[House Hearing, 111 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] [H.A.S.C. No. 111-147] HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON BUDGET REQUESTS FROM THE U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND AND U.S. FORCES KOREA __________ HEARING HELD MARCH 25, 2010
______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 58-295 WASHINGTON : 2010 ___________________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected] HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES One Hundred Eleventh Congress IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas California GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland SILVESTRE REYES, Texas MAC THORNBERRY, Texas VIC SNYDER, Arkansas WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington W. TODD AKIN, Missouri LORETTA SANCHEZ, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JIM MARSHALL, Georgia TRENT FRANKS, Arizona MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas HANK JOHNSON, Georgia DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire ROB WITTMAN, Virginia JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa DUNCAN HUNTER, California JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida GLENN NYE, Virginia TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico FRANK M. KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama SCOTT MURPHY, New York WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York DAN BOREN, Oklahoma Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director Julie Unmacht, Professional Staff Member Aileen Alexander, Professional Staff Member Caterina Dutto, Staff Assistant C O N T E N T S ---------- CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 2010 Page Hearing: Thursday, March 25, 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act--Budget Requests from the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea.................................. 1 Appendix: Thursday, March 25, 2010......................................... 33 ---------- THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010 FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUESTS FROM THE U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND AND U.S. FORCES KOREA STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative from California, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services........ 2 Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1 WITNESSES Sharp, Gen. Walter L. ``Skip,'' USA, Commander, U.S. Forces Korea 5 Willard, Adm. Robert F., USN, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command.... 4 APPENDIX Prepared Statements: McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''.............................. 40 Sharp, Gen. Walter L. ``Skip''............................... 83 Skelton, Hon. Ike............................................ 37 Willard, Adm. Robert F....................................... 44 Documents Submitted for the Record: [There were no Documents submitted.] Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing: Mr. Forbes................................................... 111 Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing: Mr. Lamborn.................................................. 115 FISCAL YEAR 2011 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUESTS FROM THE U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND AND U.S. FORCES KOREA ---------- House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, Thursday, March 25, 2010. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ike Skelton (chairman of the committee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES The Chairman. Good morning. Today, our committee will continue its posture hearings. Admiral Robert Willard, Commander of the United States Pacific Command [PACOM]; General ``Skip'' Sharp, Commander of United States Forces in Korea [USFK]. At the outset, let me welcome both of you back to our committee and thank you for your excellent leadership. We are downright proud of you. We all thank the troops that you lead along with their families and the incredible service and personal sacrifice that they have. There is an ever-present danger that we in Washington are so focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq that security challenges elsewhere in the world don't get the attention that they merit. More concretely, as a result of the last nine years of operations, the readiness posture of all the combatant commands outside of the Middle East has suffered, creating a high strategic risk. There are clear examples of these problems in the Asia- Pacific, and I believe that we ignore them to our peril. Let me review just a few of the daunting challenges ahead in the Asia-Pacific area. The rebasing of United States Marines from Okinawa to Guam is one of the largest movements of military assets in decades, estimated to cost over $10 billion. The challenges are there. Changes planned as part of the move not only affect our bilateral relationship with Japan, they will shape our strategic posture through the critical Asia-Pacific region for at least 50 years, yet the path forward remains unclear. Japan is reassessing the agreement to move troops from Okinawa to Guam. It does not appear that the budget includes sufficient funds to accomplish the agreement. And the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has identified problems with the rebasing plans' environmental projects. We must get this right, and I assure you that this committee will work to make sure that we do. Last year, North Korea launched a Taepodong-2 missile over Japan, conducted a second nuclear test, kicked out inspectors, pulled out of the Six-Party Talks, and restarted its nuclear facilities. All this occurred in the context of an uncertain leadership and succession environment that may have fed some of these very concerning events. At the same time, our presence in South Korea is transforming. We are undertaking tour normalizations in Korea and substantially relocating our forces in an effort we will hear about today. There are also questions about how the new U.S. and South Korean command relationship started in 2012 will work. And I am interested in an update on those issues. Never to be forgotten in this entire region, of course, is China, which recently suspended high-level military and other contracts with our country in response to a U.S. arms sale to Taiwan. While China announced a defense budget increase for this year, it is less than it has been in the past. Their budget is still growing rapidly, and the linkage between their stated strategic intentions and their actions remain unclear in certain areas. China conducted an unexpected midcourse missile interception test earlier this year, and reports of cyber attacks from China against Google and other large U.S. companies continue to be troubling. We must be proactively engaged in the Asia-Pacific region on multiple fronts. We must realize that our own actions may well influence the choices and actions of others. We must be able to pursue opportunities for security cooperation with regional allies and partners. And that is very important. At the same time, we must ensure that our force posture allows us to deter or to confront any security challenge that might emerge in that part of the world. We have difficult work to do. I am pleased that the Department of Defense [DOD] and this Administration have already taken a number of positive steps in this direction. I now turn to my Ranking Member, my friend, Buck McKeon, the gentleman from California, for any statement. [The prepared statement of Mr. Skelton can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we conclude our series of posture hearings with the Commanders from U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. I would like to welcome back Admiral Willard and General Sharp, both of whom have traveled great distances to be with us this morning. I am glad we were able to spend the whole week here so we wouldn't have to ask you to come back again. Gentlemen, thank you for your leadership and service to our Nation, and please pass on my gratitude to our extraordinary military men and women who are serving in the Asia-Pacific region to protect Americans' national interests. Gentlemen, you are no strangers to this committee. Admiral Willard, when you were here a couple of months ago, we had an opportunity to examine the Administration's policy toward China and how such a policy is aligned with our overall approach to the region. Let me begin with where our discussion left off in January--with my speculation, or rather my fear, that the China threat would be downgraded to justify last year's and future cuts to key defense programs. According to open-source reports, the White House National Security Council [NSC] directed U.S. intelligence agencies to lower the priority placed on intelligence collection for China. If true, I am interested in hearing what impact, if any, this would have on PACOM's ability to understand China's military modernization. You can provide this information in a classified format if you prefer. Now, turning to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR], when we last met, Congress was weeks away from receiving the final draft of the QDR. What we know now is that, unlike the 2006 QDR, which explicitly called out China as having the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States, the most recent QDR understates the requirements required to deter and defeat challenges from state actors, and it overestimates the capabilities of the force the Department would build. While the QDR did an excellent job of delineating the threat posed by those with anti-access capabilities, notably China, it does little to address the risk resulting from the gaps in funding, capability, and force structure. This is where I would like to focus our discussion. Admiral Willard, how would the U.S. assess China's intentions and capacity to develop and field disruptive technologies, including those for anti-access and area denial as well as for nuclear, space, and cyberspace? As you know, it is vital for our national security interests that it maintain an upper hand when it comes to America's capabilities to project power in China's neighborhood and reassure our allies in the region. From the PACOM perspective, do we have the right range of capabilities to counter China's anti-access/area-denial capabilities? How is PACOM adjusting in its scenario planning to ensure we maintain access to the global commons and proximity to Taiwan? Are we making the necessary investments in updating our scenario planning to take into account advances in these anti- access capabilities in the mid- to long-term? I think it is critical this committee ensures that we maintain our military superiority in undersea warfare and in environments where there is advanced anti-aircraft, ballistic and cruise missiles, and cyber and space threats. China is not the only nation of concern, but it is one that requires our immediate attention. I would like to emphasize that this is not an over-the- horizon problem, but it is a gap that we face today. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you in this regard. Now, turning to a nuclear-armed, missile-ready, and unstable North Korea. Since last year's posture hearing, North Korea conducted a nuclear test, and we have seen considerable developments in its short-, mid-, and longer-range missile programs. We know that North Korea has a history of cooperating and proliferating with such nations as Syria and Iran. Admiral Willard and General Sharp, I hope that you will address the following questions. First, how do we define the outlook of North Korea as both a regional and global threat? How is the United States working with our key allies in the region to expand our defensive capabilities? Also, as we hear more about increasing demands for missile defense in Europe and the Middle East, I would like to learn what that means for the Asia-Pacific AOR [area of responsibility] and if assets will be taken away from PACOM. Again, I look forward to an informative and candid discussion, and I thank you for being here. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my entire statement be included for the record where I address other issues facing PACOM and USFK. The Chairman. Without objection, the statement will be submitted for the record. [The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the Appendix on page 40.] The Chairman. Before I ask each of you to testify, we wish to welcome the Admiral's wife, Mrs. Donna Willard, and thank you very much for being with us today. Admiral, welcome. STATEMENT OF ADM. ROBERT F. WILLARD, USN, COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND Admiral Willard. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, so that we can get to the committee's questions sooner, I will keep my remarks brief. But I ask that my full statement be included for the record. The Chairman. Without objection. Admiral Willard. Chairman Skelton, Congressman McKeon, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the United States Pacific Command and the Asia-Pacific region. Seated behind me, as you have already acknowledged, sir, is my wife, Donna, who has been at my side for 36 years. She is an outstanding ambassador of our Nation and a tireless advocate for the men and women of our military and especially their families. I also would like to thank you for your interest in our area of responsibility. I have either met many of you en route to the region, or I have followed your travels in the region with great interest. Your presence and interest sends a strong message, and I invite all of you to stop by Hawaii either on your way into the region so my staff and I can brief you on the security environment or on your return trip in order that I may hear your insights from the engagements that you encounter. Today is my first posture hearing as the Commander of United States Pacific Command. Since taking command last October, I have had the chance to meet with many of my counterparts, travel throughout the region, and exercise several of our contingency plans. When combined with my previous years of experience in the Asia-Pacific, this has led me to the following conclusions, which I hope that we can expand on during today's hearing. The Asia-Pacific region is quickly becoming the strategic nexus of the globe as a consequence of its economic expansion and potential. Key to our commitment in the region is our forward-deployed and postured forces. We face constraints in building partner capacity from shortfalls that exist in our security assistance programs. The United States remains the preeminent power in the Asia- Pacific though China's rising influence is changing regional power dynamics in ways that create both challenges and, I think, opportunities. Advancing our relationships with our allies and strategic partners is vital to maintaining security in the region. China continues to progress in the rapid, comprehensive transformation of its armed forces, elements of which appear designed to challenge our freedom of action in the region. And, finally, India's strategic location, shared democratic values, growing economy, and evolution as a regional power combine to make them a partner with whom we need to work much more closely. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Asia-Pacific region is a region of great potential and is vital to the interests of the United States. Every day, the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians of Pacific Command are working with our allies, partners, and friends to help maintain this region's security. Our success has been enabled by this committee's long-standing support. You have provided us with the most technically advanced systems in the world and with military quality of life worthy of the contributions of all of this volunteer force. On behalf of the more than 300,000 men and women of the United States Pacific Command, thank you for your support and for this opportunity to testify on the defense posture of this critical region of the world. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Admiral Willard can be found in the Appendix on page 44.] The Chairman. Admiral, thank you. This is not, by any means, the first appearance of our friend, General Sharp, and I want to welcome you back, and we would love to receive your testimony. STATEMENT OF GEN. WALTER L. ``SKIP'' SHARP, USA, COMMANDER, U.S. FORCES KOREA General Sharp. Chairman Skelton and Congressman McKeon and distinguished members of this committee, I do appreciate this opportunity, and I am honored to report to you today on the state of United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, and U.S. Forces Korea. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Korean War. Since 1950, Congress and the American people have made an enormous investment in blood and treasure to first defeat and then deter North Korea aggression. The alliance continues to reap the returns of that investment. The Republic of Korea bears the majority of the burden of defending itself, and in 2012, wartime operational control transitions from Combined Forces Command to the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff [ROK JCS]. Beyond its borders, the Republic of Korea has become an important part of the international efforts to keep peace and respond to disasters. With significant forces deployed to Lebanon, Haiti, the Horn of Africa, and other missions, the Republic of Korea is fast becoming a global strategic ally envisioned by the 2009 Joint Vision Statement signed by Presidents Lee and Obama. With our long-term commitment of 28,500 troops, we continue to deter aggression and maintain peace not only in the Korean Peninsula but throughout Northeast Asia. Last year, I spoke about three command priorities. And thanks to your support and funding, I am able to share with you the progress that we have made since then. First, the United States Forces Korea, in the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance, is prepared to fight and win. I flew here directly from our annual Key Resolve/Foal Eagle combined exercise. This exercise demonstrated that the United States and the Republic of Korea Forces and staffs are trained and ready to fight tonight on the Korean Peninsula. Second, the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance continues to grow and strengthen. Militarily, we will be prepared to transition wartime operational control to the ROK JCS on 17 April 2012. In last year's Ulchi-Freedom Guardian exercise, we successfully stood up and tested many of the post-OPCON [operational control] transition command and control structures and organizations. Through our strategic transition plan, future Ulchi-Freedom Guardian exercises and the final certification exercise will ensure the readiness of the ROK JCS to accept wartime operational control in April of 2012 and the ability of the U.S. Korea Command to become the supporting command. The Republic of Korea is also deferring a significant portion of U.S. Forces Korea costs. Under the five-year Special Measures Agreement, Korea will provide U.S. Forces Korea with approximately $700 million per year of cost-sharing funds. My third priority is improving quality of life for the command personnel. We are making substantial progress here, and with Congress' support, we will achieve all of our goals. We are improving the quality of life through two key initiatives. The first is the relocation of U.S. forces. By consolidating U.S. forces from 105 facilities maintained in 2002 to 48 sites in two hubs, we will make better use of limited resources and be better postured to support our service members and families. The second initiative toward normalization goes hand in hand with the relocation. As we consolidate bases, we are building world-class facilities in housing that are transforming U.S. Forces Korea from a command where one-year tours are the norm to one where single service members serve for two years, and those with families stay for three. In the last 2 years since June of 2008, the number of families on the peninsula have increased from about 1,600 to, today, over 3,900 families. By keeping trained military personnel in Korea for normal tour lengths, we retain institutional knowledge and create a more capable force and are better able to support the alliance and deter aggression and, also, demonstrate our commitment to Northeast Asia. At the same time, we are eliminating unneeded, unaccompanied tours and building the strong families that are key to retention and the effectiveness in this time of ongoing conflict. To close, the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance has never been stronger. The alliance has successfully deterred aggression on the Korean Peninsula for 57 years. In doing so, it has helped to make Northeast Asia a remarkably peaceful and prosperous place. With the Republic of Korea contributing a substantial portion of the alliance costs, we are maintaining combat readiness and improving the quality of life of our military personnel and their families. I thank you for supporting the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and DOD civilians and their families serving our great Nation in the Republic of Korea. And I look forward to the questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of General Sharp can be found in the Appendix on page 83.] The Chairman. Thank you so much. Admiral, bring us to date on the proposed plan of moving 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam. How is it today? What are the major challenges that you see? Admiral Willard. Mr. Chairman, the Defense Posture Review Initiative, the DPRI, the realignment arrangement with the Government of Japan, has been ongoing for some time, and contains many moving parts, to include the movement of air forces and consolidation from urban areas on the main island of Honshu to other attendant smaller moves throughout Japan. And as you suggest, one of the main thrusts of this is the relocation of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam. Currently in discussions with the Government of Japan is one element of the Marine Corps move that has to do with an airfield relocation at Futenma, which is the rotary-wing Marine Corps lift that is attendant to our Marine Air-Ground Task Force in Okinawa. And this--the new Government of Japan has chosen to relook at the Futenma replacement facility issue, and we are looking forward to their response back, which Prime Minister Hatoyama has contended will be by next month or-- excuse me--by the month of May. So we are looking forward to hearing back from the Japanese on this review. In our assessment, across Okinawa, having discussed this with the Japanese for about the last 17 years, we believe that the current plan for the Futenma replacement facility is the best plan on the island of Okinawa. Other issues with regard to the movement of 8,000 Marines to Guam pertains to Guam itself. And as has already been suggested in opening statements, there is an ongoing draft environmental impact study, and we are presently in negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] on criticisms of the EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] thus far which I would be happy to explain in greater detail if you would like. But the EIS is scheduled right now to be concluded with a Record of Decision by late summer. And we are aggressively pursuing the corrective actions that may come with the discussions with EPA. But to answer the issues pertaining to the EIS in time, to then execute the budget for Guam that has been established thus far, so we have, you know, the discussion is ongoing with Japan and issues with Guam's infrastructure and others, our EIS process, and the combination of the two and the timing of that, I think, will establish our ability to move forward with DPRI. The last point that I would make, sir, is that this is a very complex series of moves associated with DPRI. Many moving parts. And in order to achieve it against the timeline and within the budget that has been prescribed, will require the commitments of both the United States Government and the Government of Japan across many departments, in our case, and across multiple ministries in the case of Japan. The Chairman. Admiral, thank you. General Sharp, you explained the length of tours and the fact that families will be increasing accompanying the troops to South Korea. But would you please tell the committee and bring our committee up to date on the moves within South Korea, what is being built up and from where are they being moved? General Sharp. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you know, several years ago, the Republic of Korea came to the United States and said we would like you to move the forces that you have in Yongsan, where my headquarters is, from Yongsan down to another location further south near Osan Air Force Base. That was a program called the Yongsan Relocation Program, and we agreed to that. And the Republic of Korea is burdening all of the cost to construct all the facilities, to replace what we have on Yongsan today. At about the same time, we said we would also like to consolidate forces up north of Seoul, primarily 2nd Infantry Division, and consolidate them also down to what is now becoming called U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys. That progress, in order to be able to build up Camp Humphreys--U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys--is progressing very well. The Republic of Korea has already purchased the land that is needed in order to be able to expand Camp Humphreys. It will expand three times from what it originally was. It will go from a population of about 6,000 military and dependents to over 49,000. We are on track over the next five or six years to complete all of the construction down there. We will actually start moving down there in 2012 and then phase that in over the next several years following that. As with the move to Guam, this is very complicated because I have to not only make sure all the facilities are in place but make sure I have unit integrity so that we could fight tonight if we had to. So we are working through, with the Republic of Korea, on a very detailed plan in order to be able to have all of that move complete. Once consolidated down there, thanks to your support and really the support of the Republic of Korea, U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys will be an outstanding Army installation. And it should be if you can build it from the ground up, which we are going to be able to do. So we are on track, and I can report good progress, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. What date do you anticipate it will all be finished? General Sharp. Sir, again, the goal is within the next five or six years, and I know that is not a definitive date. We are trying to do it as quickly as possible to be able to return this land to the Republic of Korea and to consolidate our forces to improve the quality of life for our service members. What we are doing now is taking the very detailed engineer work to be able to get all of those moving pieces in place and seeing where we can shorten the time by--I mean, such simple things as creating another access road into Camp Humphreys greatly reduces the amount of time it takes to construct. I mean, one example is, in 2012 alone, there will be $2 billion worth of construction going into Camp Humphreys. And the number of trucks that are coming in and out of the gates and the number of folks that we have to card to make sure that they have access in is what we are trying to reduce and minimize as much as possible. But, again, to specifically answer your question, I am very comfortable to say within the next five or six years, it will be complete. But we will have moved a lot of people down there, soldiers down there, well before that as the land and the construction is complete. The Chairman. Thank you, General. My friend, Buck McKeon. Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for taking us there last year and giving us a chance to see some of that dirt being moved and this air site in Okinawa. That was a good, worthwhile trip to get a hands-on of what was happening in the area. As I stated earlier, the QDR did a good job of delineating the threat posed by those with anti-access capabilities, most notably China, but it did little to address the risk resulting in gaps in funding, capability, and force structure. Admiral Willard, from PACOM's perspective, how would you assess China's intentions and capacity to develop and field disruptive technologies, including those for anti-access and area denial? Specifically, can you comment on China's anti-ship ballistic missile capability and how it is evolving? Admiral Willard. Thank you, Congressman McKeon. I can. And thanks for the question. The China military capacity has been growing, by and large, unabated for the past 10 to 20 years. The past 10 years have been pretty dramatic. And as you suggest, this has included investments in what has broadly been termed anti-access capabilities. Area-denial capabilities is another way to think about it. And these range from the investments in submarine capabilities to investments in integrated air and missile defense capabilities to, as you suggest, anti-ship ballistic missile capabilities at extended ranges from the mainland of China as well as cyber capabilities and anti-space capabilities, all of which we have been monitoring very closely for some years. In terms of China's intentions, one of your questions--it is truly the question that we would endeavor to see answered-- the uncertainty that comes with investments of this type generates concern not just for the United States military that has patrolled this region and maintained security in this region, by and large, for the last 150 years, but for the regional allies and partners that we have in the region as well whose own navies, air forces might be challenged by these same capabilities. So this is a challenge that we are attempting to address with the Chinese that is broader than just the U.S. military and the Western Pacific, but I would offer, the entire Asia- Pacific is interested in understanding what the long-term plans are for capabilities such as you described. We have worked hard to identify the gaps that you suggest and the insufficiencies that are required to deal with area- denial capabilities such as this, and we continue to. And they range from the way in which we develop our concepts of operations to actual technologies that the program produces. And Pacific Command continues to provide its input both individually and through its service components to identify the concerns with regard to gaps and insufficiencies as we proceed. Mr. McKeon. I think the concerns I have are if we feel like or if it is perceived that we are being pushed back, then neighbors, allies in the area start taking different positions to make sure they have more options. And I think this sets us on a path that we don't want to be on. What is PACOM doing to ensure that the United States will maintain its current access within the global commons and its proximity to Taiwan? Admiral Willard. Thank you, sir. And related to the final statement that you made to the China question, we are not being pushed back. I maintain the same forces forward that we have enjoyed, again, for decades in both the sea space and air space. These are commons that we have maintained a presence in to guard sea lanes of communication that carry over a trillion dollars in commerce per year that not only supports the economy of the United States but the economies of our close allies and partners in the region and China as well. So our presence is being sustained in the region. And as you suggest, it is very much an assurance to our allies that we are here to stay. And we will continue to work with China over time to attempt to ascertain what their long-term intentions are but, also, to see them emerge in the Asia-Pacific region as a constructive partner, which is truly, I think, all of our desire and all of our intent. But at the same time, it is very important that it, through our presence, through the application of extended deterrence, and through the partnering and capacity building that we do in the region, that we assure our allies and partners in the region and try to suppress the urge to proliferate weapons and build up armies as a consequence of the concerns that are being generated by this changing dynamic in the Asian area. Mr. McKeon. That is very important because we--the question what are their intents, we don't know. And we can never know another person's full intentions or another country's, so it really behooves us to always be prepared. I am reminded of President Reagan's comments about all the wars in his lifetime never came because we were too strong. So I think it is important that we always maintain that area of strength. Admiral Willard, General Sharp, I am deeply concerned about North Korea's provocative behavior during the last year. In your judgment, will North Korea return to the Six-Party Talks? If not, beyond our tools of diplomacy and sanctions, what are we doing to expand our defensive capabilities? And, also, as we hear about increasing demands for missile defense in Europe and the Middle East, what does that mean for the Asia-Pacific AOR? Is it your understanding that assets will be taken away from PACOM? General Sharp. I will start first with the Six-Party Talks. We highly encouraged Kim Jong-il to come back to the Six-Party Talks. It is the way that I think that he has the opportunity to be able to stop the downward spiral that has happened in North Korea over the last several years. I do believe that the UN [United Nations] Security Council resolutions have made a difference in North Korea and, again, we hope that Kim Jong-il takes this opportunity. What we have done specifically on the Korean Peninsula in order to make sure that we are prepared for any contingency from North Korea is along several lines. First, we continue to develop our plans to make sure that we do have the full range of plans to deal with all possible scenarios. Secondly, we have worked very closely between the ROK JCS and Combined Forces Command in between the U.S. Embassy, led by Ambassador Stevens, and MOFAT [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] in order to be able to make sure that we, in South Korea, and we, as the U.S. alliance, along all elements of power, are saying one thing to North Korea. And we work very hard to make sure that that single voice comes out. I also do believe that, as we move towards OPCON transition, that is strengthening our force and it is clearly demonstrating to North Korea the strength of the Republic of Korea military that they will be ready to take the lead in 2012. And, again, I am confident along all those lines that we were prepared for North Korea. Mr. McKeon. Okay. Admiral Willard. As the United States and the other party members of the Six-Party Talks all encourage and are attempting to bring North Korea back into the talks forum, I would offer that our actions, as General Sharp has already described, the deterrence that is represented by the ROK-U.S. alliance, is a cornerstone of our response to potential aggression from North Korea and has been for 60 years. I would also offer that our strong alliance with Japan is equally a deterrent and that Japan and Russia and China, the United States and the Republic of Korea, together, as Six-Party members, offer both the impetus to North Korea to return to talks and, in our teaming, a deterrent value in itself. And then lastly, we have other issues with North Korea than just on the peninsula. The potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction [WMD] or the proliferation of the delivery systems represented by United Nations Security Council Resolution [UNSCR] 1784 are an example of concerns that we have that North Korea has in the past, and may continue to be, a proliferator. And then the provocations that we encountered through the sequence of missile tests that occurred last year are another example of the actions that we take in this ballistic missile defense [BMD] area to deal with North Korea and the instability that this regime represents. On the subject of European ballistic missile defense, I am an advocate of the way ahead in Europe. I think that what the maritime BMD dimension brings to our missile defense capability is very powerful and very flexible. At the same time, as we develop that maritime capability into the future--so this is the number of Aegis ships that we transition to be BMD- capable--and as we develop the missiles themselves that provide our BMD capability and, especially, the follow-on missiles that will greatly expand the envelope and reduce the requirement for as many ships on scene as currently exist--those are the capability developments that I think all of the COCOMs [Combatant Commands] are watching with great interest, very interested to see progress on a timeline. Thus far, as we have shared ballistic missile assets between Pacific Command, European Command [EUCOM], and Central Command [CENTCOM], this has been manageable. But I would offer that we still are producing the weapons, and we are still producing--you know, transitioning our ships at a pace that must be managed very carefully in order to provide that capability into the future as quickly as we need it. Mr. McKeon. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, General, thank you so much for joining. It is good to see both of you again. And thank you for your service. Admiral Willard, I wanted to discuss with you the Marine Corps move from Okinawa to Guam. And as you may be aware, this realignment of forces has been a great concern for this committee. In the end, this committee is dedicated to ensuring that we realign the forces correctly and that it does not adversely impact the residents of Guam. I have been briefed that the Department believes an additional 80,000 military, civilians, construction workers, and their dependents beyond the 180,000 current residents are expected on the island of Guam by the year 2014. The EPA has reviewed the Department's plans and has expressed great concern that the Department will adversely affect the residents of Guam because of insufficient utility infrastructure. There are additional concerns regarding workforce's housing, medical care, and other community infrastructure. And of course, I am a great believer in us having a forward presence. Just a couple of questions. With the 80,000 additional residents in 2014, including 20,000 construction workers and their dependents, do you believe that Guam will be adversely impacted by the Marine Corps relocation? And what steps would you recommend that the Government of Guam take to better prepare for this relocation? And, finally, what steps should the Federal government be taking to support the Marine Corps relocation? I think that this is a very important move. I think that--I am a great believer in having forward presence with what we see in that area. And maybe you can give us some insight or enlighten us on this move. Admiral. Admiral Willard. Thank you, Congressman. The move is a very important one to me as well. The forward presence of our Marines in Okinawa currently provide great flexibility to General Sharp in terms of responses to the Korean Peninsula, in our obligations in accordance with our alliance and defense agreement with Japan. These same Marines are knowledgeable of the area of responsibility of the Asia-Pacific region, and they are constantly engaged in capacity building with our partners. They are my first-to-respond forces for non-combatant evacuation operations [NEOs] or for humanitarian assistance and disaster response. So the III Marine Expeditionary Force, very, very vital as a forward-postured force in the Western Pacific. The move to Guam of 8,000 of those Marines and their families, in order to maintain that forward posture, very, very important to Pacific Command and, I think, important to the Nation that, as the chairman commented in his opening remarks, that we get it right. There is no question that the construction pressures on Guam through a port that, thus far, is inadequately suited to handle the shipping and amount of work that is likely to come with the construction efforts in Guam, and that the pressures on infrastructure in Guam will be challenging. I don't think anyone in the course of our environmental impact study and in the course of the deliberations over the challenges and issues expressed by the Environmental Protection Agency--I think it is acknowledged that Guam infrastructure is suffering from inadequacies now given the population on Guam and that any additions to the population are likely to pressurize its water systems, power systems, waste disposal systems, sewage systems, and the like. In order to get it right, we are working with the Environmental Protection Agency, but, just this past week, I sent my senior representatives to Guam with Ms. Sutley, the President's environmental adviser, in order that they could see first-hand and listen first-hand to the concerns regarding the outside-the-fence requirements on Guam, the infrastructure concerns that Guam has. And it is our intention to work closely with the EPA, closely with Ms. Sutley, closely with the Government of Guam, in order to identify where the inadequacies are and then to work across the departments in this Government in order to determine the best solution for the corrective actions that need to be taken as a consequence of this relocation effort. Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. The people of Guam are great people, and I don't want them to feel that we are taking them for granted. I am glad that you are coordinating all these other agencies to support and build a good infrastructure and, like the Chairman said, to do it right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from Virginia, Randy Forbes. Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral Willard, thank you for being here. General Sharp, we thank you for your service. And, Admiral Willard, let me just begin with you. We received a breakdown of a list of unfunded requirements that the Navy needed. Did you have any part at all in helping to create that list of unfunded requirements for the Navy? Admiral Willard. The impact that our combatant command would have in the Navy's determining a list of unfunded requirements would be based on the IPL, the integrated priority list that I provide into the Joint Staff process, and it is exposed to the Navy, so they will know what Pacific Command's particular requirements and concerns are and, as a consequence, where it has a maritime dimension to it--and the naval staff concurs with that--they will normally include that in their unfunded requirements list if it is not already being attended to in other ways. Mr. Forbes. By definition, I take it, if it is a requirement, it would be something you need to fulfill your mission, or is there another definition for that requirement? Admiral Willard. I think when we discuss requirements in the Pentagon or as combatant commanders in our regions, we are talking about the needs to fulfill our mission. That said, across the globe, not all of our requirements are necessarily ever being met to the maximum. And as a consequence, we mitigate to the requirements where shortfalls exist or gaps exist. Mr. Forbes. General Sharp, would you concur? Do you have any role at all in participating in the unfunded requirements that the Army would have? And would you agree with Admiral Willard that they were requirements needed to fulfill the mission? General Sharp. Yes, sir. I go through the same process. I submit my requirements in order to be able to execute my plans through Admiral Willard who then consolidates them, as he said, and submits them to the Joint Staff. Mr. Forbes. One of the things that I would ask you both-- not today because I don't expect you to have that information now--we are in the business of making sure you have what you need to do your jobs, and when we get that list of unfunded requirements, we assume that they are requirements and we want to try to see how we can get them. One of my worries is always our ability to assess the risk factors we have of not getting those requirements. I would just ask each of you if you would be kind enough to submit for the record, at some point in time, which of those requirements would impact you and some assessment as to the risk we run if we do not fulfill those requirements. Could you provide that for us at some later date? Again, don't expect you to have that information---- Admiral Willard. Yes, Congressman. I will provide you that. [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 111.] Mr. Forbes. Thank you very much. Admiral, the last thing I would like to ask you, one of the things that we always worry and hear about is when we see that spiraling curve of ships that the Chinese are creating and we see a downward move in the ships that we have, how do we have a mechanism that adequately deals with the risk factor of those two curves changing? And you and I had the ability to talk about this before. And I would just wonder if you could tell us today, one, at what point does quantity start mattering? You know, sometimes we always love to say, well, the quantity is different, but we are looking at capabilities. But at some time, quantity has a role to play there. Secondly, how comfortable do you feel with our risk assessment mechanisms? I mean, are there weaknesses there? And thirdly, what is the role that modeling and simulation might be able to play in cutting that down? Admiral Willard. Thank you, sir. Those are excellent questions, all three. And I think the answer to the first is that quantity has its own quality now. So those of us that have regional responsibilities, and especially the Asia-Pacific which relies so heavily on forward presence and posture and time-distance factors that are profound in this region of the world that encompasses half the globe, that the ability to be present in all of the places that we are required to be demands that certain quantities of force structure be made available to this particular region. I think the 60-40 split that has been decided upon in terms of submarine force structure and aircraft carrier force structure are examples of the bias toward meeting the quantity demands of Pacific Command. But, again, to your question, quantity is important to all of us now, I think. In terms of our ability to, you know, view or quantify our forces into the future, I think the--it will be very important for us to ensure that we identify where the forces must be present, how they must be present, and to describe that back to our, both down to our, service components and back to our leadership in the Pentagon. And so, once again, I think the ability to gauge risk associated with quantity shortfalls, the importance of being able to characterize the risk that might be attendant to our contingency plans or the risk that might be attendant to our ability to meet our peacetime requirements, are important elements to quantify. And when we account for risk at the unit level and walk it up to a strategic level, there is a compound risk factor that I think needs to be accounted for as well. And these things are not entirely objective. Sometimes some subjective and difficult, as you have suggested, to understand, to quantify, and to discuss in an apples-to-apples way. I think that modeling and simulation is a mechanism that would assist us in accomplishing that. So this is the idea that, in a modeling and simulation approach, that risk factors could be incorporated into that quantitative or, in the case of modeling and simulation that occurs in a qualitative way, qualitative fashion. Mr. Forbes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both of you gentlemen not only for your service to your country but for making a very long trip back to Washington to testify before the committee. Admiral, you know, our Nation has got a lot of challenges. I am told that this year, the Social Security Trust Fund starts paying out more than it collects in taxes. Same for Medicare. A trillion dollar annual operating deficit and it just doesn't get any easier when you look at replacement of the Ohio class, the Joint Strike Fighter coming on board, et cetera, et cetera. With regard to the Ohio class, the early estimates are is that ship is going to cost in that neighborhood of $7 billion. And unfortunately, my experience here is, if someone tells me it is going to cost $7 billion, it means it is $9 billion by the time it is actually delivered or more. The primary reason for the Ohio replacement is to carrier the D5 missile which travels approximately 5,000 miles. So my question to you as the person with the toughest job in the Navy: Should we be building a sub that fits the D5 missile? Or should we consider--and I want to just use the word ``consider''--building a missile that will fit the Virginia- class submarine which has proven to be a very good acquisitions programs, and I am told by those who operate those vessels, a fine submarine? If you are uncomfortable talking about that in public, I would welcome your thoughts in private, but it is a decision that is going to affect shipbuilding budgets starting about the year 2019 in a very significant way. And in the purest terms, in 2019, we can buy a carrier and a sub a year, and there is no money for anything else. And I know that is unacceptable. Secondly, to Mr. Forbes' comment about--Mr. Forbes, I can assure you today, you are going to have an opportunity to cast a vote to grow the Navy. I am going to put that on the table and give you that opportunity. Okay? We only want to go one way on this committee, and that is for a bigger fleet. And lastly, General Sharp, I wanted to say this. I like Koreans. I take tae kwon do from a Korean guy. They are smart, diligent, hard-working people. I took the opportunity to visit four of the most phenomenal shipyards in the world. They are all in Korea. It was a humbling experience as a guy who represents shipbuilders to see the money that they have invested in those yards. It is a beautiful modern country. I mean, most Americans, including myself, have this image from the show ``M*A*S*H'' of Korea in the 1950s. It looks nothing like the nation now. Having said all of that, at what point could we declare a victory and bring those 28,000 Americans home? Because, again, that is a very modern, well-financed country with sharp, hardworking, diligent people and, again, a phenomenal manufacturing base. So at what point do we still need to be there, in your opinion? Admiral Willard. Congressman, I will begin with your question regarding Ohio class, the Virginia-class option with regard to replacement for our SSBNs [ballistic missile submarines]. Fundamentally, the missions differ greatly between our fast-attack submarine [SSN] force and our ballistic missile submarine force. Mr. Taylor. I understand that, sir. Admiral Willard. I think that alone calls for a recapitalization of our SSBN force when the time comes. And I take your point that submarines are very expensive---- Mr. Taylor. I guess, to my point, do you need a 5,000-mile missile? What is the magic number, if there is such a thing, for the distance that that missile should need to travel in order to fulfill your needs? Admiral Willard. Senator, I think we ought to--I think we ought to---- Mr. Taylor. I think that is the question. Admiral Willard. Okay. That is probably a subject more appropriately taken in closed committee. Mr. Taylor. Would you, at some point, get me that answer. Admiral Willard. I will. Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you. General Sharp, to my second question? General Sharp. Sir, first off, as you just pointed out, the Republic of Korea has greatly advanced since the end of the Korean War. Their military has, likewise, greatly advanced. And they are taking more and more responsibilities not only for the defense of their own country, as evidenced by the move towards OPCON transition, also evidenced by, since 1994 when the ROK JCS has been responsible for and in charge of OPCON of their forces during armistice, but also what they are doing globally in order to be able to, as I said in my opening statement, to help build peace and security around the world with all the different peacekeeping missions that they are in. They are about ready to go back into Afghanistan. Having said that, I really do think that presence makes a big difference in any part of the world. And I think that our presence and our teaming with the Republic of Korea for the foreseeable future, just as it has for the last 57 years, will ensure peace and stability in Northeast Asia for the foreseeable future. So I think our investment of 28,500 troops, which our President and Secretary Gates have said is the force level that we will maintain for the foreseeable future, is a great investment in order to be able to help build the ROK military, as I think we have helped greatly along those lines so that they can globally engage, and to be able to have peace and security remain in Northeast Asia. Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank both of you gentlemen. The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen, for your service. And to Mrs. Willard, you look much better off than your husband does after those 38 years. You have held up great. But my question is, going with--being a Marine spouse or a Navy spouse can, at times, be lonely, fulfilling, exhilarating, and just not fun sometimes. So thank you for your service as well. Tying into Ranking Member McKeon's question, when it comes to access--and I am talking forcible access. Just really quickly, what would you rate our forcible access capability on an A through F grade when it comes to the Pacific? Admiral Willard. We believe that, in our contingency plans, that we can achieve the access required to win those plans. Mr. Hunter. So it would be an A-plus then? You can be anywhere that you needed to? Admiral Willard. I would offer that, to be quantitative--I mean, to describe this in the way that you desire, my preference would be to do this in a closed hearing. Mr. Hunter. Okay. Okay. We can do that. That was my question. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Mr. Larsen, please. Mr. Larsen. Can I have the rest of Mr. Hunter's time? [Laughter.] Just kidding. Gentlemen, thanks for coming and helping us out. I want to start with General Sharp. I have to tell you, there is no better advocate for tour normalization in Korea than a spouse from my district. And so when you matched her up with my wife and me--or your predecessor did when we were there last--I heard about it on the way back, so, no better advocate. And I want to ask a question about that with regards to tour normalization. So we are headed to this, and it is a great idea, but what are the resources that you need, and how are you planning for those resources to accommodate the, you know, two-year and three-year tours? General Sharp. We are approaching tour normalization in a process to make sure that, as I tell the folks in my command, I don't get ahead of my own headlights because we have got to make sure we have got the right infrastructure from schools, from housing, from medical in order to be able to do the right thing for these families. So the phases that the Department is going through right now is we are in, if you will, right now the first phase of tour normalization, which is to get the number of families there that I can accommodate with the infrastructure that I have in place, basically, right now. And that number is about 4,900 families. And, again, we are at about 3,900 right now. The goal is to get to that 4,900 and the services, mainly the Air Force and the Army, are committed to that by the end of, really, next summer. And, again, I am confident that we can get there. We are increasing about 100 families a month in Korea right now. The next phase is really what we are working through right now with the POM '12-'17 [Program Objective Memorandum 2012- 2017] work that is going on right now in the Department and how quickly we are going to be able to get there. It is also--we have also got to link it to the move down to Camp Humphreys and the completion of Camp Humphreys because, again, that will be the place where we have the majority of Army service members and families. There will be many still down at Daegu, but the big hub is going to be at Camp Humphreys. So there is going to be some time in there where we are concentrating on moves and concentrating on building that Camp Humphreys infrastructure. And then, again, it gets down to, you know, the resources in order to be able to move forward to get all the facilities needed. And, again, you will see that, well really, next January when the Department submits the '12-'17 POM. Mr. Larsen. Okay. Thanks. Admiral Willard, two questions for you. In your testimony, on page 12--as I am leafing through this--on page 12, I think you really wrap up the issue with China--China's interest a peaceful, stable environment that will support the country's developmental goals is difficult to reconcile with the evolving military capabilities that appear designed to challenge the U.S. freedom of action in the region. That is sort of this conundrum that we are in with this relationship with China. On page three, you talk about the growing presence and influence in the region create both challenges and opportunities. And we have been through some of these--you have talked through some of these challenges. Anti-access, we have talked about the ASAT [anti-satellite] tests, the military modernization. But I was wondering if you can talk about, you know, what kind of opportunities line up against that. And the final question I would have for you, if you would include separately, is you say we face challenges in building partner capacity in the current patchwork of authorities and programs designed to support our security assistance efforts. Can you briefly wrap up your answer by talking about what does that patchwork look like and what does it need to look like to be cohesive for it to work for you? Admiral Willard. Thank you very much, Congressman Larsen. In terms of opportunities with China, when you consider the capacity building that has been ongoing, particularly as it relates to the PLA [People's Liberation Army] Navy, the potential for China to contribute constructively to security of the region and to contribute to ongoing prosperity in the region, the protection of commerce and the like is excellent-- terrific. To date, we haven't seen them dedicate their assets to that goal. Although, were they to emerge as a constructive partner, I think the region would be better for it. And when we look across the capabilities that they have produced, their ability to demonstrate a contribution to counter-piracy in the Gulf of Aden, their ability to contribute into Haiti, and what that could look like in an ability to contribute into the Asia- Pacific region in our every-eight-week disaster response on average or through the soft areas of humanitarian assistance, I think China has great potential in all of that. Mr. Larsen. And, Mr. Chairman, could we get for the record the answer to the third question about security assistance and the patchwork and some of the changes Admiral Willard would like to see happen to make that work better for him? The Chairman. Yes. If the Admiral would furnish that, please? Admiral Willard. I would be happy to furnish that, sir. Mr. Larsen. Thank you. [The information referred to can be found on pages 30 through 31.] The Chairman. Mr. Coffman. Mr. Coffman. Thanks, Chairman. General Sharp, Admiral Willard, thank you so much for your service to our country. General Sharp, you mentioned the movement of our troops from the northern part I guess towards the demilitarized zone [DMZ] of South Korea down to Camp Humphreys. And I understand that the South Korean Government is paying for those costs. General Sharp. Sir, they are paying for the cost of rebuilding the facilities that I have at Yongsan where my headquarters is now in Seoul. The cost to consolidate and to move the 2nd Infantry Division, which are in the camps and stations north of Seoul to Camp Humphreys is a shared burden between the United States and the Republic of Korea. Mr. Coffman. Okay. And the policy change from an unaccompanied tour to a longer accompanied tour where the families of U.S. military service personnel are now going to South Korea, I understand probably now for, instead of a year assignment, now the personnel will stay on station for three years. But is that the U.S. cost--is that a cost to the U.S. taxpayers to build those schools, to build that infrastructure? General Sharp. Primarily, yes. And we are looking, again, at how to best do that to partner through many different mechanisms in order to be able to have that to be the most reduced cost. There is savings in and of itself where you don't have to, you know, send somebody every year. Just the cost of moving people around, I think, is a cost that you are going to save by longer tours over there. Mr. Coffman. Sure. General Sharp. The other thing is the tour normalization, as we call it, really bring us is, of course, a much more capable force. If I don't have to train a new service member every year but I have got them for two or three years, that really greatly increases just our overall capability. Secondly, is it really does reduce stress. Why have an unaccompanied tour anywhere in the world if you don't have to? And, finally, it really does, I think, show our commitment to Northeast Asia, which is critical. Mr. Coffman. I think that is my question, about showing our commitment. And I would raise the point, can't we demonstrate commitment by having, say, annual scheduled military exercises--as we do currently, is my understanding--where we bring forces from the United States, when available, but to have annual exercises with the South Korean military where we-- instead of having our forces permanently there, that we bring them there? And we will certainly know that, when the situation would dictate, that intelligence or say the political environment and the military environment, the security environment in South Korea is such that it is coming to a boiling point, then we deploy our forces there. So is it necessary in this day and time to permanently have--if I understand the numbers right--28,000 U.S. military personnel in South Korea? General Sharp. Sir, first off, as you said, we do do exercises throughout the year, several very big ones. But I guess I personally believe that presence consistently around there in order to be able to develop the relationships, in order to be able to help work together military-to-military, is a requirement and gives us huge benefits to be able to do that. So I think, again, that presence is a requirement in an important part of the world like Northeast Asia. Secondly, to your point on being prepared and being able to have forces come, you know. As you know, North Korea has the great majority of their forces currently stationed very close to the DMZ. And the ability for them to be able to attack with little notice is there. And that is why we have to be prepared, shared with, you know, with the Republic of Korea who really has the forces along the DMZ to be prepared for that short contingency and to be able to get--our family members out of there--the other American citizens out there and then to be able to receive other forces that come in. So, again, and the number, sir, is 28,500. I do believe it is a great investment and has proven itself for 57 years in order to be able to maintain stability in not only Korea but Northeast Asia. Mr. Coffman. Okay. Thank you. Admiral Willard, it would seem like, with China, that they could be participating in the Six-Party Talks a lot more than they are; that they certainly have the capacity to put pressure on North Korea that they are not putting on North Korea. It would seem to me that they feel that they benefit by having an uncertain security situation in North Korea and by forcing us to provide our assets in that direction. Could you comment on that? Admiral Willard. Congressman, I think we are convinced that the Chinese are committed to the denuclearization of North Korea as we are. And they have made efforts, increasing efforts, I think, over the past year to exert their influence over North Korea. At the end of the day, the choice to reenter into Six-Party or not has been a North Korean refusal. The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Kissell. Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen, for your service and testifying today. Admiral, in looking at--we talked about our forward presence in relation to China and looking at it on a routine basis where there is not heightened tensions between the two nations. As we move forward, and if we--and not looking at a specific that we have a mission there to carry out where we insert to do certain things. But as we move forward, if there was a time of say, heightened tensions, could we maintain that, with what we anticipate the Chinese to do, could we maintain that forward presence and still have safety in our fleet? Admiral Willard. If I understand your question correctly, Congressman, I think the answer is yes. We maintain a forward presence in the region for many, many purposes, and, again, the safety of the maritime domain, the safety of the sea lines of communication, and the international air space is a main reason why we are there. We respond to heightened tension and have, in my experience, on a fairly regular basis, last year's provocations out of North Korea being a perfect example. And I am very confident in my ability to consolidate forces where I need them when I need them should a contingency arise. Mr. Kissell. And we have talked about China and its relation with the United States and Japan and Korea. What about in the other parts of Southeast Asia, the other countries? As we see the presence of China grow and that influence change, do you see any response in those countries in how they might be in relation to us, the Chinese, and how that might be changing? Admiral Willard. Well, I think that China's influence is very wide-ranging throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and I would offer farther than that. I mean, we have all read and understand China's influence in Africa, China's influence in South America and so forth. I mean, this is a greatly expanding economy, and they are very influential. Likewise, their military-to-military contacts are also expanding throughout the region such that, wherever I go, whether I am speaking to military leadership or civilian leadership, we often have a discussion with regard to China, their influence in the region, their expanding military capacity, and what our views on it are. I think there will be comparisons drawn regarding the presence and influence of the United States military and the growing influence of China, you know, for a long time. And now, those comparisons are drawn and often written about or commented on throughout the region. Mr. Kissell. At this point in time, there is changing relationships in the recognition of China and its objectives. Is there anything exceptionally negative there towards our relations with other nations that are taking place? Admiral Willard. I think on the contrary. The other nations are very receptive to U.S. presence, so this has been mostly a discussion regarding our staying power in the region and their desire for our continued influence in the region. Mr. Kissell. Thank you. And, General, the move in Korea to Camp Humphreys, is that more strategic? More political? A combination? What for? What are the things that went into that thinking? General Sharp. First off, I think we are going to get a lot more efficient because we are able to consolidate. We are going down from over 105--approximately 107 camps and stations that were basically there at the end of the Korean War down to about 45 camps and stations and consolidating many of those forces going into Camp Humphreys. So just the efficiency that comes with that consolidation, I think, is very important. Secondly, again, it is able to be able to give back to the Republic of Korea some of the land that is very valuable, and I think that strengthens as far as the strategic alliance in order to be able to do that. Mr. Kissell. And one last question. The expansion of the time--the rotation. We have been through all the reasons why. I am assuming this is popular with the service and their families? General Sharp. Sir, thank you for that question. It really is. And it is popular for a couple of reasons. Number one is, of course, we have many unaccompanied tours for service members that are going to Iraq and Afghanistan and other places, and there is no need to have an additional one in Korea. And secondly, the Republic of Korea is a great place to live. It is a great place to serve. The training that we are able to give our service members because of the ranges, because of the joint environment that we do with other services and the combined that we do with the Republic of Korea military. It is a great place to train our military. It is extremely safe. The people in Korea understand the importance of U.S. forces there. A recent State Department poll gave us 87 percent of the people in Korea say it is important for us to be there. So it is a great place to serve. Mr. Kissell. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Mr. Wilson, please. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Admiral and General, thank you very much for your service. I had such a great opportunity last year to go with a delegation the chairman led to Hawaii and to the very beautiful island of Guam, to Iwo Jima, Okinawa, to Korea. And everywhere, the American troops would just make you so proud. And what you have achieved--one of the longest periods of lack of conflict in the Pacific in history, and it is because of your good work and the good work of our troops. I am particularly grateful because my dad served in India and China during World War II. And I learned firsthand growing up the business spirit of the people of those two countries. And it has been exciting as the past co-chair of the India Caucus, the largest country caucus here in Congress, reflecting the new partnership between India and the United States. And so, Admiral Willard, how is the Pacific Command engaging with India to help address terrorism concerns and strengthen the U.S.-India security partnership? Admiral Willard. Thank you very much for that question. We regard India as a particular area of focus for growing the strategic partnership that India and the United States currently enjoy. And the military-to-military relationship is a very important part of that. In the five months that I have been at Pacific Command, I have traveled to India twice and had, you know, very encouraging and good discussions with my counterparts there. I think that the India-U.S. relationship right now is stronger than I have ever enjoyed. As you know, because of our history, we have only been truly engaging with India mil-to-mil [military-to-military] for about the last half a dozen years. And yet it has been pretty profound how far that has come. We are engaged with India now with regard to their counterterrorism challenges, particularly as it relates to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist groups that emanates from Pakistan and attacked into Mumbai, and what we believe to be their presence in areas surrounding India. And PACOM has a responsibility to develop the contingency plans to deal with that in support of our Indian friends. So I think, from foreign military sales [FMS] to other means of security assistance, to high-level strategic talks and the counterterrorism concerns that we both have, the Indian- U.S. relationship is terrific. Mr. Wilson. And as you said, it is exciting. This has only been a recent phenomenon. And the world's largest democracy, India, with the oldest democracy, the United States, and to see us working together. I want to thank you. Another success story, obviously, is Korea, General. And I had the opportunity to meet with Korean troops in Afghanistan at a provincial reconstruction team site. What an example Korea is of recovery, success after a war. And so with that, I know our relationship now is going to evolve into a Joint Vision Statement. Can you tell how that will work? General Sharp. As I said, both President Lee and President Obama signed a Joint Vision Statement in June that really takes a look at how can the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance engage globally through all elements of power in order to be able to help security and stability, to be able to help economically around the world. I think President Lee's vision is to be able to--because of the great prosperity and the great progress that the Republic of Korea has made since the end of the Korean War, to be able to give back some of that to the rest of the world. I mean, he is doing it--I will speak on the military side--very well with the different places that they are in UN peacekeeping missions around the world. And I think any sort of mechanism that increases that alliance between the Republic of Korea and the U.S., whether it is militarily or economically, really strengthens us in Northeast Asia and, really, globally. Mr. Wilson. And I can remember, as we were studying to go, that Korea had a per capita income back in 1960 of like a hundred dollars, today--which is equivalent to Afghanistan, but, today, one of the wealthiest countries on Earth. And so we can't anticipate that for Afghanistan, but we can sure try to create the environment. A final question, Admiral, we do have international terrorism in that region. What is our success, particularly the Philippines? Admiral Willard. Thank you, sir. The Philippines is now a longstanding engagement in support of the armed forces of the Philippines counterterrorism efforts. It has been very successful and particularly so in about the last 24 months where significant accomplishments against the Abu Sayyaf group have occurred. As you suggest, in our region, we have concerns in Indonesia. The Indonesian Government has been successful there, and we are now engaging the issues in and around India that I just described. So we have our own counterterrorism responsibilities that we are accomplishing through the great efforts of our forces every day. Mr. Wilson. Thank you. The Chairman. Mrs. Davis, please. Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you so much for your service, both of you, and for joining us today. General Sharp, I actually am very pleased that many of my colleagues have asked about the normalization in South Korea, and I appreciate that as a spouse who was there in Japan many years ago during the Vietnam War. I actually have been wanting to kind of go and see with my own eyes. One of the concerns that I understand that may be changing some points of view for families are the high cost of housing, and I want to ask you quickly about that. Is it that we are not raising the bar sufficiently? We don't have, I would assume, enough housing on any of the bases to accommodate those families. General Sharp. We, of course, go through recurring looks at how much cost of housing for those that are not on-post, are not on one of our bases, and we adjust in order to be able to accommodate that, so I believe that we are paying the amount that we need in order for families to get to standard housing off-post. Mrs. Davis. And of those families that you--when you see them coming on, you mentioned about a hundred a month--what percentage are on-post? What percentage are on the economy? General Sharp. It depends upon where they are going. All of them up north of Seoul are on the economy because we are moving out of those locations, and we are not going to build housing up in that area. I had to make the decision can we bring families to what we call Area 1, 2nd Infantry Division, or not have any families there until the move to Camp Humphreys. I talked to a lot of people, and people understand that, when they come command- sponsored up there, the facilities that they are going to get, but it is a family choice to be able to do that. And, again, they get housing allowance to get into true standard quarters off-post in Yongpyong--and the other places up north. Down where we are in Seoul, the great majority are on-post as is down in Osan on the Air Force base down there. That is kind of why I am capping at 4,900 until we make the move so that we can balance what we have both on-post and off- post. And let me just be a little more specific in Seoul. It is either on-post or Government-leased quarters which we have some around Seoul as to where the families are living. They are allowed to live on the economy, but that is what we have available at Seoul. Mrs. Davis. And on the economy, it has to be three years even for the economy--or can it be two years accompanied as well? General Sharp. Right now, it can be two years or three years. The service member gets to make that choice. And the Department decided to start at that so that, as someone mentioned earlier, there is still a vision within a lot of our families, of ``M*A*S*H'' in Korea. And until we get the word out that, no, Korea is a modern country and it is a great place to live, the service members are being given choice. You can either come for two years and bring your family, or you can come for three years. Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I wanted to ask about public opinion in both of the AORs and the extent to which I guess, in Korea, that the fact that you do have more families on the economy, what impact that has at all. But, also, speaking to Japan, you mentioned, Admiral Willard, the need to keep that relationship strong. I am wondering, also, about the messages that Members of Congress can send on any visits they make to Japan or even in your AOR. I mean, how important is that? Is that something that you would encourage more of? We know that members do travel, a lot, you know, certainly, to the war theater. But as well, we probably need to be making some of those contacts as well. We certainly do some of that, but perhaps it could and should increase. Admiral Willard. Thank you. I don't think there is any place in the world where the U.S. message is regarded as so important and so valued as in the Asia-Pacific. You know, we are polling and trying to understand the extent to which we are understood and the extent to which we are supported in the region. I would offer that, in recent surveys in Japan, the alliance is very, very highly regarded by the Japanese people, and I think that the recent statements by the Japanese Government as well have reinforced that. But I think Congress' messages, whether they are delivered here in Washington or whether it is during your travels into the Asia-Pacific, that have to do with our commitment to the region, the importance that our presence in the region, in your views, shares. I think these messages are invaluable. So thank you for delivering them and look forward to hosting you. The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions. Well, on second thought, I will ask about---- The Chairman. Go ahead. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir. I will ask about Guam. The water facilities, the facilities, the infrastructure to deliver water, electrical generation facilities, landfills or some way of doing away with trash and garbage, sewage capacity, those kinds of things on the island as it is now would be--are already--those systems are termed as being inadequate. Is that correct? Admiral Willard. Congressman, I think that there are different levels of adequacy and insufficiencies associated with Guam infrastructure. It is important to remember that, by and large, this is infrastructure that was created after World War II and probably into about the 1970s, and they do have, you know, many concerns, challenges that they face. In the area of water, they have an aquifer in the north and a reservoir in the south actually on Navy property. And the sufficiency of the aquifer is, right now, a concern of scientists in evaluating Guam's ability to absorb more. So as you suggest, there are waivers and other challenges associated with Guam infrastructure, by and large, across the board of the items that you discussed. Mr. Johnson. I mean, what would we do with trash and other waste products for 80,000 people at peak construction? How would we handle that? Is there a plan in place right now? Admiral Willard. Well, Guam is in the process of developing another solid-waste disposal area on the island. Mr. Johnson. A landfill? Admiral Willard. They are expanding their landfill capacity now. But I think the answer to your question is, one, that, you know, the private enterprise could assist with and that we have to think broadly about how Guam fulfills its needs for its people through this, you know, peak capacity of new construction and with the additional 8,000 Marines and their families that, ultimately, would settle there. So there is analysis to be done to the extent that it hasn't to ensure that we know and that the Government of Guam settles on what capacities and corrective actions need to be taken. Mr. Johnson. This is an island that, at its widest level is, what, 12 miles from shore to shore? And at its smallest level or smallest location, it is 7 miles between one shore and the other. Is that correct? Admiral Willard. I don't have the exact dimensions, but to your point, sir, I think Guam is a small island. Mr. Johnson. A very small island and about 24 miles, if I recall, long. So 24 miles long, about 7 miles wide at the least widest place on the island and about 12 miles wide on the widest part of the island. And I don't know how many square miles that is. Do you happen to know? Admiral Willard. I don't have that figure with me, sir. I can certainly supply it to you if you would like. Mr. Johnson. Yes. My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize. Admiral Willard. We don't anticipate that. The Guam population, I think, currently about 175,000 and, again, with 8,000 Marines and their families, it is an addition of about 25,000 more into the population. Mr. Johnson. And, also, things like the environment, the sensitive areas of the environment--coral reefs and those kinds of things. And I know that, you know, lots of people don't like to think about that, but you know, we didn't think about global warming either. Now, we do have to think about it. And so I am concerned from an environmental standpoint whether or not Guam is the best place to do this relocation, but it is actually the only place. Is that correct? Admiral Willard. This is the best place. This is the farthest west U.S. territory that we own. And, you know, this is part of our Nation. And in readdressing the forward presence and posture importance to Pacific Command, Guam is vital to this decision. The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Dr. Snyder, please. Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral Willard, the comment was made earlier today that in order to justify cutting our defense budget, the somehow perceived threat from China was decreased in order to justify defense cuts. Do you have any reason to think that that is accurate? Admiral Willard. I think that the Quadrennial Defense Review, in characterizing the capabilities that have been part of what we have discussed here in terms of China's advances, I think the QDR report accurately--it captures the concerns that I have regarding China. I think, likewise, the Secretary's recent report to Congress on China capabilities accurately captures the concerns that we have with regard to China as well as we have already discussed some of the opportunities. So I do believe we understand the issues that we face out there. I spend a great deal of time and focus ensuring that I know these things and in communicating those to my counterparts and to my boss back in the Pentagon. Dr. Snyder. This is my 14th year here, and through the years I have occasionally asked this question, and I will ask you because I don't think you and I have talked about it before. At the highest ranks of Navy leadership, when you look at what the Chinese military is doing as their economy has grown over the last 2 or 3 decades, as they modernize their military, as they look to widen their military capability to extend out into the Pacific, how do you evaluate, if you were a Chinese Navy admiral, how do you evaluate, from your perspective, what is appropriate modernization consistent with their stature as a country with a growing economy versus behavior that we would think is not appropriate for a nation? Or does it matter from your perspective as U.S. Navy---- Admiral Willard. I think it does matter, and I think, sir, you are capturing the dilemma that we have with them. So this is China's global strategy and regional approach. The stated intentions versus the actions that we actually see and the type of capabilities and so on that they develop, so to the extent the stated strategy is a peaceful contribution to a harmonious existence throughout the region and across the globe and what is developed are area-denial weapons and capabilities and power projection capabilities. The incongruence in that is what we are endeavoring to both understand and to answer. And in our engagement with China, while we seek to cooperate in areas of common interest, we want to have frank dialogues on exactly what you have suggested is the question. Dr. Snyder. All right. Thank you for your service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Langevin. Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today and your service to our Nation. I would just like to turn to a couple of areas, both cyber issues and missile defense, if I could. If I could, could you tell me what PACOM is doing in terms of defending our cyber assets if you are thinking of how PACOM has responded to recent reports of cyber attacks originating from China against Google. Clearly, this is--modern warfare has probably changed, and our cyber systems are at risk, and we can't move quick enough as far as I am concerned to protect those assets. I also wondered, if you could, respond to China's missile defense--China's midcourse interception test earlier this year and how has PACOM factored that into the work that it does. And could you also give me an update on where we are on the Navy's role in missile defense, particularly in your AOR? Admiral Willard. Yes, sir. I will. As you suggest, cyber is a concern that I think is manifested in our Nation, let alone, in our military. Certainly, a concern in Pacific Command. We have been contending with intrusions, some of which are likely emanating from the People's Republic of China [PRC] for years at this point. And I think you have seen the culmination of some of that as some of those intrusions have reached into our corporate communities most recently. The actions that we have taken in Pacific Command to contend with this range from passive defense actions to more active defense actions where we are endeavoring to understand all of the cyber domain as it relates to our command and control capabilities and information sharing capabilities and exactly how to defend them. And this is a combination of organizational adjustments, process adjustments, and technological additions to our systems that will help protect it as well as the mitigating actions when we do come under attack and how we deal with it. So we take many actions day to day. We have plans for contingency, and we are working very closely with Strategic Command [STRATCOM], the newly formed Cyber Command, and the Pentagon to ensure that our requirements in Pacific Command are understood and met. We think we are pretty central to the problem out there, and we are exercising to it as well in our large-scale exercises. Mr. Langevin. Are you factoring in resilience and redundancies so that, should the system go down as a result of the cyber attack, that you will be able to respond, bounce back quickly? Admiral Willard. Yes, sir. As I mentioned, in passive defenses, that is hardening. That is the resilience and redundancy as well as our ability in, under attack, to come back with a secondary plan, a branch plan in order to continue to command and control. So this is a very multidimensional approach and, again, we are advancing in this, and I think we, as a Nation, have a long way to go to be assured that we are protecting our cyber domain. I think, inevitably, this will be a global challenge that will be discussed internationally and, ultimately, solved internationally. On your question of China's missile defenses, the question arises as to whether or not the most recent exercise by China that had to do with a missile intercept was an anti-satellite test or a missile defense test. And we are monitoring China's capabilities in this area very closely, particularly concerned with their approaches to counter space. Mr. Langevin. And status on your role in integrating responsibilities in missile defense? Admiral Willard. In my previous assignment as the Pacific Fleet Commander, I was immersed in missile defense capabilities on the maritime side, the use of our Aegis platforms, and the naval dimension of missile defense but also its integration into our theater missile defense plans, regional missile defense plans, and national missile defense plans which now incorporate ground-based interceptors, THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] missile systems, Patriot, and the like. Mr. Langevin. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. The Chairman. Thank the gentlemen. It appears no one else has a question. Let me end with one question. Admiral, China has recently suspended the military-to- military contacts since American arms sales to Taiwan. What is the status of that now? And is China continuing to cooperate with us on maritime security issues? Admiral Willard. As you suggest, after the last announcement of Taiwan arms sales, China, once again, suspended military-to-military relations with the United States. If I were to look across all the forms of engagement across the departments of the U.S. with China, our military-to-military engagement is probably lagging all other forms of engagement as a consequence of both lack of substance at times in the engagement as well as the suspensions that routinely characterize it. We are seeking to reengage with China at multiple levels, and we look forward to the opportunity to reengage mil-to-mil both in terms of visitation and in terms of a variety of forms of contact with them. I think the broader issue is China's appreciation for the value of mil-to-mil on a continuum, which we believe very strongly contributes to not just the military-to-military understanding and dialogue between the two countries but our ability to prevent misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and sometimes miscalculation. So we are encouraging our Chinese counterparts to consider mil-to-mil differently than they have in the past. The Chairman. Mr. Larsen has an additional question. Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this will save staff time on the question for the record. It gets back to the security assistance and the patchwork of programs that you have, and just a quick comment for context. A lot of discussion, obviously, on China, on Korea, and Japan, but showing our commitment to a lot of the smaller countries in terms of population and maybe they don't get in the news a lot. These programs that we have that can help with our outreach on the military side of some of these countries is very important. What changes to the patchwork of programs would be necessary to help with the security assistance that will, you know, underscore that message of engagement that we are trying to have with these other countries in the region? Admiral Willard. Thank you, Congressman Larsen. The importance of this, as you suggest, in capacity building and capability growth among our partners in the region, critically important. I think if you were to poll them and say, ``What in security assistance is lacking in your relationship with the United States military?'', it is often our ability to deliver to their needs with speed. And so this gets into the processes associated with our foreign military support--FMS--our ability to execute foreign military sales and even some of the vehicles that we go to for other means of security assistance to fund to their immediate needs. So in lieu of years of effort in order to achieve a sale to one of these countries or an offer of excess capability to one of these countries, they are seeking assistance, often, in weeks and months. And our aged systems, processes, don't support that. So I very much endorse Secretary Gates' initiatives to try and streamline, particularly FMF [Foreign Military Financing], FMS processes--foreign military sales processes--in order to meet some of the speed demands that I perceive in the region. Mr. Larsen. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Taylor has an additional question. Mr. Taylor. Admiral, I am very much in support of the President's decision to move our national missile defense on ships. I was an early convert to Admiral Roughead's decision to truncate the 1,000 [DDG-1000 Zumwalt-Class Destroyer] and go back to building 51s [DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-Class Destroyers]. But given the complexity and the added dimension of another nation's anti-ship missile that is now a factor, do you feel like we are doing everything we need to have a fleet that can defend itself while it is providing our Nation's missile defense while it is obviously engaged in other actions around the world? Or is there something that we need to be doing additionally that, because of the new requirement for missile defense, has that changed the things you need? And are we getting you the things that you need? Admiral Willard. I think there are a couple ways to answer that. One is, in missile defense itself, there is the point defense requirements that our units need in order to be protected, so there are layered defenses that come down to a very internalized defense that each ship needs to be capable of. And I think we understand what those are, but our ability to contend, as you suggest, in an area-denial environment where we are relying on our ships for missile defense but also for four or five other mission areas in their multimission assignment, very important that they have the capabilities both in layering to defend themselves and as individual units to defend themselves. As I have viewed into the programs that are in work, both in areas that are kinetic and in areas that are non-kinetic, we are addressing these issues. I have advocated for many years for a better anti-ship capability within our fleet, and I think that, in the areas of development, we are seeking to understand what those requirements are. So to your point, yes, our units need to defend themselves. And it becomes increasingly important as we rely on them in this new and very critical mission area. I think we are addressing these areas. I think they are vitally important that we pay attention to what those programs are and ensure that they are followed through. Mr. Taylor. I guess the simple question is: With that additional mission, are 313 ships enough? Or does that number have to go up again, keeping in mind that they not only have to defend us from missiles, but they have to defend themselves or else they are no good to us in the first instance? And that has got to have changed--plus the threat of that missile that everyone knows is out there. Admiral Willard. Some of the ballistic missile defense developments on the weapons side--so this is SM-3 developments--and the theater-level missile terminal capabilities that are under discussion and in development--I think these are the areas that will allow us to continue to incorporate these as multimission platforms across broader areas. I think that CNO [Chief of Naval Operations], right now, characterizes 313 as a floor, and I agree with that. I think that our shipbuilding, ship numbers, quantity of fleet are very important to United States Pacific Command, and I would expect that all the combatant commanders feel the same. So there is an importance in our continuing our shipbuilding efforts. I think that the answer with regard to this particular mission area across the multimissions of these units is a more multifaceted answer than simply numbers. It is the follow-on weapon developments as well. Mr. Taylor. Admiral, you know my concerns. You are in town. I would welcome the opportunity to talk to you off the record. Admiral Willard. I would be happy to do that, sir. Thank you. The Chairman. Thank the gentlemen. General Sharp, thank you so much for being with us again. It is good to see you. And, Admiral Willard, we hope to see you many times in this role, so with that, we thank you for your service and the service of those you represent. The hearing is closed. [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] ======================================================================= A P P E N D I X March 25, 2010 ======================================================================= PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD March 25, 2010 ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8295.071 ? ======================================================================= WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING MARCH 25, 2010 ======================================================================= RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES Admiral Willard. The United States Pacific Command develops the Integrated Priority List (IPL) as part of the Comprehensive Joint Assessment response to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The IPL is my top ten capability gaps derived from analysis and assessment of the Pacific theater operational and contingency plans. The IPL becomes the ``war fighter's voice'' within the Pentagon and exists to provide a transition from planning to programming. I rely upon the Services and defense agencies to use the IPL too as a foundational element as they develop their individual Program Objective Memoranda (POM). When the Services are unable to fund all the needs within their POM, they use the unfunded requirements mechanism to identify additional resources for emergent and growing operational needs. Navy's FY11 unfunded list for Aviation Spares, Ship Depot Maintenance, and Aviation Depot Maintenance are all key to sustaining crucial operational capabilities in the Pacific. I cannot stress enough the importance of sustaining and maintaining the fleet. I depend upon the Navy and the Commander of the Pacific Fleet to provide prompt, capable, forward naval presence to continue our engagement strategy across the region. Our allies and regional partners depend on our naval aviation and maritime capabilities to assure and deter. I strongly endorse the Navy's effort to sustain war fighting capabilities they seek in their FY11 unfunded list to mitigate risk to the Pacific Command. [See page 15.] ? ======================================================================= QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING March 25, 2010 ======================================================================= QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN Mr. Lamborn. Admiral Willard and General Sharp, the 4 phases of the Phased, Adaptive Approach (PAA) provide some direction on the development of missile defense in Europe, but it does not address the PACOM region specifically. How do you see the Phased, Adaptive Approach (PAA) applying to PACOM? What are the milestone dates to gain a capability in PACOM? What specific systems and inventory levels will be required to support a PAA in PACOM? What sites are likely candidates for land-based SM-3s and what is the status of host nation agreements for those sites? Admiral Willard and General Sharp. [The information referred to is classified and retained in the committee files.] Mr. Lamborn. Admiral Willard and General Sharp, please discuss the threat that North Korean ballistic missiles pose in the region. How do you assess the current threat and the near-term threat over the next five years? I am especially concerned about the progress the North Koreans made in longer-range ballistic missiles last year and I would like to hear your assessment of where we stand today and in the future. Admiral Willard. [The information referred to is classified and retained in the committee files.] General Sharp. North Korea continues to develop its ballistic missile forces in order to threaten not only the Republic of Korea, USFK, and all of Japan but increasingly U.S. bases and territory in the western Pacific and beyond. Already possessing hundreds of theater ballistic missiles capable of doing significant damage to the South Korean and Japanese economies, we believe North Korea is now focused on improving the range, accuracy, and overall quality of its missiles. Recently, Pyongyang fielded a long-range theater ballistic missile, probably capable of threatening U.S. bases on Guam and the Aleutian Islands. North Korea's announced intention on 29 April 2009 to conduct an ``intercontinental ballistic missile'' (ICBM) test launch--coming shortly after the 5 April 2009 Taepo Dong-2 (TD-2) apparent satellite launch attempt--suggests a separate line of long-range missile development that could bring Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. mainland under threat of attack. Moreover, Pyongyang is likely interested in eventually developing a more survivable mobile ICBM--a natural evolutionary step given its goal of maintaining a credible deterrent and considering all other mature North Korean ballistic missile systems are mobile. If North Korea pursues robust research & development and testing, it is certainly possible for it to have an operational ICBM- range missile in five years' time. With the 2009 launches of the multistage TD-2 Space Launch Vehicle and multiple-theater ballistic missiles, North Korea probably gained valuable testing experience, furthering the development of long-range missiles. Future TD-2 Space launch attempts may also serve as a test bed for other long-range missiles in development and the TD-2 itself could probably be used as a backup or alternate ICBM. Considering North Korea's steady pursuit of both longer-range missiles and nuclear weapons, we believe the Kim Jong-il regime seeks to hold U.S. territory throughout the Pacific and the continental U.S. at risk of nuclear missile attack. Mr. Lamborn. Admiral Willard and General Sharp, the Administration's shift to the Phased, Adaptive Approach (PAA) in missile defense last Fall drives many force structure changes. As AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)-capable ships are allocated to the Middle East and European missile defense to meet PAA milestones, does PACOM retain enough AEGIS-based missile defense capability to meet its needs against the growing threats in the region? What is the specific PACOM requirement for BMD-capable ships today? What do you project as the requirement in 5, 10 or 15 years? Admiral Willard and General Sharp. [The information referred to is classified and retained in the committee files.] Mr. Lamborn. Admiral Willard and General Sharp, Admiral, the cyber attack against Google in China highlights an existing vulnerability for the United States. Our technological edge is a double-edged sword. There have been many initial steps taken to respond to the very real, and growing cyber threat. What has PACOM done specifically to respond to the threat and how do you assess the cyber threat to your operations? Admiral Willard. PACOM has increased its cyber security posture as well as its vigilance regarding cyber threats to thwart any adversary's intrusions on PACOM networks. Specifically, we have created a Cyber Fusion Center to coordinate directorate responses to network intrusions and to prevent network intrusions when possible. Through the Cyber Fusion Center, we have recently published theater Tailored Response Options and an Information Assurance situational awareness report to increase the theater's and headquarters' situational awareness regarding PACOM's cyber threat. We assess the current cyber threat to our operations as high. General Sharp. I will address this question from the perspective of United States Forces Korea (USFK). We agree that there is a persistent and evolving cyber threat against USFK. We assess the current risk to USFK operations as low due to our ability to implement countermeasures. Historically, we have implemented a layered computer network security defense structure termed Defense-in-Depth that has successfully mitigated the risk of cyber threat Computer Network Attack (CNA) and Computer Network Exploitation (CNE). A Red Team assessment that simulated cyber threat activities during March 2010 validated our secure and strong defensive posture. However, cyber threat actors have discovered new ways to circumvent our Defense-in-Depth structure with varying degrees of success. As such, in order for USFK to maintain confidence in the protection of our networks, we must continue to identify and resource new technologies that defend against the evolving threats. The discussion below outlines the mitigation steps USFK implements on a daily basis to respond to cyber threats. USFK employs various layers of Defense-In-Depth countermeasures to thwart off attacks similar to the Google Aurora cyber threat; to include four different commercial vendors of network layer Intrusion Detection System (IDS) used at the network layer which identify network traffic at the source and destination. We also use web cache engines that screen malicious content, and reverse proxy servers for public- facing web servers. Secure external remote access to our networks is achieved through Virtual Private Network (VPN) concentrators and Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for authentication. USFK has implemented additional host security tools. These products defend against known, unknown zero-day exploits, and malware. We utilize four different vendors for remediating and identifying vulnerabilities in our Defense-In-Depth architecture. Units in Korea are given the Army Gold Masters (AGM) software image for ensuring a secure baseline is being maintained; this software baseline is also validated daily with the Host Based Security System (HBSS) tool. There are three different antivirus vendors that are used to ensure the malware is detected, stopped, and eradicated from the Email servers. The Common Access Card (CAC) utilizes PKI for identity management. These combined technologies provide user confidentiality, integrity, authentication, and non-repudiation when using information systems. USFK users are required to sign an Acceptable Use Policy, and receive annual security awareness training to reinforce security focused usage on government networks. PKI has been detrimental in email phishing attempts like those used in the Google Aurora cyber threat. Note--USFK was used as the test bed for DOD's deployment of HBSS, Hercules, and Retina Enterprise Manager (REM). Since we were one of the first enterprises to successfully deploy HBSS, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and McAfee have modeled their BBPs off of our deployment methods. In the past 6 months, DISA performed two Command Cyber Readiness Inspections (CCRI) on the Korean Peninsula. Both Kunsan Air Base and Joint Command Information Systems Activity (JCISA) inspections resulted in monitor compliance and excellent marks, respectively. The 1st Signal Brigade Korea-Theater Network Operations and Security Center (K-TNOSC) is scheduled for their CCRI in June. Microsoft released a patch for this zero-day vulnerability on the 21st of January 2010; one week after the initial US-CERT notice. Before this patch was made available, USFK IA/CND informed their community of the vulnerability and available countermeasures recommended in JTF-GNO, US-CERT, and other civilian reports. USFK maintains a robust Information Assurance Vulnerability Management (IAVM) program. As of 31 March 2010, USFK is currently 99.40% compliant for this particular Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert (IAVA).