing their children in water that was poisoned by these
highly toxic chemicals with no idea of the harm they were being
exposed to and through no fault of their own.
Last July, the Congressional PFAS Task Force led a
bipartisan group of lawmakers in sending a letter to the
Defense Department Inspector General, asking the office to
examine the Defense Department's use of PFAS at military
locations. The IG's office responded that they will be
launching a review of the Defense Department's use of PFAS at
military sites in Michigan and around the country.
It is unacceptable that the Defense Department put the
health of families in Pennsylvania and around the Nation at
risk with these chemicals. Whether it was intended or
unintended, every American has the right to clean drinking
water. And the Federal Government created this health crisis,
and it is important that the government now start to take
responsibility for that.
Our citizens have the right to this. And, moreover, the
more we learn about these chemicals, the clearer the danger
becomes. And as the co-chair of the PFAS Task Force, it is my
firm belief that this committee must appropriate the necessary
funds to remediate and clean up contamination from these PFAS
chemicals.
I thank the committee for their time and attention to these
two very important matters, and I am happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Visclosky. Well, I thank the gentleman very much. Both
primary issues you have touched on, Ukraine as well as the
environmental, are very close to our hearts.
Mr. Calvert and I have been to Ukraine, and whether we have
been or not, a very, very serious issue. As you probably know,
we did include $250 million this year. There is no guarantee
for the future, but very alert and very concerned about
Ukraine. So do appreciate your position.
Additionally, particularly Ms. McCollum has been very, very
active on this, as the issue of the water quality issue and the
cleanups. Met with the Secretary of the Air Force yesterday, as
a matter fact. It is unclear how much the administration really
is looking for. I would point out for the record that for
fiscal year 2020 they asked for $79 million, which I thought
was completely inadequate. The committee added 172 above that.
At least two of us, Mr. Calvert and I, serve on Energy and
Water. I tell people, environmental management is always a bill
payer, it is always last. But people drink that water, whether
they are at a base, whether they are in a community. And it is
a priority for us, and we will be very attentive to it. So
appreciate your concern.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
And, as you pointed out, I worked with the gentlelady on my
prior job but that she has now, the jurisdiction over the
Environmental Protection Agency. And DOD certainly has a
responsibility. This PFAS issue is nationwide. It is a
difficult issue to approach. We have programs within EPA like
WIFIA and certainly the Department of Defense grant programs,
but we need to take this on. And it is a big, big problem.
As far as Ukraine is concerned, we agree. I have been a big
believer in lethal aid to Ukraine to get Russia's attention. I
am fearful this summer they may try something provocative, so
we need to make sure that we are in a good position.
So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. I thank you.
Betty.
Ms. McCollum. Just on the PFAS, we have an all-of-
government approach that I have been working on with the team
in Michigan. And I thank you for the task force that has been--
it has made a difference in getting people's attention on this.
So we are waiting for the EPA to set a standard. They have
been slow to do so. But that standard might not be the final
standard. We might have to lower the levels again even after we
have that because of what we are finding out.
I have a municipality that since 2006 has been filtering
water. So it is a problem all across. But the Department of
Defense needs to step up, and they need to take responsibility
and work with you to remediate this problem. So I look forward
to working with you on this.
Mr. Calvert. If the gentlelady would yield, too, on that, I
just would point out, technology has changed. And I may just
point to you and others that there are technologies that work
and are much more effective and, you know, it gets the cleanup
quicker. And I hope the EPA and the Department of Defense and
others will pay attention to these new technologies and get it
out there.
Ms. McCollum. Well, that is true, but it can be in surface
water, it can be in groundwater, it can be in wells, so the
technology is all where it is.
And my municipalities, we are filtering the waters, but
the--I have been in a--so if you set this room upright, one of
these filters, it is a little smaller than the circumference of
this room. But then that has all the nasty stuff in it. And
then what do we do? We landfill it.
So we need research. And as the gentleman from California
put out, you know, there are lots of different ways to address
this. We have to address it. We can't wait for the perfect way
to do it. We need to do something right now.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. And the filtration issue, as you pointed
out, is a separate issue in and of itself, because what do you
do with the filters after they are filled? Because there is no
safe way that we have been aware of to dispose of these
chemicals.
Ms. McCollum. So we need research, we need standards. But
we need the Department of Defense to stand up in doing
research, in setting safe standards, and in cleaning up these
plumes so that they don't spread any farther.
So it is a serious problem. And thank you for, you know,
the fight, because it is making a difference. But I was just
shocked when the President, after--you know, this is
bipartisan, bicameral--when the President's budget came out
and--I won't say ignored it but, you know, didn't give it the
due diligence it deserved.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, and please do stay in
touch. We will continue to work on it.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The written statement of Congressman Fitzpatrick follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. THOMAS SUOZZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
YORK
Mr. Visclosky. The gentleman from New York. I am so happy
to see you. We were told you were not going to appear and
simply submit written testimony, and it darkened our day.
Summary Statement of Congressman Suozzi
Mr. Suozzi. Oh. Well, I am happy to be here myself. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. You may proceed.
Mr. Suozzi. Thank you for that warm welcome.
Mr. Ranking Member, other members of the committee, I
really appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
You know, you all have reputations of being concerned about
environmental restoration. We were just talking about PFAS. I
am here to talk to you today about a groundwater plume on Long
Island that has contaminated our sole-source drinking water
aquifer for over 40 years. We have known about it for 40 years.
And the Navy is the responsible party, and they can't get out
of their way to actually clean it up.
So I am here to advocate for a monumental but necessary
$500 million increase in funding in the Environmental
Restoration Program in the Department of the Navy. This is a
big thing I am asking for. I am asking us to really look at
something that our community has struggled with for over 40
years.
So this money that we are looking for is to remediate
environmental degradation stemming from defense-related
activities. Congressman Peter King joins me in this bipartisan
request. He can't be here today because he has a function for
St. Patrick's Day at the White House.
This funding is essential for the cleanup of contamination
of the defense manufacturing site in my district that, again,
we have known about for over 40 years and other similar sites
across the country.
Mr. Suozzi. During World War II and throughout the 1980s,
Long Island was a defense industry manufacturing hub. Long
Islanders produced the aircraft that helped lead the allies to
victory during World War II. We helped develop the propulsion
technology that carried Americans into space and built the
lunar module that landed on the moon.
We are proud of our contributions to the Nation's defense
and space exploration, but for over 40 years--again, over 40
years--the pollution that was left behind has contaminated our
drinking water. It is spreading rapidly. It has decreased
property values, and it has spread fear throughout our
communities.
The United States Navy and the Grumman Corporation have
long been deemed officially to be the responsible parties. We
know they are the responsible parties for this contamination,
and they are liable for the cleanup.
Mr. Chairman, Newsday is our local daily newspaper on Long
Island. And I would like to submit for the record a recent
Newsday investigative report entitled ``The Grumman Plume:
Decades of Deceit.''
The excellent reporting, in frustrating detail--this is
relatively recent that this report came out. This excellent
reporting, in frustrating detail, outlines decades of finger-
pointing, bureaucratic delays, high-priced lawyers and
engineers, and misdirection, which have resulted in a four-
decade-old problem that is a long way from actual remediation.
Recently, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation released a new plan to contain further spread of
an underground plume of contamination before it destroys
additional drinking water supplies, again, in our sole-source
aquifer.
Instead of a new round of finger-pointing between lawyers
and engineers, Congressman King and I are advocating that the
U.S. Navy and Grumman stick to their defense-related expertise
and instead write a significant check, each of them, the Navy
and Grumman, write significant checks to the New York State DEC
and the Bethpage Water District so they can implement on a more
timely remediation of the spreading underground blight before
it further harms our island and our people. That is why this
additional funding is essential.
This plume, which is one of the most complicated in the
country, is currently 2.1 miles wide, 4.3 miles long, and goes
as much as 900 feet deep and has contaminated the sole-source
aquifer drinking water for millions of people on Long Island.
To date, the remediation of the Navy-Grumman plume has
concentrated on cleaning up hotspots and treating drinking
water at the wellhead. There has been no plan in place to fully
remediate the site, much less contain the plume. Hence, it has
continued to spread.
The DEC, the Department of Environmental Conservation, of
New York State's bold plan, which includes construction of 16
wells along the southern perimeter of the plume, is estimated
to cost $585 million over the next 30 years and hundreds of
millions of dollars more of the existing record of decision to
fund the current remediation.
The Navy and Grumman are going to have to pay this money.
They are going to have to do it. And I am saying, instead of
going through the bureaucratic mess that the Navy has to go
through because they are not experts in environmental
remediation, the previous Secretary of the Navy agreed with me,
let's just have them write a check to the local authorities so
they can cut through the bureaucracy and get this site cleaned
up.
The Environmental Restoration Program is a Department of
the Navy program initiative to, quote, ``identify, investigate,
and clean up former waste disposal sites on military
property.''
According to a Department of Defense report, the DOD
anticipates that 1,852 sites will still not have achieved
resolution complete by the end of fiscal year 2021, the fiscal
year we are currently budgeting for, and will still require
billions more to address the existing sites.
Despite the present backlog, the President's budget
proposal cuts this funding by $50 million to the lowest level
in 4 years. That cut is unacceptable, as I am sure you agree,
especially when considering that emerging contaminants are
already leading to additional sites and growing cost.
I am not going to talk about PFAS. I know other speakers
have already spoken about it. But I want to advocate, again,
how important it is for these chemical contaminants to be
cleaned up.
Emerging contaminants pose a significant risk to the
funding for existing sites. As the DOD writes, quote, ``Because
the DOD could not plan, program, or budget for the
unanticipated costs as part of the typical budget cycle, it
used funding that was originally programmed for cleanup
activities at other sites,'' like mine, ``that will likely lead
it to delays in achieving response complete at some of those
deferred sites.''
This report goes on to state that the list of sites is not
static and will grow by an average of 150 sites a year, and,
therefore, it is unlikely the DOD will achieve a response.
We cannot--we must not--cut funding at this time. In fact,
we need a dramatic, new solution. We need your help. The people
on Long Island are begging for your help.
This is a bipartisan request. It is well-documented; it has
gone on for 40 years. And only your help can help resolve this
very dramatic problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. I feel the gentleman's frustration, and I
share it. I would suggest there is probably not another Member
in the House who has more Superfund sites, more contaminated
waterways, and other environmental problems than the First
District of Indiana. I live in Gary, Indiana.
We have the Grand Calumet River, which is not grand, but it
is a river. And for 100 years, 90 percent of the water in that
river was industrial discharge from five refineries and four
integrated steel mills. As a member of congressional staff for
6 years and as a Member for 36 years, we have been trying to
just clean up that one site. We have made progress, but we
still have four reaches of the river to go. And I absolutely
appreciate your frustration.
I also appreciate your activity because you had an
amendment that was adopted in House, and we were able to retain
fiscal year 2018 on this issue. And would point out--and it is
of little consolation to you at this moment--that for the
current fiscal year we increased the administration's request
for that account by $49 million.
These are problems, as you point out on page 5, the
movement of money because we can't plan and we are going to
take money from your account--just isn't going to solve the
problem you have.
So I can't--none of us can promise you anything, but----
Mr. Suozzi. Mr. Chairman, let me just say very clearly, I
appreciate----
Mr. Visclosky [continuing]. Committed to trying to push the
Department to clean it up.
Mr. Suozzi. I appreciate so much how much you know about
this and how passionate you are about this idea of cleanup as
well. One of my staffers is one of your former staffers. They
have told me about your commitment to this. I have read about
your commitment to this. And we are so grateful for the great
work that you have done throughout your career on environmental
remediation.
I just want to point out one thing. The responsible parties
here are, one, one of the major contractors in America, the
Grumman Corporation, that we send contracts to on a regular
basis, and, number two, the United States of America Department
of the Navy. They are the responsible party for this cleanup.
It has been there for 40 years. And it is not a question of
the technology. It is a question of going through the
bureaucracy of just getting this thing approved. I want to get
it off of the Navy's back, write a check to the local
authorities, and have them just go clean it up. Because you
know as well as I do how awful the bureaucracy of the Federal
Government is, not because people are bad, not because they are
incompetent, not because they are mean-spirited, not because
they don't care. It is just an awful, terrible bureaucracy they
have to go through.
And if we could just get this money and give it to the
local authorities, they could get this done, and more people
would not suffer from this site for which the country is
responsible.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I certainly hear the gentleman's passion
on this issue. Unfortunately, we have hundreds of these sites,
legacy sites, primarily from World War II, that have various
pollutants. We certainly have them in California. We have them
across the Nation. And it is going to cost us billions and
billions of dollars.
We had a hearing yesterday in Energy and Water on sites in
Idaho and the State of Washington where we, you know--when we
did the Manhattan Project, we were in a hurry. And we have
remediation we are doing in various locations that is going to
cost a significant amount of resources.
I would just bring up the other issue, too, on technology.
A lot of these sites, we use pump and treat, pump and treat,
pump and treat. It takes 30 years, like you just pointed out.
We are using microbial technology now in certain areas. It had
been hugely successful. I would encourage to look at those
types of technologies. I don't know the site specifically, so I
can't opine on that, but it has worked. It cleans it up
rapidly.
And so that is what we need to do. We need to change our
mindset to get these sites cleaned up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Suozzi. Congressman, let me just point out one thing,
if I can, just to make a distinction here. Unlike a lot of the
other sites throughout the Nation, this is the sole-source
drinking water supply for this area, because we take our
drinking water straight from the groundwater.
And it is a heavily populated area. So it is not a remote
facility. It is in the middle of people's neighborhoods.
Literally, one of the sites was a park that was closed down.
And this is where we drill right into the ground that is
contaminated and pull the water out of there. And this has been
going on--we have known about it for 40 years. And I know we
have known about other sites for 40 years. But this is, again,
in the middle of densely populated areas with drinking water
right there.
Mr. Visclosky. We will do our very best.
Mr. Suozzi. I appreciate it so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Suozzi. Thank you so much.
[The written statement of Congressman Suozzi follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Visclosky. We are now happy to recognize our colleague,
Mr. Thompson.
You are free to proceed.
Summary Statements of Congressman Thompson
Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Well, good morning, Chairman
Visclosky, Ranking Member Calvert, and all the members of the
subcommittee. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity
to share my priorities for fiscal year 2021 defense
appropriations.
As Members of Congress, meeting the needs of our servicemen
and -women must remain one of our highest priorities. As the
father of a wounded warrior, I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to be here today and to share my priorities for
fiscal year 2021.
I recognize the challenge placed before the subcommittee
and appreciate your ongoing commitment to our soldiers,
sailors, Marines, and airmen, even when difficult choices must
be made. Despite these tough choices, you recognize that troops
are on the front lines, in danger, defending the freedoms that
we all hold so dear.
It is imperative our country always maintain the lethality
and the strategic edge it has had for decades. Our military
should never be engaged in a fair fight. It is for these
reasons we must maintain and ensure robust funding for the
defense of our Nation. The United States military has always
had a dominating presence, and maintaining our readiness plays
a significant role. Keeping an edge requires our military
technologies be a step ahead of our adversaries.
At a time when we face unprecedented challenge from near-
peer actors who are making strides in the development of
hypersonic weapons and other new programs, we must invest in
our own advanced technologies--specifically, additive
manufacturing to support low-cost, optimized precision fires.
Additive manufacturing will reduce manufacturing times by
60 percent at an affordable cost. This requirement is necessary
to reduce the weight of the missile systems and optimize the
manufacturing process to ensure that the parts in the missiles
can be manufactured fast enough without defects at a cost
structure that meets the overall U.S. Army missile performance
requirements. Additive manufacturing is crucial to our missile
defense.
As we continue to prepare for the future by optimizing our
missile systems, we must also ensure our Navy remains at the
tip of the spear by rebuilding and maintaining its
capabilities. Our sailors regularly face aggressive actions
when navigating our world's waters.
The U.S. Navy is making investments into programs ensuring
the freedom of navigation for all. Now, some of these programs
being invested in and needing continued support include an
evolutionary update to the MK 48 Mod 7 Heavyweight Torpedo,
which will maintain its capabilities while improving range and
payload. Additionally, the lightweight torpedo program designs,
integrates, and tests the Lightweight MK 54 Torpedo to make it
more effective in shallow water. Continuing to support these
programs gives our sailors the edge that they need to face our
adversaries.
As a former healthcare professional, I request we continue
to support and fund vital Department of Defense research
programs. These include research programs for multiple
sclerosis, ALS, burn pit exposure, breast and ovarian cancer,
as well as the Peer-Reviewed Orthopedic Research Program. I
strongly believe making critical investments in medical
research at the Federal level will improve the well-being of
our Nation.
Finally, we must keep in mind the more than 80,000 American
citizens who served in the Vietnam War, Korean War, and World
War II and are still missing in action. The families and
friends of these American heroes deserve no less than our
greatest efforts to bring their loved ones home. Therefore, I
respectfully request the subcommittee support robust funding
for the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency in the fiscal year
2020.
I want to thank the chairman and ranking member and all the
members of this subcommittee for your continued dedication to
the matters within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee and the
committee as a whole. I would really appreciate your
consideration of these priorities, and I look forward to
working together in the future.
Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. I thank the gentleman very much for taking
the time to appear. And we share a number of your priorities. I
would point out that one of our members who is unable to
attend, Mr. Ryan from Ohio, is particularly vocal on a number
of things but particularly additive manufacturing.
And I will just repeat myself again. I am from Gary,
Indiana. I like to make stuff. And if we don't make those kinds
of investments, we are going to be a stupid country because you
aren't going to have to be more efficient next year, you are
not going to have to research, all of that. So, absolutely, I
support it.
I appreciate your emphasis on some of the health programs.
And, also, you did mention the Defense POW/MIA Account, and we
increased that, the current fiscal year, $24 million.
Interestingly enough, a good friend of mine, grew up in the
same neighborhood and former U.S. attorney, had an uncle killed
in World War II--missing, missing, in World War II in Italy.
And they think they have found him and his comrade with two
British soldiers. And but for his diligence and the moneys
available to expand their work, would never have happened. And
for that family, the closure is just so incredibly important.
So do appreciate your emphasis on that.
Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Chairman, I appreciate your
support for that too. It is closure for the family, but it is
also fulfilling that promise that we made to leave no soldier
behind.
Mr. Visclosky. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
It is heartening to see some of the manufacturing
industries coming back to the United States, and we hope that
continues.
And I have been with those teams that go out and look for
people who are missing in action in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia
a number of years ago. And they do a fabulous job in searching
the remains, as you say, to leave no man behind. And they are
fulfilling that pledge, and we will need to make sure we fund
those efforts.
So I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. Thank you very much,
Chairman.
[The written statement of Congressman Thompson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. DENNY HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Heck, who has already been very helpful
this morning, is recognized.
Summary Statement of Congressman Heck
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Chairman Visclosky, very much and
Ranking Member Calvert and esteemed members of the House
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.
I first wanted to say how thankful I am, genuinely so, for
the funding for the Defense Community Infrastructure Program,
known as DCIP, which was included in the final fiscal year 2020
defense appropriations budget. I thank you for that. I thank
you for all the essential work that you and your staff do.
I am indeed here testifying today in support of the Defense
Community Infrastructure Program and asking that this vital
program be funded at $100 million in the fiscal year defense
appropriations bill.
DCIP is a grant program for the Federal Government to
assist State and local governments in addressing defense
community infrastructure projects. Grants are meant to support
military installations and include a 30-percent matching
requirement for the community.
Let's put this in perspective. Over 100 years ago, there
were a lot of installations that were developed around this
country in what were then rural areas. As time has passed, they
have found themselves in the midst of urban areas. And as a
consequence of two-thirds to three-fourths of all civilian and
military personnel living off-base, they have added to the
problems, stressed the infrastructure in the surrounding
communities.
I have the privilege, for example, to represent Joint Base
Lewis McChord, the largest force projection base in the western
United States. Fifty-five-thousand people per day report to
work there, and the overwhelming majority live in the
surrounding communities. So the purpose of DCIP is to help
those local communities with infrastructure that assist the
base themselves.
As a matter of fact, at the end of the day, DCIP is a
readiness program that requires significant participation by
local communities. It is intended to help those bases and the
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and their families who
serve there.
This program began when I first entered Congress under
title of another name, COMMUTE Act. It has been my highest
priority in the appropriations process since I have arrived.
Every year, I have advocated for this. And I cannot tell you
the sense of gratitude and gratification that we first were
able to get it authorized and then funded. And my humble
request here today is that we take that next step, continue to
support it more robustly.
I am very proud to have been joined by 51 of my colleagues
in a letter of support to you all, including my co-leads,
Congressman Chris Smith, Elaine Luria, Don Young, and Jason
Crow. They all represent communities that have been heavily
impacted, and readiness has been compromised. This is a
solution to that.
I look forward to working with the subcommittee and, once
again, extend to you my deepest appreciation for all your work,
your past support of this program, and hopefully your future
support of this program.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Heck, thank you very much.
One, appreciate your advocacy and the fact that you had the
program authorized. Some people come to us, as you can imagine,
and need appropriations and lack the authorization, so that
hurdle has been cleared.
Also appreciate your advocacy for the fiscal year 2020,
because the administration asked for no money for the account,
and we were able to add $50 million, which I know, from your
perspective, isn't adequate. It was the best we could do. I do
understand you would like to see it plussed up.
And I would just note for the record, it is my
understanding that for this year's money, for that $50 million,
the memo for distribution for the fiscal year 2020 funding is
on the Secretary of Defense's desk, awaiting for signature. We
do not know what the elements of that is, but we will very soon
know what that will be. So I would ask that you please stay in
touch with us, and we will do our best.
Mr. Heck. Thank you. And, again, thank you for your
support.
Mr. Calvert. Just going to point out, I have been to
LewisMcChord many occasions. It is a great base. And we love
the C-17s, the tankers that are located there, the United
States Army that deploy out of that wonderful facility. So we
will do everything we can to help.
Thank you.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, sir. We are very proud of the people
who work there and serve there.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
[The written statement of Congressman Heck follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. JODEY ARRINGTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Arrington, please.
Summary Statement of Congressman Arrington
Mr. Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for your leadership and your diligence on this
very, and possibly most, important responsibility, to ensure
that our armed services have the resources to provide for our
Nation's defense. And we appreciate all your hard work, and we
appreciate you letting us, your colleagues, especially those
who have military assets in their districts, provide input into
this process.
I hail from west Texas and represent 29 counties----
Mr. Visclosky. Is that better than east Texas?
Mr. Arrington. Sir, it is better than north, south, and
east Texas.
Mr. Cuellar. Don't say south Texas. Do not say----
Mr. Arrington. With the exception of Laredo----
Mr. Cuellar. All right. There you go.
Mr. Arrington [continuing]. Which is connected by I-27 and
the Ports-to-Plains.
No, listen, bragging is more than a sport, Mr. Chairman, it
is a way of life in Texas. But my mama always told me that it
ain't bragging if it's true, son. And, listen, we have the
food, fuel, and fiber--we are the food, fuel, and fiber
epicenter of the world in west Texas. No one produces more ag
and energy.
And from a national security perspective, I just want to
make one quick point: Food security and energy independence is
national security.
But, you know, we have another component to national
security that we preserve and promote and protect in west
Texas, and that is the freedom fighters of Dyess Air Force Base
in Abilene, Texas. That is the largest B-1 bomber base in the
country. It is the training base; it is the operational
squadron; it is the classic associate Reserve unit. And it is
critical to the Air Force air power and air arsenal for the
United States defense.
So it has also been referred to by the Air Force as the
backbone of our Air Force. And its long-range bomber
capabilities played a critical role in the Afghanistan-Iraq
fight against ISIS. And it presented strength and deterrence,
American strength and deterrence, in the Korean Peninsula, and
on and on.
I think you get the point. Dyess Air Force Base and the B-1
bomber is critical to this Nation's defense.
Now, here is the latest, sir. There has been a fatigue
testing done, a stress test, on these birds, and the Air Force
has determined that 17 of the 62 B-1 bombers should be retired
based on structural deficiencies.
That is a lot of planes for a squadron that provides so
much strength and important deterrence and force for the United
States defense and the Air Force. And so my request to you and
my colleagues is to really dig in to this.
Look, my first commitment is to the defense of the American
people. My second is to--and I would say second--another
priority is the safety of the airmen. So we can't compromise
our mission, and we can't compromise the safety of our airmen.
And that takes precedence over everything. I am not just a
single Member district guy; I am an American first. And those
are my priorities.
However, we have to be very diligent to determine if the
number 17 is the right number. And I haven't seen the data.
Doesn't mean I don't trust my leadership at the Air Force. I
do. And I do believe there are serious integrity issues.
But the question is, can we mitigate that number of 17 down
to 10? What is the magic threshold for saying that they should
be retired? Should we put them in the Boneyard and strip them
of their parts? Or should we park them, in the event that we
need them, and then rebuild them and fix them so that they can
fly if needed? These are just the important questions I know
you guys are thinking about.
And I just want to reinforce again the importance of really
analyzing and scrutinizing the data that is coming off of the
fatigue testing. Again, if the data suggests that that is what
we need to do and 17 is the right number, I will stand and
salute, and I will be a good soldier with you and your
colleagues and our friends on HASC. But until I look at those
numbers and until I have my colleagues who are experts really
dig in, I am going to maintain that we need to--I am not
willing to accept that final number, if that makes sense.
So I think that is pretty much what is in my remarks,
without reading them word for word.
Again, very proud of our airmen. Abilene and the Dyess Air
Force is part of the Global Strike Command. And they have a
competition every year between the communities that host these
Air Force bases in Global Strike Command. Abilene, Texas, has
won it so many times, they changed the award to the stinking
Abilene Trophy.
So these guys love their airmen, they love our veterans,
they want to continue to support them. And, oh, by the way, the
B-21 bomber, that is the next-generation bomber, the Raider.
And we just need to get from here to there, from the B-1 and a
seamless transition and retirement of the B-1, to the ramping
up of the B-21, the most capable bomber the world has ever
seen.
And I just plead with you to really dig in with me, and
let's analyze this, and let's make sure that whatever that
final number is is the right number as we exercise our
oversight responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for indulging me with my comments this
morning and my input.
Mr. Calvert, thank you as well. Enjoy working with you.
And my dear friend Mr. Cuellar, connected by I-27 and the
Ports-to-Plains Corridor, and we are proud of you and your
leadership.
So thank you, sir.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you for the time to testify, and do
appreciate your concern about making sure we take an in-depth
look not just at the B-1 and other programs.
I have said, as recently as yesterday, that Congress writ
large is one of the problems, because from time to time we do
have to make judgements and eliminate programs so we can spend
on new technology and new programs. But we ought to be very
deliberate about it.
Your timing is impeccable, because the Air Force will be in
for their hearing before this committee the week after we come
back from recess. So, again, we will make sure we are attentive
and draw them out on the issues.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I was going to make the same point the
chairman made; your timing is good. As you know, the Air Force
is relooking at the inventory of the United States bomber
fleet. We are going to be flying B-52s until they are 100 years
old. And that is something.
But the B-1s, obviously, are going to be replaced by the B-
21, and we need to quicken that process up so we can send those
B-21s to Texas. And----
Mr. Arrington. Amen and amen.
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. Hopefully, we can have a smooth
transition.
Mr. Arrington. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. And I know that is what you are concerned
about----
Mr. Arrington. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. For the men and women that serve
at that base, and they do a wonderful job. So we are certainly
going to keep a good eye on it.
Mr. Arrington. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.
You know, the B-1 is a victim of its own success. They used
it so much, because it was so needed and its capabilities were
so critical, that they say they flew the wings off of it. And I
understand we need to be careful to make the right decision.
Ms. McCollum, I enjoyed being with you at West Point and
enjoyed our visit there and to get to know you. Thank you for
your leadership as well.
Again, God bless you guys in your endeavors. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Cuellar would like the last word.
Mr. Arrington. Oh, yes.
Mr. Cuellar. I just want to say thank you. I have been to
the Dyess Air Force Base there in Abilene with Dr. Bob Hunter
some years ago.
Mr. Arrington. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar. Appreciate your--I think your timing is right.
I certainly agree with the chairman and the ranking member and
the rest of the committee. We have to look at this inventory
and look at the transition.
But really appreciate your work on this. We want to
continue working with you. But this is the right timing to take
this in-depth look at it. So thank you very much.
Mr. Arrington. Thank you. And you will not hold the
comments about ``west Texas is the best Texas''' against me,
will you?
Mr. Cuellar. Well, you said ``with the exception of
Laredo,'' so----
Mr. Arrington. Thank you. Yes, sir. I am glad you kept--for
the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
[The written statement of Congressman Arrington follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. BRAD WENSTRUP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Visclosky. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
Summary Statement of Congressman Wenstrup
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you very much, Chairman Visclosky and
Ranking Member Calvert, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Cuellar. Thank you
very much.
I am here to advocate for military medicine and voice my
concern about some certain decisions that have and could be
made that may diminish our capabilities to accomplish our three
main goals in military medicine, which are, one, to have a
medically ready force, a ready medical force, and the ability
to care for our beneficiaries. And I am engaging here today to
make sure that our funding decisions align with these needs.
You have all heard from the surgeons general last week, and
I share some of their concerns. I have met personally with each
of the surgeons general as well as General Place of the Defense
Health Agency.
So a little bit of a bio. I am an Army Reservist still. I
have been in for 22 years. I was chief of surgery for a combat
support hospital, stationed at Abu Ghraib prison in 2005-2006.
Currently I still serve at Walter Reed, and a medical policy
advisor for the Chief of the Army Reserve. So I am speaking
from the heart when I am talking to you today about some of the
issues that I am concerned about.
One, I want to make sure that we continue to support our
military-civilian partnerships. To give you an example, we
created a partnership in Cincinnati with the Army, and expanded
it to joint, where we embed our medical personnel into our
civilian hospitals.
And to give you some idea of how that works, we had an Air
Force medic from Wright-Patt, the largest Air Force base, who
spent 2 weeks in Cincinnati, who said, ``I did more in 2 weeks
in Cincinnati than I have done in 6 years of Active Duty at
Wright-Patt.'' Why? Because he was on air care, he was in
ambulances, he was in a Level 1 trauma center in the emergency
room.
These are the types of relationships we have to continue to
develop. And so that is why I want to make sure that we are
focused on making sure those programs can continue.
I also want to speak for a moment on how I support the
notion and the creation of a defense health command. I think
that Congress had good intentions when we developed the Defense
Health Agency, and I think the Defense Health Agency mission
could continue, but I would like to see that under the auspices
of a defense health command. The defense health command would
consist of a Defense Health Agency director.
In my mind, congressional intent with the DHA was to make
our stateside and facilities like Landstuhl more efficient and
more effective, more streamlined, to decide how much care we
need where, whether we can use community care or not. These are
some of the things that we were looking into.
So the defense health command, as you will see on the
chart, would consist of Defense Health Agency director, the
surgeons general, and also regional representation, which would
give us flexibility.
Included in that chart are some of the training
opportunities that we would have. I will be frank with you when
I say, if you are a Reservist and you are a Reserve general
surgeon in a Level 1 trauma center, you are good to go for the
combat mission. If you are Active Duty, you may be on a base or
a post where the speed limit is 15 and there really isn't much
trauma. So we need to have these types of relationships to
build upon.
The Air Force has C-STARS, Center for the Sustainment of
Trauma and Readiness Skills, a very effective program. I have
participated in that. We have Operation SMART, which I just
described before, Strategic Medical Asset Readiness Training.
We have the AMCT3, the Army Military-Civilian Trauma Training
Teams.
These are great training opportunities that we need to
expand, expand jointly, and, in my mind, should be under the
management of the surgeons general. And they can all work
together under the structure of a defense health command.
So there is a lot there. I have presented a lot to you. I
would be more than happy to sit with you one-on-one or whatever
the case may be to go into more detail about where I think the
future of our military medicine should be.
I never want our military medicine to be seen as a
vulnerability by our enemies. And so we want to do everything
we can to have a structure in place that is well-defined, that
we can have troops ready to go out the door at a moment's
notice, and, at the same time, making sure that we are taking
care of all of our military families and the military
themselves. So I will engage with you on that.
I also have a bill that I will be presenting to HASC for
retention, especially in critical specialties. For example, in
the Army Reserve right now, we are only at 9 percent of
orthopedic surgeons. That is not a good number. And the same
ones get deployed over and over again.
At the same time, if you are Active Duty, you have done 20
years and you are getting out, eligible for a pension, you may
be 45 years old, but if you join the Reserve, your pension is
penalized. That makes no sense. We should be able to allow
people to get the pension that they have earned and go into the
Army Reserve.
And you bring someone who has already been in uniform,
already skilled. And that could be pilots, surgeons. And the
way the bill is presented, it has to be identified by the
Secretary as a critical shortage of a critical need.
So I ask you to take these things into consideration when
it comes to appropriations, and I will be glad to take any
questions.
Mr. Visclosky. Appreciate, again, you taking the time and
your concern, as well as, one, the experience and knowledge you
bring. We may follow up. The committee has a lot of concerns
about the transition that is taking place, and Mr. Calvert may
have some comments. I know Ms. McCollum certainly does.
Mr. Calvert. Yeah.
You are here at the right time. We are getting a lot of--as
you know, Brad, we are getting a lot of pushback from the
various services on this defense agency issue. And so it is
appropriate to be here.
And I just want to say something personally, that if it
wasn't for Brad Wenstrup, we would have lost our colleague,
Steve Scalise.
You know, I believe in miracles. You just happened to be
right next to him when Steve was shot and saved his life, so
God bless you. Thank you very much, and----
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. Thanks for your service. And we
will certainly take a good look at this.
Mr. Visclosky. Also appreciate your emphasis on families,
as far as how this works out.
Mr. Wenstrup. Absolutely.
Mr. Visclosky. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
I think it is important, every once in a while, to step
back, review, and look and see what is happening. But I have a
lot of questions about the way that the plan has been presented
in moving forward.
We are losing our teaching hospitals, because of
reimbursements and healthcare restructuring and a whole lot of
factors, at a great rate. And medical school bills are huge
when people graduate, whether it is dental, even advanced
practice nursing and that. So one of the ways in which we can
encourage people to go into medicine and then, you know, maybe
go Reserve or Guard or maybe make a career of it in the
military is to, you know, if they are talented, is to go into
military medicine.
So I don't think we have had that big conversation on how
that is going to impact. And then we also have a shortage of
rural healthcare, you know, where some of our bases are
located. That becomes a question for families.
So we have questions. Reform and change is difficult.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but I think a little more due
diligence needs to happen, from my comfort level, to make sure
that we have adequate response in rural communities where we
are posting that.
But I think you bring up an interesting thing that I
haven't heard anybody talk about, and maybe we can talk about
this some more later: burn units. We have a trauma Level 1 burn
unit in the Twin Cities. There are others throughout the United
States. They are great to have.
Maybe between these relationships, even--we don't have any
bases in Minnesota--maybe, you know, working into rotations and
conferences and really hands-on experience in working on a lot
of these issues would be helpful.
And that is another way that you can have relationships to
keep people's skills fresh. Because I appreciate what you are
saying about that. Sometimes maternity hospitals have to close
because enough babies aren't being born. And I get that when
they talk about removing obstetrics and gynecology. But if we
are still going to serve families and if we want to retain
women in the military, we also have to be addressing the
family's healthcare needs, not only the child's but my gender,
women's healthcare.
So we have a lot of questions. And, you know, this seems
like it is kind of steamrolling without thinking about some of
the ripple effects. So I appreciate your comments. And, you
know, it is refreshing to hear somebody say, this might not be
perfect but we need to look at doing something different.
Mr. Wenstrup. No, I appreciate everything that you just
said. You know, we put people through medical school to join
the military as a payback. You don't know what specialty they
are going to be in, yet our families need every specialty,
right? So why do we want to take people out of uniform
unnecessarily, in my opinion? And it is a great opportunity in
a lot of ways.
I am suggesting right now, if I look at Puerto Rico, Centro
Medico, they have a very--they have one trauma center, and it
is Centro Medico in San Juan. And they are very short on
personnel. If you are an ICU nurse, if you are a surgeon, your
opportunities are better in the continental United States than
they are in Puerto Rico. But what a great opportunity for our
military personnel to be down to the Level 1 trauma center and
provide the care for the community in the same way that Brooke
Army Medical Center does for the community.
So these opportunities--you mention a burn center. You
know, believe me, I served in Iraq, we treat a lot of burns.
There is no reason why we can't put some of our medical
personnel into that burn center for training and for continued
training and become the greater experts.
And not only that, this is a great opportunity with what is
going on with coronavirus. The more we build the military-
civilian relationships, the better prepared we can be.
Mr. Wenstrup. If there is a natural disaster, an attack on
our country, something of that magnitude, this is the way to
develop it, when there is not a crisis and we are more
prepared.
You are spot-on, ma'am, and I look forward to talking to
you one-on-one or whatever the case may be. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wenstrup. You bet.
Mr. Visclosky. Appreciate it.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
[The written statement of Congressman Wenstrup follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Visclosky. The gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Wenstrup. I didn't even know she was sitting there.
Mr. Visclosky. You planned this out. I know you planned
this out.
Mr. Wenstrup. Perfect timing.
Mr. Visclosky. You got something going for you. You are
welcome to the committee. Please proceed.
Summary Statement of Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and
thank you, Ranking Member and members of the committee.
And I will pick up where he left it. He went to the Centro
Medico in Puerto Rico, and we worked that idea he is bringing
with the VA Committee in the last term. And I truly support it
from--I mean, we do have three medical schools on the island as
well, so there are many options to have that training on-site
and on American soil.
Having said that, I want to say thank you for giving me the
opportunity to actually come in here to present what should be
some of the priorities on the island.
As being the only Representative for Puerto Rico in
Congress, one of our main issues is the Fisher House. We have
one VA hospital and a network of outpatient clinics to care for
close to 84,000 veterans that rely on extended care in
increasing numbers. The VA hospital in San Juan cares for
veterans from the entire island but also for the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
Elderly veterans attending the hospital for extended
procedures often need the company of family members for
support, and these family members incur additional expenses for
transportation and lodging. Many of them cannot bear the cost
of lodging.
And that is the reason I do and I am pleased that both the
VA and the Fisher House Foundation have acknowledged the need
and are working to make this project a reality on my island.
Therefore, supporting the Fisher House is critical now, more
than ever, for us.
Another area: According to the U.S. Department of
Education, one-third of all Puerto Rican students drop out of
high school. The National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program at Fort
Allen Juana Diaz reaches individuals who have separated from
the educational system and connects them with mentors for 17
months at no cost for their families.
According to the National Guard Youth Foundation, more than
6,000 individuals have completed the program in Puerto Rico,
including almost 200 participants who graduated in March of
this year.
Funding for the program at $210 million will provide for
the Fort Allen Juana Diaz program and 42 other National Guard
Youth ChalleNGe Programs and 5 current Job ChalleNGe Programs
across the Nation to function.
Another area: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is
responsible for more than 220,000 direct jobs and indirect jobs
nationwide, including 200 of them in Puerto Rico, where my
constituents help construct control system software for the F-
35. Through one supplier on the island, this program has an
economic impact of $17.8 million--of course, critical to the
island's economy but as well of our national security.
In other areas, I support the request of $56.2 million for
funding for the Civil Air Patrol. I never knew how important
this organization was until we suffered Hurricanes Irma and
Maria. In the wake of those hurricanes, the Civil Air Patrol
were instrumental in assessing damage through aerial
photography, and FEMA utilized their photos and their
information and data to provide faster assessments to areas
isolated by disaster damage while saving a lot of money
overall.
The other area that I want to include is the request that
the baseline funding to the Department of Defense Innovative
Readiness Training Program should be $30 million.
In 1 year, the First Mission Support Command, the U.S. Army
Reserve in the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rican soldiers joined
different DOD components in an IRT mission that provided
medical services to over 9,000 patients, delivered over 2,000
eyeglasses, and completed over 10,000 medical procedures.
Participating units increased readiness and obtained valuable
hands-on training and experience while at the same time helping
thousands in Puerto Rico.
Another area that this committee has been working in the
last years--and I ask that the ordnance cleanup on Vieques and
Culebra remain a priority of the Appropriations Committee and
again be included in the report language. I will ask that any
steps to accelerate the cleanup currently slated to finish in
2030 be taken.
Lastly, I would also like to note my support for the
Department of Defense role in healthcare research, including
funding for endometriosis, ovarian cancer, breast cancer
research, tuberous sclerosis complex, and Gulf War illness
treatment. Research on these health issues are vitally
important and will have a broad range of effects across the
economy and the country. These conditions often lack essential
research and funding, while individuals seeking relief must
rely on the capabilities of the Department of Defense to find
effective treatments.
And, in that end, and with the situation with the
coronavirus, there are more than 90 critical medical devices
and drugs that are being made and manufactured in Puerto Rico.
Forty-four percent of our economy is just pharmaceutical and
medical devices.
Having said that, I think it is an issue of national
security to maintain and expand the current research and
production of drugs on the island that could be made. And we
already have a large footprint of pharmaceutical industry that
are working on U.S. soil instead of having many of them made
abroad.
In that sense, I think we should expand the pharmaceutical
industry and the footprint on the island. We do have the
capabilities of making vaccines, of having the medical devices
as well as drugs being made on the island, as well as the
research. We are the main exporter of drugs from any other
State. Puerto Rico is the first one, then California.
Having said that, I think we should have a great
opportunity to bring a lot of those productions of
pharmaceutical and critically needed capabilities on U.S. soil.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much for appearing, for your
commitment.
I would point out--and, certainly, we agree with your
support for Fisher House--that the committee added--I shouldn't
say ``added,'' but included $11 million from each of the
operation and maintenance accounts for the services--the Army,
Navy, and Air Force--for the current year, as well as $10
million in the overall bill for $43 million.
Also, your emphasis on the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe
Program, we increased that program, as you may know--and I am
sure you advocated for it last year--by $50 million to a total
of $200 million. No guarantee going forward, but certainly
appreciate the importance of these and your advocacy very much.
Mr. Calvert. We all remember our former chairman fondly,
Bill Young. And Bill certainly was a champion for Fisher House,
as the gentleman remembers, and gentlelady, and he would be
very supportive, as we are, of trying to help you.
I have been to Puerto Rico a number of times. It is a
beautiful place. But, obviously, it has some challenges there,
and we need to assist. And I am all for having more
pharmaceutical development within the United States and its
territories, because, you know, 95 percent of all vaccines
right now are coming out of China. So we need to get more of
this domestic capability back within our own control. So I
support the gentlelady's efforts on that.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. And, again, we do have the
capabilities. You have a large footprint of those
pharmaceuticals on the island. I think this is the right time
to bring them back.
I thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
[The written statement of Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 12, 2020.
WITNESS
HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Mr. Visclosky. The gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee, your statement in its entirety will be
entered into the record. If you could summarize, we are 20
minutes over our time already, so we would appreciate that. You
are recognized.
Summary Statement of Congresswoman Jackson Lee
Ms. Jackson Lee. Good morning to everyone.
I just wanted to make a few points of the importance of
this committee and the importance of this committee, of course,
to the Nation's security. Let me recognize both the chairman
and the ranking member of this committee.
And I know the timeframe was not specifically directed to
me, but I will try to rush as quickly as I can to ensure that I
do not contribute to the 20 minutes over time.
The coronavirus is something that we have been told by our
health professionals that is not at the end; it is at the
beginning and surging. I want to emphasize the importance of
the Defense Department and its ability to be innovative.
So I have a particular university, Baylor College of
Medicine, that has vaccination research ready to go and needs a
partner. And I would encourage--I know that this is the next
year's fiscal budget, but I am hoping that the Defense Approps
can look at the opportunities for partnering with the civilian
government and making a difference in the lives of civilians.
And so Baylor College of Medicine has a vaccination
protocol ready to go, and I would hope that there would be some
opportunities in the funding for this to go forward.
I would also like to promote in the Defense--these are
things that I have not noted in my statement--is the issue of
soft power. Now that there has been an agreement, which some of
us are concerned about, with the Taliban, the importance of
schools for girls, the importance of working with the Afghan
Government on the issues of soft power, of educating
individuals against violence, against succumbing to any of the
old attitudes of the Taliban, I think would be particularly
helpful to our remaining troops and to the safety and security
of the Afghan people.
I have supported consistently funding for PTSD. And I want
to thank the Approps Committee for its resources. I always look
for increasing that number. It seems that every time in my
district, which has a large number of veterans, that PTSD
continues to grow.
You have also helped me in the past with triple-negative
breast cancer in terms of the research. I would like and hope
that I could get that focused on in this coming appropriations
in terms of the impact it has on military women.
I also want to emphasize my support, as well, for the
National Guard ChalleNGe Program.
Then I would like to just speak generally to programs
dealing with the research that you do on cancer, and that is
the Peer-Reviewed Cancer Research Program, which I believe is
important; the Peer-Reviewed Pancreatic Cancer Research
Program, knowing of the surge of pancreatic cancer; the support
for the $18 million for kidney cancer research in the
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program; research for
ovarian cancer; $18 million for neurofibromatosis research;
research or supporting the money for medical care of suicide
prevention, which is enormous and growing, and I know there is
a way for us to prevent that; $18 million for multiple
sclerosis research; $96 million for Department of Defense
prostate cancer research and TBI/PTSD research. I think it has
been noted of the increase in the veterans and Active Duty
military with those concerns.
Peer-reviewed money for Parkinson's disease; autism
research; and then $8 million for service dogs for
servicemembers and veterans--I am a strong supporter of service
dogs, seen them work. Thank you for that support.
And I support the robust funding for the GPS III space
segment in Air Force procurement, making sure that modern
weapons systems, including precise strike munitions, are
getting precise navigation.
$36 million for Procurement Technical Assistance Program,
the PTAP; and the $22 million--let me thank you--for the Sexual
Assault Prevention Program; and then the $33 million for the
national trauma clinical research.
I would like to join in my predecessor who was here before
talking about stronger relationships between the military and
civilian population. The military and defense are overall
admired, and there are many opportunities for collaboration.
And I would close by saying, certainly the coronavirus now
raises its head and asks the question, how many in the military
structure can be helpful as this virus continues to grow? And I
know that it depends upon the funding that this committee, this
important committee, has offered in terms of flexibility and
how they can be utilized. But, obviously, they are very
important, not only in our national security, our overseas
efforts, but they are certainly important, as well, to the
efforts here in helping out civilians in the domestic life.
So I thank you. I would like to close by just reemphasizing
the soft power, which I think is so greatly needed in our
efforts around the world.
I yield back.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much for your advocacy,
particularly on the health programs.
I would note that you have joined our colleague Mr.
McGovern from Massachusetts in your advocacy for the service
dog program, which is very vital.
And, again, appreciate your appearance.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. I know that Houston
has some of the greatest medical institutions in the world, and
would be happy to assist and help in any way we can. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I will pursue that. Baylor is
sitting there with 20,000 vials of a potential workable vaccine
for the coronavirus. They just need to get that partner to get
into the lab to be able to do the clinicals. And we are trying
to work proactively now, and I know we are in the budget for
next year, but proactively now to see if we can get those
clinicals done. We would be very interested.
Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
We are adjourned.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
[The written statement of Congresswoman Jackson Lee
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]